I am personally sick and tired of how the uneducated in society view our interest, and other similar interests negatively. I am seeking to change
people's view of amateur science and place us in a better position for change.
I'm currently writing an article about how protectionism is damaging society by creating the negative stigma of electronics, chemistry, and amateur
science in general being overly dangerous to others or themselves, justifying blanket bans on everything. Before we reach the state of foam-padded
pink and blue rooms where everyone is safe, we need to speak up.
And before anyone replies, if you have anything negative to post, don't reply at all. I'm looking for *positive* comments to promote our
interest, not make us look like sarcastic geeks on the internet.
So what am I asking for? Help.
Give me some examples that fall into these categories, or make suggestions as to what topics should be covered. While examples in chemistry are good,
anything that falls into the realm of what society views as 'bad' (ie: chem/electronics being viewed narrowly as drugs, bombs, or terrorism) but have
positive applications in every day life are also useful.
Better yet, write your own articles! I have enough contacts built up that I should be able to saturate the blogosphere and put the topic up on the
radar for the mainstream media, but in order for this to work, a lot more people need to speak up at the same time. If you're interested in writing
your own articles, please U2U me.
So, onto the categories of what I'm looking for:
1. Examples of how amateur science has positively benefited society: discoveries, inventions, etc. How did they come about, what was its impact on
society?
2. Counter arguements to 'all the low hanging fruit having been picked' - the concept that all science belongs in university labs or multinational
funded pharma companies.
3. The potential cost of abandoning science as a result of creating the fear culture behind anything dangerous.
4. Examples of society persecuting amateur scientists. Please reference news articles and give a brief summary - make sure that the person/people in
question were doing everything above-board and were truly not up to anything illegal.
5. Examples of how amateur scientists currently benefit society, and examples of how amateur scientists could collaborate with the community to
further benefit society.
6. Arguments for less scrutiny, regulation, and legal action against amateur chemistry labs. Its hard to counter the argument that illicit drug
synthesis would become more common.
7. Examples of how incremental bans and restrictions yielded no positive benefit to society but only ended up increasing the bureaucracy and harming
others with legitimate business.
I'm really going out on a limb here, and I hope people don't laugh at me for my slight naivety, but I have some faith that with enough work we can put
amateur science back into a positive light in society.Sedit - 17-4-2010 at 10:40
Hate to be the cynic here but.... I don't think we ever have a chance in hell of changing the way we are viewed. First and formost there is the War on
Drug an War on Terror which demonizes chemicals daily and highly publicly. But even before that people have feared that which they don't understand.
Short of turning the whole world into chemist the persecution will NEVER end.
I experiance the same thing on a more local scale where when I was younger(still to this day if they see it) I was hearing constant bitching about my
Muratic acid comming from people who would dump oil on the ground and think nothing of it. They think HCl attacks everything and it the most poisiones
chemical in the world yada yada. I have gotten more slack for this in my life then ever needed even though on a relative standpoint I have chemicals
which are MUCH more dangerous then HCl ever could be. Hell I would take having a bath in HCl over one in my 35% H2O2 any day of the week. But show
people a bottle of Acid and a bottle of peroxide and see which one they are willing to stick there finger in...
Its basicly like this the world is scared of anything that has the word acid in it. Anything that is labled explosive.. Flamable is no exactly a
common mans freind either nor is poisones.
Sorry to sound bitter and all but its just not going to happen the world will always fear siomething if they think it has a power they do not
understand.Vogelzang - 17-4-2010 at 11:45
One thing that's dangerous is when a lot of people who never studied chemistry get paranoid about a lot of envirnomental hysteria out there caused by
racketeers.franklyn - 17-4-2010 at 15:31
The " view " has been 40 years in the making
coincident with the 1968 omnibus crime act.
As new laws are passed based on previous
precedent setting laws that went unchallenged
the process has become irreverable.
Attached are classified advertisments from 1935
Popular Science Magazine
Boy times do change.
quicksilver - 18-4-2010 at 09:03
Most of the previous posts said what I would offer. However I can be confident that most any approach would be viewed with suspicion now as a means to
slide a meth lab in under the nose of our big brother.
The mind-set of these bastards is profoundly fear ridden and low-functioning. They expect to deal with a problem by getting rid of it's trappings.
Forget that a hammer can be used to build a home or kill a neighbor - it's the "object focus" of the simple mind that traps all species as having one
end result.The WiZard is In - 18-4-2010 at 11:48
I am personally sick and tired of how the uneducated in society view our interest, and other similar interests negatively. I am seeking to change
people's view of amateur science and place us in a better position for change.
Hard Times for Curious Minds
By Oliver Sacks
Letter to the Editor New York Times 13v99
There has been an increasing restriction on the availability of many chemicals for the
past 40 years, and the recent events in Colorado have underlined how horrific misuse
can be. But chemicals have other uses, too, not least as vital educational tools for
individuals and schools - and these are endangered by excessive regulation.
One thinks of the days, a generation ago, when a boy or girl could set up a chemistry
lab at home and get everything needed from a chemical supply house or even a
hardware store. I myself had such a lab as a boy, long before I did science at school,
with (now I come to think of it) chemicals enough to poison or blow up much of greater
London. I had my share of stinks and bangs, but I never hurt myself or anyone else.
Having such chemicals taught one respect and responsibility, as well as providing intel-
lectual delight and fun.
Many of my colleagues had similar introductions to science via chemistry, and some of
them injured themselves in the process. And yet they remember their chemical days
with passion, as an awakening to the pleasures of science.
The importance of fun, of intellectual play, in youth - including playing with dangerous
chemicals - was perfectly understood in the last century, when books like Griffin's
"Chemical Recreations" and Pepper's "Playbook of Metals" inspired, delighted and
educated generations. But many of the chemicals available to us 40 or 50 years ago
can no longer be obtained by individuals and are now severely restricted even in
schools and industrial labs. One friend of mine, an analytical chemist at the
Smithsonian, has had to resort to hiding some of his own reagents, lest they be
confiscated according to Government regulations.
Linus Pauling, in an autobiographical sketch, describes how, as an 11 year-old, he
obtained potassium cyanide, a deadly poison, from a local druggist:
"Just think of the differences today. A young person gets interested in chemistry and is
given a chemistry set. But it doesn't contain potassium cyanide. It doesn't even contain
copper sulphate or anything else interesting because all the interesting chemicals are
considered dangerous substances. Therefore these budding young chemists don't have
a chance to do anything engrossing with their chemistry sets. As I look back, I think it is
pretty remarkable that Mr. Ziegler, this friend of the family would have so easily turned
over one, third of an ounce of potassium cyanide to me, an 11-year-old boy."
In this same sketch, Pauling speaks of the delightful (and some. times hazardous)
experiments he did in his bedroom, and his sense that it was such a spontaneous and
playful experimenting that set the stage for his entire creative life. Would Pauling have
become Pauling without this early play?
One wonders whether the present atmosphere, with its nervous, insurance-driven
restrictions, its precluding of hands-on chemistry, may not have dire effects on
upcoming young scientists, and indeed on all of us. El
Oliver Sacks, a neurologist, is the author of "Awakenings," "The Man Who Mistook His
Wife for a Hat" and a forthcoming memoir of a chemical boyhood.
I am personally sick and tired of how the uneducated in society view our interest, and other similar interests negatively. I am seeking to change
people's view of amateur science and place us in a better position for change.
The Educational Value Of Certain After-School Materials And Activities In Science
By Morris Meister
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of 'Doctor of
'Philosophy in the Faculty of 'Philosophy, Columbia University.
New York 1921
[google.com/books]
(9) The most popular type of chemistry experiment is that which has to do with
gunpowder, flash-powder, and colored lights. The companies are making a concerted
effort to discourage the boy from this type of activity, fearing that one fatality might
ruin their business. Their efforts, however, have been unsuccessful. As yet no case
approaching seriousness has been recorded. Page upon page of the Chemcraft Manual is
devoted to subjects like Food Analysis, but boys will "pass them up" and concentrate on
experiments with "sparklers," "explosions," and other startling effects. As nearly as the
writer has been able to estimate, 60 per cent, of Chemcraft experimenters will react in
this manner; the other 40 per cent, will show varying degrees of interest in Food
Analysis, Paint Industry, Glass Manufacture, etc., etc., and varying degrees of lack of
interest in "fireworks." It must also be pointed out that of the 60 per cent, there are a
considerable number who eventually tire of this sensational type of experiment; and if
they then do not leave Chemcraft entirely, they begin to show an increasing interest in
other parts of the manual. Even if they desert Chemcraft, about half of them return to it
later on, with a much healthier interest in the toy.
(10) A most interesting toy reaction to some of the more recently developed sets and
outfits of the Gilbert Co. is the readiness of the boy to criticize the impractical and
unworkable features of the toy. In order to seize the market and be the pioneer in the
movement, Gilbert put out in very rapid succession a whole array of new science sets
that were not fully worked out; did not supply the boy with a full equipment and were
not designed to meet conditions that confront the boy. The result has been a flood of
complaints and what almost amounted to a boycott. The Gilbert Co. has recently
appropriated $100,000 with which to improve their new products, but are finding it hard
to overcome the prejudice against the few outfits which had been hastily developed.
Thus the boys' reaction acts automatically to further continual improvement.
Unfortunately there is as yet no control, automatic or otherwise, on the improvement of
the strictly educational features.
Looking into my copy of The Chemcraft Book for Chemcraft Chemical Outfit, No. 4,
First Edition. 1919.
1. Combination of zinc and sulphur
3. Combination of zinc and oxygen
55. Making a fuse
282. The manufacture of red fire
283. The manufacture of yellow fire
284. The manufacture of green fire
285. Making a flower pot
286. Making a spit-fire
287. Sputtering matches
291. Making [Mg] flashlight powder
292. Making red flashlight powder
293. How to make sparkers
605. Smoke matches
Chemcraft Experiment Book No.5. 1937.
None of the above.
Lionel Chem-Lab Book. 1942.
None of the above.
/djh/ Who is old enough to remember when DuPont was — Better things for better living through chemistry.
I am personally sick and tired of how the uneducated in society view our interest, and other similar interests negatively. I am seeking to change
people's view of amateur science and place us in a better position for change.
Spilled Some Salt? Call 0SHA
By MICHAEL M. SEGAL
Letter to the editor, Wall Street Journal. 9viii91
Decent people believe we should warn employees about hazardous
materials on the job. Governments at all levels have endorsed such a
"right to know" for employees, and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) has written laboratory safety rules with
this in mind. Unfortunately, the results of the rules provide some
textbook cases of how good intentions can go awry.
I first became aware there was a problem when I read the label on
one of my laboratory chemicals. It read: "WARNING: CAUSES
IRRITATION. Avoid contact with eyes, skin or clothing. Avoid breathing
dust. Wash thoroughly after handling." This "hazardous" chemical was
sodium chloride, ordinary table salt. The supplier was carrying out its
OSHA obligation to warn of potential hazards.
There is nothing wrong with careful handling of sodium chloride. The
danger comes from a situation in which hazardous and safe
substances carry similar warnings, leading to scant attention being
paid to all.
As an example, a warning about skin contact is also provided with
tetrodotoxin, the highly potent poison present in some fish that is
rumored to be the active ingredient in the "zombie powder" Haitian
voodoo practitioners throw to paralyze victims. For many years,
tetrodotoxin was one of the few substances to come with a sheet of
paper warning about hazards.
Now, OSHA requires chemical suppliers to prepare and provide a
two-page "Material Safety Data Sheet" for all chemicals that might be
hazardous. There are even such sheets for sodium chloride, advising
the laboratory worker to "Wear [a I respirator, chemical safety goggles,
rubber boots and heavy rubber gloves" in the event that some salt
spills. Although the warning on tetrodotoxin is more severe than that
for salt, the effect of turning up the intensity of warnings on low-risk
chemicals is to blur the distinction between high and low risk.
The warnings about salt are not an isolated example of one
chemical supplier worried about liability. Here's another company's
advisory about a different chemical: "After contact with skin, wash
immediately with plenty of soap and water, . . . Special Firefighting
Procedures: Wear self-contained breathing apparatus and protective
clothing to prevent contact with skin or eyes. . . . Waste Disposal
Method: Dissolve or mix the material with a combustible solvent and
burn in a chemical incinerator equipped with an afterburner and
scrubber. Observe all federal, state and local environmental regula-
tions." This "hazardous" chemical is paraffin wax-what ordinary
candles are made of.
Now over-labeling is spreading from individual chemicals to entire
labs. I am currently being asked to hang a sign on my laboratory door
reading "RESTRICTED AREA: CARCINOGENS, REPRODUCTIVE
TOXINS AND ACUTELY TOXIC CHEMICALS IN USE."
A warning of acutely toxic chemicals is reasonable for my research
lab, but the warning about birth defects and cancer is overblown. It is
required because my lab contains a bottle of the drug phenytoin.
Phenytoin is one of the most commonly prescribed anti-seizure
medications. It is on the OSHA warning lists because pregnant women
taking several hundred milligrams of the drug a day have a small
danger of having children with birth defects and there may be a small
danger of tumors in the child. But these risks are low compared with
the risks to the fetus of maternal seizures. So, although it is recom-
mended that 1, as a neurologist, continue to prescribe phenytoin
through a woman's pregnancy, I must now post an alarming notice on
my door warning of cancer and birth defects because the same
substance is used in tiny quantities in my lab.
An institution can choose not to post room signs for certain drugs on
the OSHA warning lists. To do this, however, the institution would have
to make a determination that such a warning is not "appropriate." An
OSHA spokeswoman cautioned that since enforcement is done by
OSHA inspectors, it would be "prudent" to label all rooms that contain
any drugs on the OSHA lists. If the labeling of salt and wax by
chemical companies is any guide, we can expect to see a lot of
over-labeling of labs at corporations and universities.
There are several positive features of the OSHA rules: The best
example is the mandated "Chemical Hygiene Plan" safety books that
are a welcome addition to the information that employees receive
about hazards.
There are also costs to the regulations: New administrators are
being hired to carry them out. The taxpayers are signing a blank check
to pick up the tab for the increased costs at university labs, because
such "indirect costs" get tacked onto federal research grants. The
large indirect costs billed by universities have less to do with cedar
closets for presidents houses than they do with universities lacking
incentives to agitate for cost effectiveness of regulations.
I'm sure that those who drafted the OSHA rules don't put hazard
labels on their salt shakers and don't wash their hands after touching
candles. But when "right to know" rules are combined with vague
regulations, corporations and universities will limit their liability by over
warning. Such "Crying wolf" over trivia risks lowers our vigilance for
real risks. I is important to restore a sense of proportion.
Dr. Segal is a neurologist and neuroscientist at Harvard Medical
School.
aonomus - 18-4-2010 at 13:52
Does that guy only spam irrelevant stuff and pad his post count?hissingnoise - 18-4-2010 at 14:45
Who really cares?
His posts are intelligent, worth reading and show flashes of humour. . .
The " view " has been 40 years in the making
coincident with the 1968 omnibus crime act.
As new laws are passed based on previous
precedent setting laws that went unchallenged
the process has become irreverable.
Boy times do change.
I remember when .... if you were a student of chemistry
on the lab supply houses in NY City would give you a
10% discount.
I remember carrying ... better to leave out the details .... chemicals home in the subway from Fisher.
Acids - red phosphorus - titanium tetrachloride - and WOW.
Even made omega-chloroacetophenone (CN tear gas)
in the basement lab. From chloroacetochloride (nasty stuff)
benzene w/ ahyd aluminium chloride. With chems
from Fisher.
