Amazing work to all in finding all the references! It brings me back.
The toxicity of dimethyl mercury was no secret to Karen and many (hard to ignore Minimata disease). The guidance on the SDS was certainly lacking but as many have offered - it was par for the course at the time. The current SDS is much more clear and direct as a result of this:
----
Personal protective equipment
Eye/face protection
Face shield and safety glasses Use equipment for eye protection tested and
approved under appropriate government standards such as NIOSH (US) or EN
166(EU).
Skin protection
Highly resistant laminate gloves under a long-cuffed neoprene or nitrile glove.
Gloves must be inspected prior to use. Use proper glove removal technique (without
touching glove's outer surface) to avoid skin contact with this product. Dispose of
contaminated gloves after use in accordance with applicable laws and good
laboratory practices. Wash and dry hands.
Body Protection
Complete suit protecting against chemicals, Flame retardant antistatic protective
clothing., The type of protective equipment must be selected according to the
concentration and amount of the dangerous substance at the specific workplace.
Respiratory protection
Where risk assessment shows air-purifying respirators are appropriate use a fullface respirator with multi-purpose combination (US) or type ABEK (EN 14387)
respirator cartridges as a backup to engineering controls. If the respirator is the sole
means of protection, use a full-face supplied air respirator. Use respirators and
components tested and approved under appropriate government standards such as
NIOSH (US) or CEN (EU).
Control of environmental exposure
Prevent further leakage or spillage if safe to do so. Do not let product enter drains.
Discharge into the environment must be avoided.
--------
I wonder how many of the chemicals on the market today have been permeation tested? Do all of the SDS sheets have the most recent info?
Unfortunately, my experience with some chemists of the era was that some form of risk-taking was required to advance science. I suppose the same debate is ongoing around precautions for crisper cas9 or nanoparticles today. I remain optimistic that risk assessment is becoming part of science education as an invaluable step in research and teaching and that our sources of data are ever-improving. It still often comes down to awareness of risk, human behavior, and resources.