Talk:Karen Wetterhahn

Irony

With all due respect, how is her death "ironic"? Would the death of a firefighter in a fire be considered ironic? Or a policeman who was shot on duty? It seems to me that her demise would be expected, not ironic. -Alcalde 18:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's because her death is a result of "kind of like metal". I believe that's Webster's fourth definition of irony. --142.232.162.91 (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the point was that she's a specialist in toxic metal exposure. It would be more akin to doctor dying from the disease he developed a vaccine for or a workplace safety inspector being killed by an on-the-job accident. Acegikmo1 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I do see your point, but there is a subtle, yet critical distinction between the examples you you give and mine and the article subject.

If you look at Webster's definition 3:

• "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result"

With your examples, you would not expect a doctor to die from a disease he has created a cure or vaccine for, nor would you expect a safety inspector to die in an on the job accident. In mine, the high risk nature of the jobs cited tend to beg the question of not if, but when. I know that many untold thousands of police officers and firefighters come home after their shift every single day, but the very real possibility of tragedy looms over them every time they go in to work. I just think that in the case of the article, this kinda fell into a high risk, the-possibility-was-always-there kinda thing.

I'm not (consciously) trying to be bull headed...I just think that subtle distinction I mentioned is very important. Of course a hundred years from now, nobody's going to really care what I thought... :-) --Alcalde 14:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In Dr. Wetterhahn's case, the irony lies in that she was using the full panoply of personal protective gear recommended for handling dimethylmercury, only to absorb 80 times the toxic dose - enough to slowly but inexorably kill her. There really WAS an "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result" - Dr. Wetterhahn and everyone else working with dimethylmercury then believed that the gloves she was wearing protected her from what proved to be a fatal dose of the compound. In that regard, "irony" is the very least dramatic term for the situation and entirely proper. Had she RIGHT THEN been aware of her predicament, she might have been placed on aggressive chelation therapy the day of her accident, perhaps in time to save her life. Then again, it's unclear that physicians understood just HOW toxic dimethylmercury is and how readily it moves through unbroken skin.

In many ways, Karen Wetterhahn's tragic death raised consciousness of how hazardous the chemical is that killed her. That she was using the stable tracer dimethylmercury she was pipetting as a laboratory standard (essentially, only to calibrate a nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer - to give a "peak" against which experimental quantities of the chemical could be compared) was another horrible irony. She essentially died tuning up a lab instrument. Use of dimethylmercury in research has been dramatically restricted in the wake of Dr. Wetterhahn's death. loupgarous (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Lethal vs. Toxic

The Wikipedia entry mentions that Wetterhahn had 80 times the lethal level of mercury in her blood; however, the linked article from Dartmouth Alumni Magazine states that she had 80 times the toxic threshold, not 80 times a lethal level. In fact, a dose four times that amount is specifically mentioned to be "not necessarily lethal." I'm changing the Wikipedia entry to match the article.

The phrase "80 times the lethal level of mercury in her blood" probably comes from a comment under an entry in Derek Lowe's justly famous "Things I Won't Work With" blog, "Straight Dimethyl Zinc" relating Dr. Wetterhahn's tragic story as an example of the routine hazards of research into the chemistry of organometallic compounds (especially the methyls). I'm sure the error on the respondent's part was accidental. But good catch!! loupgarous (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Dartmouth has established an award in her name to encourage other women in science.

Dartmouth has established an award in her name to encourage other women in science. Really? Shouldn't this be an indication that women better stay away from science? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.125.229 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 7 September 2006

I'm not sure about the rationale behind it, only that it happened. 68.39.174.238 06:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's because she was a student while she died, not because of the reason for her death. 137.22.3.177 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sexist, illogical, and incorrect comments - she did more than die. She was a very successful scientist and teacher (not a student when she died), which is much harder for a woman to achieve even today because women are still expected to choose other careers or mainly raise the children even and especially if their husbands are also scientists. The purpose of the award is to encourage other women to be as successful as scientists as she was. BTW, if an award is given in honor of a male scientist who died while experimenting, no one would even think of this in a negative light - "heroic example for others" and similar things would be thought and said.--Espoo (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Espoo. Dr. Walter Reed has a Army hospital named after him because he risked dying of yellow fever doing some of the research which identified its cause and how it might be prevented (and even Dr. Reed was always careful to credit Cuban physician Carlos Finlay with the discoveries for which a racist press gave Reed the credit).

By contrast, Dr. Wetterhahn worked with an agent much more toxic than the etiologic agent of yellow fever, was regarded as an authority on its toxicology, did the research to better understand how it destroys life, and died as a result of that research. If Karen Wetterhahn's erudition in her subject matter, her willingness to undertake grave personal risk in order to gain new knowledge for others, or her tragic death were honored as much as Walter Reed's were, she'd have a Federal hospital named after her. But her motivations were more noble, and the scholarship in her name may one day train someone who helps us understand, or even cure, another cause of death. loupgarous (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Who says it's to encourage women specifically? The linked page about the award does not say that the award is only for women, or that it has this particular purpose. Gthb 03:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Added correct link. --Espoo (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Errors

A couple of notes. First, the blood mercury content was 20 not 80 times the threshold, 200 mkg/L being the limit. Second, the discovery of dimethylmercury toxicity is in no way due to this accident. Earlier fatalities have been reported, which fact was well known at Dartmouth. In addition, organic mercury compounds were resposible for multiple deaths in Minamata, so the outcome could hardly have been a surprise. I'll make the changes. Gauche 16:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it is reasonable to mention this in the article: What was the total amount of mercury present in the victim's body? It seems to me it would be something like a few miligrams. Also, is there any discussion of how such a small quantity of any non-radioactive substance can affect a human so drastically available? I would reason that the substance would be eventually bound up someplace, although this is clear not the case.--Jrm2007 (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Total mercury was estimated at 1344 mg at the time of exposure[1]. Why are you making a distinction with radioactive? Dimethylmercury is FAR more dangerous than radioactive materials. Ariel. (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right. While plutonium oxide's up there with cobra venom on a per-weight toxicity basis, that's because of a chemically-mediated pulmonary fibrosis that occurs if you breathe the fine powder. Pu's radiotoxicity, while considerable, isn't up there with the chemical toxicity of dimethylmercury (in either case, chelating agents exist which can be used to dramatically reduce body levels of these respective poisons, but treatment's only effective if begun promptly - and Dr. Wetterhahn only suspected she'd suffered an exposure months after the fact, when major neurological symptoms appeared). loupgarous (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference in Spooks

Her death was referred to in the BBC television drama, Spooks, to illustrate the toxicity of dimethylmercury. Is this worth adding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.227.89 (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Offhand mentions aren't significant enough to be included in articles. DS (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation

From the 2nd paragraph onwards this reads like an article found in a news magazine - is that section copied from somewhere else without attribution? 131.130.237.104 (talk)

Simply putting the first few words into Google confirms your suspicion, and shows that not only that section was copied, and copied badly, from the external link http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/dimethylmercury/dmmj.htm in the article. Perhaps it was copied badly in a juvenile attempt to confuse attempts to track down the plagiarism. I'll add a copyright violation tag.--Espoo (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think i found and removed all directly quoted unattributed text.--Espoo (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

Added the contradiction tag to the "Accident" section. Was the mercury poisoning detected after five or six months? Was the course of the symptoms only three weeks long or were there "initial neurological symptoms" like loss of balance earlier? – Acdx (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've rewritten that section to clarify exactly what happened when. Removed tag accordingly. Shoebox2 talk 00:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Broken links

There are two links to the article "The Trembling Edge of Science" by Karen Endicott which appeared in the April 1998 issue of the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine: one under References and one under External Links. These no longer go to the article, instead resulting in a Page Not Found on the IAOMT site. There is, however, a PDF copy of the article here: http://stemed.unm.edu/PDFs/cd/CLASSROOM_LAB_SAFETY/Trembling_Edge_Science.pdf I do not know if this copy is an authorized reproduction of the DAM article so this should be confirmed before using it as a replacement link.

--FrancaSeven (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes at List of unusual deaths#1990s

Per this change, some chemically competent input would be welcomed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"I shall correct the article in line with the edit-warrior's views." does not bode well for this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karen Wetterhahn. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715003519/http://stemed.unm.edu/PDFs/cd/CLASSROOM_LAB_SAFETY/Trembling_Edge_Science.pdf to http://stemed.unm.edu/PDFs/cd/CLASSROOM_LAB_SAFETY/Trembling_Edge_Science.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sexism

Why no mention of the sexism in preferring females for awards? If the situation was reversed they would be screaming sexism all over. Double standard much? I know know, I know, its only sexism if men do it, not when women do it.24.139.24.163 (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Because this is an article about Karen Wetterhahn, not sexism or awards? Brycehughes (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Place of Death

The table in the article lists place of death as Lyme, New Hampshire, but I have also seen it listed as Lebanon, New Hampshire, which would make sense as that is the location of the Dartmouth Medical Centre. (See https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/06/11/mercury-poisoning-death/bcd6c290-2e01-4feb-a367-b2e38e467700/ ) Is there a preffered source for this information?Dauwenkust (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)