1961
[pesticides
As soon as I had returned from the last session of the sandwich course, I
was transferred to the pesticides division. I welcomed the opportunity to
learn about new types of analysis. To start with I was transferred to a
small section run by Dr. Webley. This was the first time I had met someone
with a PH.D., as an immediate superior. Most of the food division staff
managers were not qualified above B.Sc. in chemistry.
The pesticide division required more qualified staff, both for managers
and among the routine staff. The lowest grade here was assistant
experimental officer. There were no scientific assistants. I was now an
experimental officer, and enjoying a huge increase in pay. Most of this I
saved for the future; because I had been insecure financially until the age
of 28, I was cautious. I think at this time I was earning about
£1,000
p.a. This was a good salary in the year 1961.
In Dr. Webley's division we were engaged in analyzing samples of the
pure pesticides. I think this was the most dangerous work in the division,
because a spot of some of these compounds on the skin could be fatal. We
wore rubber gloves when dealing with these compounds. Once diluted ready
for analysis, they were less dangerous.
Dr. Webley was a good person to take charge of this type of work,
because he never got excited about anything. Accidents were taken very
calmly. He analyzed the most dangerous compounds himself. Some of these
were akin to nerve gases. They were the volatile organo-phosphorus
compounds.
Cholinesterase is an enzyme present in the body which aids the
conversion of acetylcholine to choline. If this reaction is stopped
completely the person dies, because then there is a fatal accumulation of
acetylcholine, which is necessary in small amounts, but kills if present in
large amounts. Acetylcholine is continuously produced in the body by other
very complex reactions, which I have never fully understood. The
Scientific Officer staff in the pesticide had the opportunity to make
specialist study of this type of biochemistry, but this was not necessary
for the analysts, whose main concern was to determine whether organo-
phosphorous pesticide residues were actually present in the samples given
to us. Most of this work was undertaken in another division, in the main
lab just below Dr. Webley's small group of three rooms.
The building we worked in was called Cornwall House. I had been
transferred there from the food labs, which were situated in the Main
Government Chemist Building in Clement's Inn Passage. It was envisaged that
the whole of the Government Chemist would eventually transfer to Cornwall
House, but this had not yet happened. In the meantime we scattered in
several buildings.
Organo-phosphorous insecticides are mostly cholinesterase inhibitors.
They prevent cholinesterase doing its work of converting acetylcholine to
choline. This was why they are so toxic, and cause rapid failure of the
nervous system. There is no easily available antidote.
Organo-phosphorus compounds were widely used in agriculture and still
are. They are not very stable, and disappear by the time the food is
harvested, and it is hoped that the concentrations used are large enough to
kill pests, but not large enough to kill birds and small mammals. It was
one of the functions of the Government Chemist, and in particular the
pesticide to give advice to farmers on these matters.
One day Dr Webley had a particularly toxic compound to analyze. I
remember that it was called dimefox pronounced DI - ME - FOX (Di as in
Diana, me and fox as in the common English words).
When I think about
dimefox, it causes a "silent scream". In 1961 we had just heard about the
book "The Silent Spring" written by Rachel Carson because of her concern
over many small birds dying from insecticide poisoning.
[Actually published 1962]. Would we wake up
one day to silence, with no birds singing, because they were all dead?
This was what our work was about - to prevent this happening, though as a
Government Department, we got no publicity and were rarely mentioned in the
newspapers. If mentioned in a serious way it would be at the end of an
inside column, in small print.
In a scurrilous way, we had been mentioned.
"Civil Servants have been taking home enough paint to paint their
houses" Chapman Pincher's headline screamed in a tabloid newspaper, such as
"The Express". Since then I had never cared for this right-wing "Commie-
hunter", even though, I believe he is in his later years supporting animal
rights. This is a diversion; as I made clear before, analysts used
sometimes to take home small paint, food, or other useful samples, which
otherwise had to be thrown out after testing. After Chapman Pincher's
diatribe, this was stopped and the samples were thrown out to be wasted,
which benefited nobody.
Dr Webley's analysis of Dimefox was done entirely in the fume
cupboard, but even so, I could see he was nervous of doing this analysis.
Though it was a routine analysis handling
this material was extremely dangerous. Dimefox was a highly volatile
organo-phosphorous compound, which though classed as an insecticide, I
think was used little in practice. The sample was in a tightly sealed
aluminium flask, encased in a small wooden container, with a nailed-down
lid. This lid was to prevent anyone opening it up through curiosity. It
was hoped that the warning labels would be read before anyone removed the
nails. I remember clearly Dr. Webley extracting the nails with pliers, then
handling the flask in the fume cupboard and extracting samples into two
identical beakers. The amount of phosphorus present was used as an
indicator
of the purity of the sample. This is theoretically a very simple
analysis, and after Dr Webley had carefully recorked the flask, he
proceeded with the analysis. This analysis was not an everyday occurrence,
so Dr Webley was pleased to let me watch, while taking a break from doing
my own samples on the bench.
He was evaporating both beakers, to which reactive chemicals had been
added, until nearly dry, and adding more chemicals to them. In the course
of this procedure one of the beakers tipped over, spilling about half the
liquid. Dr Webley was devastated, and was nearly in tears. Usually he was
a tight-lipped, rather dry person, though very pleasant to work for. He
told me that the analyses had to performed that day without fail. He had
already put this work off until the last minute. He was very unwilling to
uncork the flask containing the highly toxic liquid again. If this vapour
had escaped into the atmosphere of the lab, it would have killed us.
So he decided to proceed with the analysis marking one sample as
correct, and the other as an "estimate". The estimate was obtained by
doubling the result he obtained and calling this the "estimate". He was
unhappy with this not very good procedure, which would not normally be
allowed for ordinary routine samples. Nevertheless he proceeded. The
results he got agreed tolerably well.
I felt highly relieved when he pronounced the work done!
Then he placed the sealed flask in its wooden box; got a hammer and
nailed down the lid. I could not help feeling that this operation, though
simple and unskilled was just as dangerous as performing the analysis. I
worried about what would happen if one of the nails should accidentally
pierce the flask. The image of Dr. Webley bending over and knocking away
cheerfully with a hammer is one I have always retained. The box was then
stored at the back of a steel cupboard, not to be touched and I did not see
it again. At that time I did not worry about the eventual disposal of these
dangerous samples.
I had made a few mistakes with pesticide solutions myself, though none
of these were of the worst kind. I contaminated the environment slightly
by pouring an unwanted solution of pesticide down the sink, instead of
evaporating the residue in the fume cupboard, which Dr. Webley told me was
the correct procedure, but these mistakes were comparatively minor, and
certainly not fatal.
Meanwhile a new pesticide lab was being set up in the large room
immediately below the floor on which Dr. Webley's lab was situated. There
would be more sophisticated apparatus here, set up for the analysis of
routine samples. When the preparations were complete new staff arrived.
These were Marjorie Bland and Bernard Fleet. I was to come to know both
these people very well, and retain friendship with Marjorie long after we
had both left this lab.
There were two very long double-sided benches running the length of the
room, fume cupboards and reflux apparatus along one long wall, and gas
chromatographs along the opposite wall. Opening off the large lab was a
small room for the senior supervisor, who was a Principal Scientific
Officer. This was a very senior position. There were only two higher ranks
in the service, that of Senior Principal Scientific Officer, and finally
the Government Chemist himself.
The pesticide post was filled by Dr. Egan. He wore a short white coat.
This was an unofficial designation of rank. But few Principal Scientific
Officers bothered to wear them. Mostly they wore long white coats if still
working on the bench, like the other staff. Or if they did entirely
administrative they did not wear overalls.
I do not think Dr. Egan any longer did much bench work when he was our
supervisor. The immediate supervisor was Mr Roburn. He did research into
new methods, so when the gas chromatograph was first set up, spent a long
time working on it. In 1960, the Experimental Officers like myself,
Marjorie and Mr Fleet were not given a chance to use it. In March or April
of that year I was transferred from Dr. Webley's lab to this main lab where
I met Marjorie.
I have not said much about home life in 1960 because it was rather
dull. On summer week-ends I sometimes visited Romford. One day I went to
church on a Sunday evening with Leonard and his small daughter who was
conveyed in a push-chair. Unfortunately, on the way home we had an
accident. Leonard and I took turns to push the push-chair, containing
Frances. I handed over to Leonard when halfway home from the church. He
continued chatting to me. Unfortunately on ascending a kerb the pushchair
went over and Frances fell out, cutting her forehead. He said that he
should not have been talking to me so much. We went home very subdued. When
we got home Teresa was upset and Frances had to be rushed to the hospital
as she was bleeding. Luckily there was no serious damage.
I was using some of my annual leave to spend days studying practical
techniques at the Polytechnic. But I saved two weeks for a holiday in
August. I decided to go to Lourdes again. This was not such a successful
trip as my first two trips to Lourdes in the 1950s, and it was to be my
last foreign holiday for a very long time. It was supervised by a retired
school-teacher, who said that she had taught maths, but was a fluent
French speaker.
I guessed there was something odd about her, as in spite of the summer
weather, she wore two long coats, one over the other. She was a stout
woman, but this made her look even stouter. I asked her why she wore two
coats, and she said that the outer one was to keep the inner one clean!
There had been a little pamphlet handed to us about the small society which
ran the pilgrimage, which was chiefly about the personality of the leader.
The principal thing it said was that she never complained under adversity.
On a previous trip we were told, all her spending money had been stolen by
someone on the train and she had never complained. I thought this pamphlet
was rather odd, especially as the woman kept on telling us over and over
again about how someone had stolen her money on a previous trip. However
her staunch woman friend, who was much quieter than the retired school-
teacher, supported her strongly and kept telling the rest of us how good
she was and how she never complained!
Admittedly the pilgrimage leader's strong point was her command of
French and this helped us at stations, and on transferring to a hotel in
Lourdes where she was able to engage taxis and porters and tell them where
to go and what to do. Once in the hotel she grumbled again, as apparently
she was not fit enough to walk round in the daily processions which is what
Lourdes is all about. She also complained that no-one sat with her at meal-
times and talked to her. Whereupon a small, nervous woman declared she
would like to sit with her, but I believe her offer was refused. The lady
pilgrimage leader was very eccentric.
After two days in Lourdes, half the pilgrims were departing for Fatima.
The other half were staying in Lourdes. I was quite content to stay in
Lourdes, which was the cheaper option. I enjoyed the daily ceremonies there
and walking quietly through the town. Fatima sounded like being a very hot
place in August, as it was in the middle of Portugal, while Lourdes was
deliciously cool, being situated near the Pyrenees, in a valley which was
just inside France, near the Spanish border. French was spoken here. We
soon got to understand the main hymns in French, and were able to join in
the singing during the evening torchlight procession. The tunes were
well-known and very simple, so that even an unmusical person like myself
could join in.
When I got back home, it was nearly time to take the Part Two
examination for the Graduate Membership of the Royal Institute of Chemistry
(GRIC), and all my evenings were given over to study, though I was no
longer attending the Polytechnic.
In mid-September I took this examination which was gruelling. There
were three days of theoretical exams, a three hour exam in each branch of
chemistry, inorganic, organic and physical, on each of three consecutive
days. The following week, we took a four day practical exam in the basement
laboratory in Russell Square where the offices of the Royal Institute of
Chemistry were situated. The practical exams were the worst ordeal. We
started at ten o'clock and finished at three o'clock each day, with no
lunch break. Sandwiches were allowed in the lab, but I did not take any.
Eating wasted precious minutes, especially as hands had to be thoroughly
washed before eating. On one day we were handling cyanide solutions in the
synthesis of an organic compound. Even though the exact amount needed was
placed in a measuring cylinder on each bench, so that there was no spare
solution to create hazards, it was dangerous work. Partly because there
were several different experiments to be completed each day, and some of
these involved handling acids, which if mixed with cyanide produces a
lethal gas.
However, students of the Royal Institute of Chemists were all workers,
and had mostly been employed as lab technicians for many years before
aspiring to become qualified chemists, which made most of us into very
safety-conscious workers.
I thought that I had done quite well in the theoretical exam, but I
doubted if I had passed the practical, as my organic chemistry was weak,
and I found it very hard to hurry sufficiently to complete a full
qualitative analysis of inorganic mixtures in a six-hour period. I was only
confident of good results in my inorganic volumetric and gravimetric
analysis, as I had not only had practise at classes, but much of my working
life had been devoted to this type of work, and to much more complex
analysis than was required in the exam.
It turned out that my prediction was true. At the end of October I was
informed that I had passed the theoretical exam but not the practical.
Earlier that year Mr Kirk had been informed that he had passed his
practical but not the theory. Unfortunately passes in practical chemistry
did not count alone. The theory had to be passed at the same time, which
meant that Mr Kirk had to repeat his practical exam as well as his theory.
The reverse was not true, so that I was credited with my pass in theory,
and only required to repeat the practical. There were two opportunities in
the year to take Royal Institute of Chemistry exams, May and December, so I
resolved to take the practical again in December. When the polytechnic
reopened in September, I attended most evenings, practising hard in the
labs, trying to concentrate on organic analysis and synthesis in which I
was weak. I also maintained my skill in the analysis of six-radical
inorganic spots, and soon I was getting these absolutely right every time,
and speeding up. I also became quite good at organic analysis, but never
had enough practice in synthesis. But I thought I could pass on the next
occasion.
In December, at exam time, I booked into a bed and breakfast hotel in
Russell Square for three nights. This was not absolutely necessary, but I
thought it would reduce the stress of travelling, and give me a better
chance. There were many candidates staying in the small hotels around
Russell Square, for many people came some distance to take the exam,
although the Royal Institute of Chemistry did have other exam centres in
various parts of the country.
On exit from the exam each evening I compared notes, and on the first
day was pleased and invigorated because my result for the six-radical spot
was exactly the same as someone else, so we both concluded that we had
achieved a 100% correct result for the first day's work.
The inorganic analysis on the second day was easy. When I came out on
the second day, I thought that even if I could get only half the organic
chemistry right, it would be enough to achieve a pass. On the third day I
thought I had done reasonably well though did not complete the whole of the
organic analysis. On the fourth day I had to do two organic syntheses, and
only succeeded in completing one of them, but thought it would be a pass.
I came out quite well satisfied.
Christmas was approaching and I felt ready to enjoy it.
1962
I started 1962 working full-time in the pesticide division. Marjorie
and I did most of the routine work. Mr Fleet the Assistant Experimental
Officer was still studying for his Graduate Membership of the Royal
Institute of Chemistry. Mr Fleet often sat in a corner with his books,
catching up on last-minute revision. He worked hard some days, but found
routine analysis tedious, even though the methods were very complex. One
day Mr Fleet devoted himself to building a meccano-like structure with
clamps and rods to hold small flasks securely in the water-bath. Rather
than do the routine analysis, he would find himself this kind of job. He
was ten years younger than Marjorie and myself. He was fun to work with.
Sometimes we visited a canteen in Somerset House which meant walking over
Waterloo Bridge. When Mr Fleet accompanied us, we often had a long lunch
hour and might be quarter of an hour late getting back. On other days we
had a short lunch hour in order to complete the work. When I had not much
private business, I would only take half an hour off for lunch. In the
lunch hour I sometimes visited the local library to change books. There
were no local food shops, so we could not use the lunch hour for shopping.
It was dangerous to store food in the pesticide lab, and our clothes
lockers in the corridor were small, so food shopping would have been
incovenient.
Dead pigeons were our main object of study. They had been dropping dead
in all parts of the country, because of the ingestion of pesticide
residues, mostly the organo-chlorine pesticides, which built up in the
body, until they reached a toxic level, enough to kill small animals.
These pesticides were widely used by cereal farmers in Spring, and
following our work which established that there were considerable pesticide
residues in the bodies of the dead birds, the government advised farmers
not to spray their fields at certain times of the year, or to use a reduced
amount.
The actual work was very routine, and to begin with, Marjorie and I
were using paper chromatography to determine the organo-chlorine residues,
which was a long, tedious method. We worked very hard to complete our
samples during each day.
In the months that followed Marjorie, who had a degree in zoology, was
preparing to take her Part 1 in chemistry for the Graduate Membership of
the Royal Institute of Chemistry. She was 34, the same age as me. It was a
late age to be studying for a professional qualification. Unfortunately,
most people, especially women, were not able to make full use of these
qualifications if they gained them in their 30s by part-time study. This
attitude among employers applied to men also. One man came into the class
and said he would just continue in the same old job as an analyst, though
he might be given the most complicated parts of the work. At 32, he said
that the employers considered him to be too old for promotion. Then one
day, he breezed into the chemistry lab at Northern Polytechnic where I
happened to be working, and said "I've passed my Part 2 Grad. RIC."
I said, "Congratulations!. Now you'll be better off."
He said, "Well, I rather wished I had not passed the exam this year."
I was very surprised to hear him say this, and asked why.
"Well, I told you before that I did not think my employer would take
any notice when I passed the exam. And it is true. He has not. And I have
to continue working in the same old job. I liked having one day off per
week from it, to attend the Polytechnic. But now I have passed the exam,
I'll no longer be able to do this."
I felt very sad to hear this, and wondered whether I would feel the
same way when I passed the exam. It was not the case that I wanted to
continue attending the Polytechnic; the Government Chemist was a pleasant
place to work. But I did want to be given a better grade of work. Research
into new analytical methods, for example!
[Graduate Membership Royal Institute of Chemistry February 1962