This was a major issue in the early days of organic high-explosives generally. The explosives and their precursors are often not just toxic but also biologically active. We still use a number of explosives as medicine because the effects on the body are potent. Many can also be absorbed through the skin.
It took a long time for industrial production to become sterile enough that risk of exposure was nominal. The early days of mass producing these chemistries was horrifically unhealthy. But then, so was the frontline. It was a different time.
I noticed this the last time it came through; it seems very interesting, and I'm glad it's in the second-chance pile.
But I don't have a History Today subscription, the usual workarounds aren't working for me, and I'm not so interested as to initiate a £99/year relationship (and/or jump into a "trial subscription" trap) blindly on the basis of a single paragraph.
At the risk of nudging the boundaries of site etiquette--would anybody happen to know of a lower-commitment way to engage with this piece?
Most bypass tools didn't work, but smry.ai did for me. Generally I use pressreleased.alwaysdata.net for these, this is one of the alternates it offers.
Thanks for pointing this out. Unfortunately we'll have to take this off the HN front page, as we can only include articles that are publicly accessible or easily accessed via a paywall workaround.
This was a major issue in the early days of organic high-explosives generally. The explosives and their precursors are often not just toxic but also biologically active. We still use a number of explosives as medicine because the effects on the body are potent. Many can also be absorbed through the skin.
It took a long time for industrial production to become sterile enough that risk of exposure was nominal. The early days of mass producing these chemistries was horrifically unhealthy. But then, so was the frontline. It was a different time.
I noticed this the last time it came through; it seems very interesting, and I'm glad it's in the second-chance pile.
But I don't have a History Today subscription, the usual workarounds aren't working for me, and I'm not so interested as to initiate a £99/year relationship (and/or jump into a "trial subscription" trap) blindly on the basis of a single paragraph.
At the risk of nudging the boundaries of site etiquette--would anybody happen to know of a lower-commitment way to engage with this piece?
Most bypass tools didn't work, but smry.ai did for me. Generally I use pressreleased.alwaysdata.net for these, this is one of the alternates it offers.
> the usual workarounds aren't working for me
Thanks for pointing this out. Unfortunately we'll have to take this off the HN front page, as we can only include articles that are publicly accessible or easily accessed via a paywall workaround.
Interesting read. I think I have an answer for why no one seems to remember them. They aren't white men.
I've heard of the radium girls a hundred times, but this is the first I've heard of the munitionettes.