[mmooss]

> Accidentally

Based on the OP, it wasn't at all accidental. They knew it was dangerous and chose it because they could make more money than with safer alternatives such as ethanol.

[cyberax]

I don't think he really appreciated the danger of lead. Its acute toxicity was well-known, but not its chronic toxicity.

And plenty of stuff is toxic in large quantities but harmless (or even vital!) in small quantities.

[whatisthiseven]

Then you don't know anything about the man. He intentionally inhaled large quantities of leaded gas to prove it was safe to on lockers.

He would then spend months in Florida recovering from lead poisoning.

He knew, and he didn't care.

[cyberax]

Yeah, that kinda reinforces it. He knew about the acute effects, but not about cumulative damage.

I don't think that cumulative toxicity started entering the public mindset until well into the middle of the century.

[mmooss]

He's not 'the public' but a highly educated and experienced leading expert in the subject. You have no idea what he knew (afaict) and even if the chronic problems were indeed unknown to him, anyone, even a member of 'the public', could infer that the acute problems certainly risked long-term problems

[mmooss]

Interesting - what is that based on?

He's not some incidental commentator. He's an engineer and a principle force behind this technology. He is responsible for the outcomes - 'I didn't know' is reckless negligence. And if there were clear acute problems, chronic problems weren't hard to guess at for anyone, much less an engineer, with all those resources, working on it for years.

[sysguest]

> engineer and a principle force behind this technology

well he's not some biochemist...

and even biochemists have trouble within their own field because there's so much 'unknown' stuff in biochem (eg Thalidomide scandal)