• 0 Posts
  • 32 Comments
Joined 12 days ago
cake
Cake day: January 29th, 2026

help-circle

  • Not enough people are aware that the compound added to gasoline, tetraethyl lead (TEL), was understood to be potently toxic before it was used as a gasoline additive. Effective alternatives to TEL existed, but TEL had the advantage that its use could be patented. It could make some very rich companies even richer.

    Short article from Smithsonian Magazine, 2016: Leaded Gas Was a Known Poison the Day It Was Invented

    …in February 1923, a filling station sold the first tank of leaded gasoline. [TEL developer] Midgley wasn’t there: he was in bed with severe lead poisoning, writes History.com. The next year, there was serious backlash against leaded gasoline after five workers died from TEL exposure at the Standard Oil Refinery in New Jersey, writes Deborah Blum for Wired, but still, the gasoline went into general sale later that decade.

    Long, long article from The Nation, 2000, by way of archive.org: The Secret History of Lead

    In March 1922, Pierre du Pont wrote to his brother Irénée du Pont, Du Pont company chairman, that TEL is “a colorless liquid of sweetish odor, very poisonous if absorbed through the skin, resulting in lead poisoning almost immediately.” This statement of early factual knowledge of TEL’s supreme deadliness is noteworthy, for it is knowledge that will be denied repeatedly by the principals in coming years as well as in the Ethyl Corporation’s authorized history, released almost sixty years later. Underscoring the deep and implicit coziness between GM and Du Pont at this time, Pierre informed Irénée about TEL before GM had even filed its patent application for it.

    A concise history in timeline format: The Rise and Fall of Leaded Gasoline: An Absurd and True Timeline

    1923: GM partners with Standard Oil (now Exxon) and DuPont to form Ethyl Gasoline Corporation. They market the product as “Ethyl,” deliberately avoiding the word “lead” despite known toxicity.






  • Months ago, YouTube pointed me toward a video that recommended Substack as a platform for some hobby. I made a public comment pointing out that Substack was profiting from spreading Nazi ideology. The YouTuber replied, said something like “No way, they’re not really doing that, are they?”

    Maybe I’m naive, but I expected a YouTuber to be more terminally online than I am, to have heard of the Substack Nazi problem already. I also expected a YouTuber to at least Google “Substack Nazis” or similar before replying to some internet nobody. But apparently, no.

    A lot of the coverage of the Substack Nazi issue that I’ve seen has been, broadly speaking, social media material, including blog posts. Those of us who read such stuff (like me, maybe you too) probably have some incorrect intuitions about how well-disseminated the ideas we find that way really are. Having a mainstream source like the Guardian pick up the story may be useful even if it doesn’t say anything new to us.





  • I think it’s really strange that none of Epstein’s contacts have (to the best of my knowledge) said anything like:

    “I can’t really make any excuses. He was charming. He invited me to these great parties, which had me rubbing shoulders with other interesting, famous people. I guess I was star-struck. I gave him the benefit of every doubt because I wanted to believe he was as good a guy as he seemed. I wanted to believe that lifestyle was as glamorous and available to me as it seemed. I was wrong. Maybe I ignored some red flags because I didn’t want to acknowledge them.”

    I think something like this must be the story for many of them, and admitting it would be honest and relatable. But it would take a degree of self-awareness, self-reflection. I wonder if ambition and self-reflection are natural antagonists.