Talk:Ethyl Corporation

message: Re the cleanup question: I assume the methyl bromide alludes to the controversy over Ethyl/Albemarle's production of the stuff: see Corpwatch (strongly POV, but it indicates the issues). Tearlach 12:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: There is a good deal of information about Ethyl and leaded gasoline that has not been included on this page. I would also note that Mr. Madden is a longstanding Ethyl employee, (See http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamesrmadden) and that this page needs to be flagged for bias. -- Bill Kovarik, Ph.D., wkovarik, April 20, 2010.
::2. From what I read, Canada was taken to court by the corporation under NAFTA rules because there are/were limits to the use Ethyl. Whether the Canadian Parliament ended up changing the legislation I do not know, could still be pending, but the whole thing is worth knowing in this context. 144.136.192.45 (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: -Although many have found it entertaining to read, Bill Bryson's book contained a number of inaccuracies.  This referenced date is one of them.  Directly from Ethyl Corporation website: "In 1921 Charles Kettering discovered that a certain combination of chemicals added to gasoline could reduce the noisy and harmful engine “knock” produced by gasoline of that time. Kettering formed the General Motors Chemical Corporation, a joint venture between General Motors and Standard Oil of New Jersey in 1923. A year later, the company became Ethyl Gasoline Corporation and finally, Ethyl Corporation in 1942." (http://www.ethyl.com/index.htm)</br>
</br>
-"The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.46.220 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed correction, and comments:

message: "The use of tetraethyllead, while toxic, prevented the emissions of many millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which would have resulted from inefficient engines with lower compression ratios and larger displacement."
The worst thing about this statement is that it is, strictly speaking, true. However, ascribing ANY positives to the use of TEL is patently absurd. If you have the time and/or inclination, I heartily recommend that you read the article written by Jamie Kitman titled "The Secret History of Lead" (http://www.thenation.com/article/secret-history-lead), which documents the fact that Kettering and Midgley knew that ethanol was a perfectly suitable additive to gasoline that would solve both the knocking and compression problems.
At risk of jeopardizing my point, I submit the following: crediting TEL with reducing carbon dioxide emissions is approximately the same as crediting Adolf Hitler with staving off overpopulation. The solution is far, far worse than the problem, and made worse in this case by better (and well-known) alternatives. In summation, I badly want to delete that line (the whole paragraph, in fact) but if I did it would be restored for blanking a section. Instead, I make my case here in the hopes that a consensus can be reached. 2601:1:100:53D:DCBE:26ED:B916:579 (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the most cynical statements I have ever read on Wikipedia, or anywhere else for that matter... 

message: I have added pov and rewrite tags. This article has almost certainly been cleansed by corporate PR at some point. I have removed the cynical statement referenced in the previous comment, but I don't know enough to fix the article otherwise. 81.99.182.245 (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just came by to add the logo, but yeah, definitely POV issues. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup and Rewrite tags