Damn thanks for posting that, very fascinating.
I am still baffled by Kodak’s assumption that even though they knew they were dealing with a deadly chemical, it was inevitably going to leak all over their production sites. Film may have been important, but what about the hundreds of dead people??
John Clark died 30 years ago, so we cannot ask him for a more detailed account of the conversation with the Eastman Kodak representative (unless it appears elsewhere in his memoirs; there is a lot more beyond that one book), but it is obvious that whoever he talked to knew there was no way they could safely produce and handle that chemical, whether it was the film or the personnel he was ultimately worried about (why not both!)
This entire discussion makes me glad that I changed from chemistry to electrical engineering after freshman year…
One possible explanation is that Kodak knew exactly how toxic the stuff was, but rather than admit they were too frightened to make it (and rightly so) they came up with the excuse it would mess up film which was needed for the defense industry, in the hope the request would be withdrawn.
Which it was…
To clarify my speculative line of reasoning: as toxic as dimethylmercury is, a precursor—mercury—is already off limits for other reasons, so they’re not even going to consider anything that requires mercury as an ingredient. No one will die from dimethylmercury poisoning because they’ve sworn off all uses of mercury—including the manufacture of nastier compounds.
I agree with DPRK that we can’t know the exact reasoning here, so we’re both guessing. But you seem invested in the idea that Kodak was run by either amoral monsters who don’t care if hundreds die or weirdly insecure people who can’t admit they’re afraid of the effects of dimethylmercury.
That seems less likely than several of the alternative explanations.
Besides, what chemist would hesitate to admit that dimethylmercury should be treated with extreme caution? I’ve worked (indirectly!) with hydrofluoric acid, one of the nastiest chemicals there is. No one errs on the side of excitement with it. No one gets mocked for that. Anyone with a cavalier approach to chemicals like dimethylmercury or hydrofluoric acid at a lab is generally treated like someone with a cavalier approach to firearms safety at a gun range: they’re pariahs.
Fair point. I’ve worked directly with hydrofluoric acid, admittedly a long time ago, and looking back the safety precautions were not all they might have been.