Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Midgley Jr.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unsectioned and unsigned comments from 2008

[edit]

if im correct CFCs are still used in asthma inhalers and are one of the acceptable applications-Ricky(barcode)

Is the ironic death line really necessary? I think it could be worded better.

I'd say that if we wanted to remove the comic slant it would be more appropriate to get rid of the two topics "career" and "aftermath", as though he were some kind of natural disaster. I think they should stay, given the damage he's done to the planet. - Patrick

Do you think anybody at DAYTON laboratories believed they were inventing something that ruined the planet? Give me a break. Maybe we'll find out that the soles of your shoes are spreading poison in 20 years. Shall we call you an instrument of death because of this? -J.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.27.93 (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's one explicit reference (and a few implicit ones) to the "environmental danger of CFCs", but the word "ozone" does not appear in the article. I'm not saying the whole CFCs article needs to be duplicated here, but surely there's somewhere appropriate to insert the phrase "ozone depletion". - Roy

Smell

[edit]

A physics teacher of mine once told us that the work with petrol and lead meant that Midgley was not someone you would want to share a railway carriage with. Any corroboration on this? GraemeLeggett 11:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I recall this too; it was in our school A-Level Chemistry book. It's about tellurium. When he was working systematically through the periodic table for anti-knock additives, it was one of the promising possibilities: except it was absorbed through the skin, causing a strong garlic odour. Confirmation here (PDF): "Three years later their hopes soared when they found that tellurium was effective. But tellurium reeked so of garlic that for weeks Ket’s boys were banned from society and were unwelcome in their own homes, 86.143.209.12 02:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dimethyltelluride would be the culprit. Man, this guy has got to be the unluckiest chemist in the world. Two of the most regrettable chemicals of the 20th century... — Jack · talk · 15:12, Friday, 6 April 2007 THEY MUST HAVE STUNK REAL BAD!!!

Caverns

[edit]

Interesting biographical oddment here, about the catacombs Midgley had built on his estate. 86.143.209.12 02:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His impact on the ozone

[edit]

Would it be right to mention his impact on the atmosphere at large? Since both leaded gasoline and chlorofluorocarbons had been invented by this guy, there have been historians quoting that he "had more impact on the atmowphere than another other signle organism" in the history of the world. - 134.71.133.216

According to the British Quiz Show QI....

[edit]

They said he was "the one human responsible for more deaths than any other in history", beating Hitler, Stalin and Mao (apparently), due to the impact of leaded petrol and CFCs. --81.105.176.121 13:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was just part of the problem. What is amazing is that leaded gasoline was allowed at all and then for so long. I can maybe see that there was a time when cars were relatively rare --no one anticipated how big a part of life they would become -- but even so, there were doctors who opposed TEL.

The knowledge of the toxicity of lead is fairly old -- when Wedgewood put it in glazes people even then (late 1700s) were complaining. --Jrm2007 (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler, Stalin and Mao were only part of the problem aswell... --Kurtle (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polio?

[edit]

I had read that he in fact became disabled due to neurological effects of tetraethyl lead. Never heard the polio thing before. Is there a reference that discusses his contracting polio?--Jrm2007 (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Britannica says it was polio. --ABehrens (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article rife with scholarly issues, Le Prof

[edit]

I am a passing reader, a science faculty member, with no strong bias in favor of this man or his life's work. If I have any bias, it would be against the failures in foresight that occurred in industrial and commercial practice that contributed to lead and CFC pollution issues.

That stated, it is nevertheless my opinion that this article on T Midgley, Jr is rife with scholarly issues, which lead to the appearance of sloppiness and potential bias. It therefore, I believe, needs immediate editorial attention.

Issues include [a] factual information without citation (e.g., Synthesis of Freon, paragraph 3), [b] historical information drawn from inappropriate references (Bryson humor volumes being unsuitable sources for biographical writing), [c] principle and over-reliance on sources with clear bias—e.g, drawing "Development of leaded gasoline" from The Nation, self-described "flagship of the left" (source, Wikipedia), where other references with this interpretive direction include Markowitz (6) and Bellows (10), with counter-leaning references absent, [d] citation of clusters of references making it impossible to attribute specific facts to sources (Later life and death, paragraph 2), [e] text relying on a single citation, including where that citation is questionable in relation to content (Sneader's drug discovery chapter, sole source for most of Midgley's role in chlorofluorcarbon refrigerant discovery), and [f] selection of sources without view of their inherent informational/scholarly strength (refs 12-14, in support of the unassailable matter of lead toxicity), perhaps to support a predetermined point.

Apart from the sourcing issues and questions they raise, the article is a poor historical account (in this academic's opinion) because of the failure to report and document when understanding of deleterious impact of the chemical agents discovered by Midgley et al became established (in relation to the research and introduction of the agents), or similarly to clarify the context of dangers associated with industrial production of these materials versus any chemical manufacture in that time period. As well, it fails to engender understanding of the context of the discoveries discussed—why there was a strong demand for anti-knock agents and better refrigerants, to which Midgley et al responded. (It is easy to fall prey to the error of overlaying clear current understandings of scientific matters onto the past, and far more difficult to provide a balanced account of a scientific matter in the past, based on best historical information.)

These missing pieces lead to a seeming superficial presentation, and alongside the clear interpretive leanings imposed by the narrow selection of sources, they lead to an overall appearance of bias in this discussion. I would suggest an immediate strong edit, or redaction of some material and a followup slow edit—both with the aim to provide a balanced and historically informed biography of one who was clearly, in his time, an award winning scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.5.163 (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the whole point of Wikipedia is that it's a Do it yourself kind of thing. There's not much point giving a scholarly critique of this sort of article and assuming there's a group of editors ready and willing to respond (although that may apply to many of the more prominent and widely viewed articles). You'll see that the last post on this page prior to your post was in 2011. If there's a problem, not much is going to change unless you click on the edit button and make the changes yourself. That's how the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" works. From your post, it sounds like you have the knowledge to do just that. DeCausa (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vacation from real responsibility allows some latitude, but nowhere near the amount you suggest. Moreover, though I could "hard edit" this article to address the major shortcomings I perceive (simply removing anything I find contributing to substandard presentation of history), this would ignite an editorial war in my experience. Rather, I have given those interested and contributing an independent and largely disinterested view of the article. If the system can find no use for such, it is a further sign that the Wikipedia system is "broke" (various connotations intended). By the by, the Kovarik citation / thread are, in my opinion, the most valuable contribution of the article, though the implications and nuances of this Radford historian's work are less than fully realized in the article. See http://www4.hmc.edu:8001/Chemistry/Pb/resources/Kovarik.pdf (a web form of the 1999 version of WK's article, cited in the article as ref. 5). See also http://www.environmentalhistory.org/billkovarik/research/henry-ford-charles-kettering-and-the-fuel-of-the-future/. Perhaps WK could be contacted to edit? Cheers. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.94.210 (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't 'broken', as it never worked in the first place, regarding the expectations of 'LeProf'. I am sorry you dont like my references of Bill Bryson and Jamie Kitman, but they are impeccably reliable and I stand by them. [GM doesn't like The Nation article either.] If it werent for that Nation article 'The Secret History of Lead", I wouldnt have never even have heard of Midgley and his TEL. If you want to improve the article, just do it, and don't expect an 'edit war' from me here; I already have been defeated here with the inappropriate renaming of 'tetraethyl lead' to 'tetraethyllead' on the related page [sigh]. But 'failures in foresight'? How about 'profit over people'? We knew many decades ago that ethanol was a fine antiknock agent and that vaporized lead was hazardous. I would be surprised to find too much recent peer-reviewed material that argues with this view of "patent" greed here. But if you want to find it and make the case, I'll consider it. But my understanding is that Midgley's bosses wanted a propietary antiknock agent to dominate and obviate the unpatentable CH3CH2OH. The CFC issue would be totally different of course, as I do not believe that anyone including Mr. M had any idea that the compound would end up in the upper atmosphere and break down O3 molecules via a radical homolytic cleavage process. Jack B108 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
so sorry. Apparently I did not add the Bryson and Kitman refs. to this page, but I was independently aware of them and may have added them to the TEL page at some point. Merci, Jack B108 (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very badly biased.

[edit]

This is one of the most distinctly Lefist articles I have stumbled across in the Wikipedia. Its biases are too blatant for even a tolerant individual such as myself to ignore. Midgely's breakthroughs in chemistry and mechanical engineering had a positive effect on the lives of everyone reading this article, yet there is no mention of the good he accomplished. Brothernight (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add any content from reliable sources that supports what you say.JezGrove (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Thomas Midgley Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TEL

[edit]

what is TEL? it is not defined in the article.

tetraethyl lead or tetraethyllead--193.29.81.233 (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Effects on atmosphere

[edit]

"Environmental historian J. R. McNeill opined that Midgley "had more adverse impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history"

Bro literally killed the vibe more than anything 😭😭😭 88.111.95.74 (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin award

[edit]

Does he qualify as a candidate? 206.84.252.154 (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. This fuccking assshole did more bad than good. 206.84.247.108 (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Midgley_Jr.&oldid=1232773878"