The history of pigments is almost as old as the history of humans. Its development has been non-stop and accelerating until we now have pigments that are (almost) permanent. Even older fugitive pigments like "Opera" (pinkish red) have been reformulated to be (almost) permanent.
The discovery of alternatives to Lapis Lazuli for Ultramarine was one of the greatest developments in art imaginable. Before manufactured synthetic Ultramarine (PB29), pure Lapis powders were used making Ultramarine almost prohibitively expensive. There are a few classic literature stories and operas that include a destitute artist bemoaning the expense of Ultramarine.
More fun facts... White lead house paint sloughs off with weather, so the manufacturers started pitching it as "self cleaning". People painted their house with poison that sloughed off into the soil surrounding the house. We've done studies on that dirt and found that tomatoes grown in soil adjacent to old houses are often "lead based tomatoes"....with enough lead in one tomato to give the person eating that tomato an elevated blood lead level.
Excellent stuff, thank you. Most manufacturers of hazardous materials will do this in some way or another! With cigarettes it was filters; with asbestos the manufacturers claimed it was ‘chemically locked up’ in a matrix of cement or some such tall tale. The fact is with non-organic pollutants in particular is that they stick around.
Per asbestos...chrysotile asbestos was used in cement board called transite. Transite was the last material containing asbestos that was approved for use because it does not, in fact, release fibers because the fibers ARE gummed up in the Portland cement with binders. One has to grind it to release fibers. Due to asbestos related litigation, now somewhere in the billion dollar category, transite mfg's. finally caved and stopped mfg. the stuff. The true believers will insist that transite asbestos is friable, but all testing showed it was not. If there are (very) new studies showing friability of asbestos when contained in a Portland cement matrix, I'd like to know.
In the early days (1980's) of asbestos bans, floor tiles were also not banned because the material was bound up in the bituminous and vinyl ester binders; the tile had to be actively ground up to release fibers. Early EPA "rules" even said it was ok if there were no broken tiles, abrasive cleaners were not used and the floor was kept waxed.
I am not arguing in favor of asbestos use; of course the stuff should be banned. That said, much of our current rules were a result of litigious activity, not necessarily that the material (in its form as tile or transite) was hazardous. In a reasonable world, one which we do not inhabit, leaving the tile in place and covering it was the recommended remediation. With the advent of aggressive personal injury litigation, contractors that covered asbestos tile with a safe flooring were/are being pursued. In fact, anyone with secondary, tertiary, quaternary, and quinary actions are now being dragged into lawsuits.
So, what is reality when it comes to safe asbestos removal?
Thanks Kurt! Fair point on chrysotile in cement matrices—I haven't checked but I'll take your word for it. I got quite interested in asbestos recently and did start to feel similar... Yes, it's hazardous, yes we should have stopped using it. But the case-load seems to be overwhelmingly concentrated among people who constantly dealt with the stuff in high-exposure ways for long periods of time—not random members of the public. Oh and crocidolite and amosite do seem to have been much scarier. The secondary, tertiary etc lawsuits sound insane. In my UK context I haven't heard of anything like that but we are a less litigious bunch.
No names...but I have (had, he's passed away) a deep relationship with an individual who owned a respirator (G100's, VOC's, etc.) mfg. company. He was in it in the 60's and served on the OSHA and NIOSH Advisory Committee determining what rules should be implemented. He had conducted extensive laboratory studies trying to determine what was, in fact, hazardous. His studies didn't show significant correlation between exposure in mine workers and shipyard workers (who would wade around in the stuff up to their chests and packed it into warship bulkheads with their bare hands) except for those that smoked cigarettes. For mine workers/shipyard smokers, asbestosis and other lung diseases were a 99% likelihood if they smoked cigarettes. Because almost all of them smoked, the statistical outcome didn't necessarily point in a single direction.
So, how dangerous is it in normal life, and how dangerous is it when rules making is driven by nearly a billion dollars in litigation?
I'm not arguing it's safe. It's not. But, remediation actions that were simple, effective, cost efficient and at one time encouraged by EPA...now are not. Why the change? I propose it's not necessarily because some new hazard was discovered.
I don't doubt the veracity of the claim, but do you have more clear evidence to back up the subheading claim:
"Lead paint was banned. Before that, it was outcompeted by a cheap and safe alternative."?
This would mean that titanium dioxide-based paint was already cheaper by some measure before either 1979 or 1989, not just currently?
Its significantly cheaper now, but that could be due to lead-based paint becoming a more niche product post-ban?
Could change the interpretation of the usefulness of the ban. If titanium dioxide-based paint was already superior at time of the ban, then the ban was probably less likely to change behavior. But if it was banning a superior product, then one could claim that the cost divergence between the two types was in some part caused by the ban itself.
Thanks for sharing this essay on one aspect of the history of industrial materials.
The history of pigments is almost as old as the history of humans. Its development has been non-stop and accelerating until we now have pigments that are (almost) permanent. Even older fugitive pigments like "Opera" (pinkish red) have been reformulated to be (almost) permanent.
The discovery of alternatives to Lapis Lazuli for Ultramarine was one of the greatest developments in art imaginable. Before manufactured synthetic Ultramarine (PB29), pure Lapis powders were used making Ultramarine almost prohibitively expensive. There are a few classic literature stories and operas that include a destitute artist bemoaning the expense of Ultramarine.
More fun facts... White lead house paint sloughs off with weather, so the manufacturers started pitching it as "self cleaning". People painted their house with poison that sloughed off into the soil surrounding the house. We've done studies on that dirt and found that tomatoes grown in soil adjacent to old houses are often "lead based tomatoes"....with enough lead in one tomato to give the person eating that tomato an elevated blood lead level.
Excellent stuff, thank you. Most manufacturers of hazardous materials will do this in some way or another! With cigarettes it was filters; with asbestos the manufacturers claimed it was ‘chemically locked up’ in a matrix of cement or some such tall tale. The fact is with non-organic pollutants in particular is that they stick around.
Thanks much. Love your stuff. Clarifications...
Per asbestos...chrysotile asbestos was used in cement board called transite. Transite was the last material containing asbestos that was approved for use because it does not, in fact, release fibers because the fibers ARE gummed up in the Portland cement with binders. One has to grind it to release fibers. Due to asbestos related litigation, now somewhere in the billion dollar category, transite mfg's. finally caved and stopped mfg. the stuff. The true believers will insist that transite asbestos is friable, but all testing showed it was not. If there are (very) new studies showing friability of asbestos when contained in a Portland cement matrix, I'd like to know.
In the early days (1980's) of asbestos bans, floor tiles were also not banned because the material was bound up in the bituminous and vinyl ester binders; the tile had to be actively ground up to release fibers. Early EPA "rules" even said it was ok if there were no broken tiles, abrasive cleaners were not used and the floor was kept waxed.
I am not arguing in favor of asbestos use; of course the stuff should be banned. That said, much of our current rules were a result of litigious activity, not necessarily that the material (in its form as tile or transite) was hazardous. In a reasonable world, one which we do not inhabit, leaving the tile in place and covering it was the recommended remediation. With the advent of aggressive personal injury litigation, contractors that covered asbestos tile with a safe flooring were/are being pursued. In fact, anyone with secondary, tertiary, quaternary, and quinary actions are now being dragged into lawsuits.
So, what is reality when it comes to safe asbestos removal?
Thanks Kurt! Fair point on chrysotile in cement matrices—I haven't checked but I'll take your word for it. I got quite interested in asbestos recently and did start to feel similar... Yes, it's hazardous, yes we should have stopped using it. But the case-load seems to be overwhelmingly concentrated among people who constantly dealt with the stuff in high-exposure ways for long periods of time—not random members of the public. Oh and crocidolite and amosite do seem to have been much scarier. The secondary, tertiary etc lawsuits sound insane. In my UK context I haven't heard of anything like that but we are a less litigious bunch.
No names...but I have (had, he's passed away) a deep relationship with an individual who owned a respirator (G100's, VOC's, etc.) mfg. company. He was in it in the 60's and served on the OSHA and NIOSH Advisory Committee determining what rules should be implemented. He had conducted extensive laboratory studies trying to determine what was, in fact, hazardous. His studies didn't show significant correlation between exposure in mine workers and shipyard workers (who would wade around in the stuff up to their chests and packed it into warship bulkheads with their bare hands) except for those that smoked cigarettes. For mine workers/shipyard smokers, asbestosis and other lung diseases were a 99% likelihood if they smoked cigarettes. Because almost all of them smoked, the statistical outcome didn't necessarily point in a single direction.
So, how dangerous is it in normal life, and how dangerous is it when rules making is driven by nearly a billion dollars in litigation?
I'm not arguing it's safe. It's not. But, remediation actions that were simple, effective, cost efficient and at one time encouraged by EPA...now are not. Why the change? I propose it's not necessarily because some new hazard was discovered.
Very interesting. I had never really thought about the technology of paint. Now I do!
I don't doubt the veracity of the claim, but do you have more clear evidence to back up the subheading claim:
"Lead paint was banned. Before that, it was outcompeted by a cheap and safe alternative."?
This would mean that titanium dioxide-based paint was already cheaper by some measure before either 1979 or 1989, not just currently?
Its significantly cheaper now, but that could be due to lead-based paint becoming a more niche product post-ban?
Could change the interpretation of the usefulness of the ban. If titanium dioxide-based paint was already superior at time of the ban, then the ban was probably less likely to change behavior. But if it was banning a superior product, then one could claim that the cost divergence between the two types was in some part caused by the ban itself.
Lmk if I am missing something.