Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Subjects Of A Questionable Nature

Subjects Of A Questionable Nature

Dr.Freemanstein - 25-9-2005 at 14:20

Okay....

Ready....

Begin "rant"

What is it with members of this board wanting to know how to blow stuff up, or get high, or even poison/gas some por innocent people???
This kind of traffic on the forum will surely end in the shutting down of the site, given the current climate.
Every time I peruse the board, there is somebody asking questions pertaining to drug/explosive/toxin manufacture, and, whilst I admit it is a valid (if not unfortunate) field in the science world, perhaps there should be clear warnings directed towards anyone posting such subjects???
I have been through that phase (and left it before puberty) so I understand the fascination, but...for the sake of the board...a little discretion please!!!

end "rant"

Thank-you

Polverone - 25-9-2005 at 17:18

If the question is phrased in a way that is appropriate to chemistry, and not a simple request to provide or refine a "recipe," then it is welcome here, regardless of connotations. Many serious students of chemistry have first had their curiousity aroused by fireworks, explosives, and drugs. Though I don't want this to become a how-to forum dedicated to manufacturing things at the expense of understanding things, neither do I wish to purge these fascinating elements altogether.

I understand that some people are probably put off by the relative freedom here, but I prefer to institute only as much control as is necessary to keep violent and stupid people from clogging the forum. I am a US citizen and this site is hosted in the US. Despite the idiocy of the last few years, there is still no legal leverage to stifle any of the discussions on this site.

[Edited on 9-26-2005 by Polverone]

Dr.Freemanstein - 25-9-2005 at 18:12

You have a good point, i am just concerned is all. Don't particularly want to end up being investigated by someone just because I have associated with someone who knows somebody who told someone etc....
As long as you and the mods keep tabs on the gung-ho types, i will feel safe to stick around

Chris The Great - 25-9-2005 at 19:10

Something that has been bugging me for a long time is the attitude that everyone who enjoys experimenting with explosives is some immature teenager and that they'll grow out of it like it's just some negative phase all chemists go through!
It's a valid and interesting field to alot of proffessional and amatuer chemists and not just something simple that gets people into chemistry!
/rant

Just had to say that, not directed at anyone in particular, just a general attitude I see in alot of places.

Anyway, I agree that there seem to be alot more "how cum my meth aint workin" threads popping up recently, and I can see why these would be seen as 'bad' for the forum. They also annoy me because I dislike threads that are just a simple question, with no indication the author has done any sort of personal research of any kind.

Dr.Freemanstein - 26-9-2005 at 10:55

I totally agree, the science of explosives is fascinating. However, there seem to be more people out htere that just want to blow shit up, rather than be interested in the science of an explosion and what reactions are caused by what formulae.

mick - 26-9-2005 at 12:33

You can blow shit up without knowing the science of anything.

mick

Dr.Freemanstein - 26-9-2005 at 13:26

My point exactly!!! Just "blowing shit up" is a bit freakin' pointless!! Fun, yes....but ultimately pointless!!!

Blind Angel - 26-9-2005 at 13:47

What about the concept of illegal = harder to make and get precurosr = more challenging to do.
A lot of post on this forum talk about very challenging explosive to make, which where only done for the challenge that they bring (thinking about Blaster experience on ethyl percholrate and other). As Polverone said, as long as it's not asking for a recipe and a question which clearly has mischief intent behind, it's, according to me, okay.

chemoleo - 26-9-2005 at 16:31

Dr Freemanstein,
how exactly do you define pointless?
What IS the point in collecting chemicals, and playing with them, to see some nice colour changes, or to make this chem or another from this OTC product to another?

Seriously?

You realise 99% of what we discuss here is old-school science, things that have been worked out 100 years ago. Why do we do it?
Because we and I derive a fascination from it. It's because it's *relatively* simple, and doable, and it doesnt require 500$/g chemicals.
Explosives are just part of it. So are fast burning mixtures, fun with oxidation states, and simply the *pride* to have made this or that compound.

As Polverone correctly says, we should never forget our roots (well that's my interpretation) - most of us always come to love science and chemistry with the visually catching reactions or processes, such as pyrotechnics, thermites, dye reactions, or even electrons flying around in a loop in an Argon atmosphere -
so, again, could you tell me what the point of your personal chemical endeavours is?

I suspect its no less or more than from anyone else here. We all love chemistry, physics, biology for the sheer spectacle it produces right in front of our eyes. With chemistry, it's the pyrotechnic or oxidation or complexity, same for biology, with its vast range of organisms, all intricately functioning, or physics with its wonders of nuclear science, magneticism, or electricity.

So what's the point of it all since most of what we do is already known? It's to give you and me a real insight into the workings of nature, and to play with the forces thereof. We are tampering nature. We always have.
And I am afraid of the day when a teenager is NOT able to play with chemicals anymore for his/her personal delight, it'll mean all scientists thereafter solely do what they do becasue they are taught and educated mechanically, rather than simply and naturally be fascinated by it.

And this is precisely what I see, in the lab where I work and elsewhere - people lack a natural understanding and fascination for nature. They do what they do because they *thought it might* be interesting. Those are the ones who do a crappy PhD, to carry on to become an investment consultant. All their love for science has been a mere means to an end ( to get a doctorate).

In the end none of them will ever inspire humankind to do better....

PS yah i love to rant

[Edited on 27-9-2005 by chemoleo]

Dr.Freemanstein - 27-9-2005 at 00:11

You misunderstand me. I too was drwan to the world of science by playing with a chemistry set when I was younger, then came my fascination with the nuclear reaction and particle theory, now I am obsessed with lightning and I endeavor to find out more about such an awesome phenomena. Hold on.......ur all right......blowing shit up IS fun!!!!!

Wow.....I have seen the light!!!! :cool:

akinmad - 27-9-2005 at 10:57

Though many of the reactions discussed here migth be illegal or at least a misdemeanor in many countries, I would like to express that making / synthesizing an explosive does not mean making an explosive device and even making an explosive device does not mean making a geniune device which can be REALLY and PROFICIENTLY used for a REAL illegal purpose / activity.
That's the very reason why all of the terrorist organizations have some training camp here or there (mainly with instructors from an intelligence organizations of an industrial nation).

I believe this board does not allow any discussion about practical uses of any thing discussed here. You may make a HE or something to go HIGH here but cannot discuss practical knowledge as to how to convert the nasty substance into a real threat. Only exception to this is shaped charge thread.

However I too must express my concerns about the minors who are (like many adults) are negligent about the safety procedures. Regards.

Twospoons - 27-9-2005 at 14:18

This board is very mild compared to roguesci. It was the pervading atmosphere of violence and destruction that prompted me to abandon roguesci and switch to sciencemadness, with its more ' research and discovery ' oriented focus.

Dr.Freemanstein - 27-9-2005 at 14:26

Quote akinmad:
I would like to express that making / synthesizing an explosive does not mean making an explosive device and even making an explosive device does not mean making a geniune device which can be REALLY and PROFICIENTLY used for a REAL illegal purpose / activity.

Correction...if you make/synthesise an explosive....you are doing just that. Making an explosive device. It is more than likely, that if you are making explosive, you intend to use it, which would mean detonation, which would precipitate an explosion. Henceforth, you would be constructing a REAL explosive device, that will be used to REALLY blow something up (admittedly probably not a train/bus/aircraft). But still, the construction of a device capable of causing explosions, is highly illegal regardless of where on earth you live. I can only derive from this that you are highlighting the difference between a homemade M80 and a plastique based device capable of levelling a building???

Joeychemist - 27-9-2005 at 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr.Freemanstein
Correction...if you make/synthesise an explosive....you are doing just that. Making an explosive device. It is more than likely, that if you are making explosive, you intend to use it, which would mean detonation, which would precipitate an explosion. Henceforth, you would be constructing a REAL explosive device, that will be used to REALLY blow something up (admittedly probably not a train/bus/aircraft). But still, the construction of a device capable of causing explosions, is highly illegal regardless of where on earth you live. I can only derive from this that you are highlighting the difference between a homemade M80 and a plastique based device capable of levelling a building???

Ack!

Freemanstein, that may be how it is in your god forsaken country, buy in Canada I am by law allowed to synthesize and experiment with small amounts of explosive substances whenever I want, so long as I adhere to the other laws of my countries’ explosives act. I can legally make substances which are explosive and energetic materials, I can even detonate them legally, but if I use or make an explosive to kill or hurt people I am breaking the law. If I were to take some of my legally made Nitroglycerin and make some Dynamite and use that Dynamite to move land or to break rocks or use it for any other “practical” applications I am breaking the law. An explosive device is made to perform or act in a specific way to do a job or act in a certain way using explosives force to move or shape something (it can be a pressure explosion even), simply detonating a sample of explosives is nothing more than an extremely fast and hot decomposition of a chemical substance into more stable substances.

There is a big difference between an explosive substance and an explosive device, you need to get that through your damn head!

[Edited on 28-9-2005 by Joeychemist]

Chris The Great - 27-9-2005 at 16:21

Really? I didn't know it was also legal to detonate them... I guess that's just because it doesn't say you can't in the law

The difference he (akinmad) was trying to make was no one of legality- making explosives in many countries is illegal (not mine, but there are still some restrictions if you try to store it for any amount of time) but he was saying that we are not trying to hurt people, or blow up buildings with out explosive devices despite that fact that they are in fact explosive devices.
Same kinda difference between shooting a bullet through a target at the shooting range or shooting a bullet through somebodies skull, one kills, that other is a peaceful and enjoyable activity.

Also, the shaped charge thread isn't actually that practical, it is only discussing an interesting sciencetific phenomeon, and of course sciencetists need to be able to bublicaticate results, so of course there is going to be be at least discussion about the design and consturction of a shaped charge device. Well, not practical in the sense of blowing up people and military vehicles, that is.

[Edited on 28-9-2005 by Chris The Great]

Dr.Freemanstein - 27-9-2005 at 23:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris The Great
but he was saying that we are not trying to hurt people, or blow up buildings with out explosive devices despite that fact that they are in fact explosive devices.
Same kinda difference between shooting a bullet through a target at the shooting range or shooting a bullet through somebodies skull, one kills, that other is a peaceful and enjoyable activity.

Thats the best way I have seen it put so far, I totally agree. Like "Guns don't kill people...people kill people"!

Its just a shame that, that scum are allowed to exist!

Cyrus - 28-9-2005 at 15:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris The Great
and of course sciencetists need to be able to bublicaticate results...

Huh?

So the synthesis of explosive compounds is illegal in the U.S.? I wasn't too interested in explosives anyways. I guess it would be nice if we could all have the right to own and operate our own explosive test sites with minimal supervision and paperwork, and not get hurt, but that's not the way it is. I feel that if for some reason I'm investigated for my chemical activities, it will help immensely to have no "bad" history whatsoever concerning explosives; I'm more interested in pottery and more mundane inorganic compounds. Getting in trouble for operating the furnace during the fire season or something isn't nearly as bad as getting arrested as a terrrorist!

I feel it's a good idea to choose our battles wisely...

As for drugs and drug precursors, merely making a compound because it's interesting (white phosphorus for example) is fine, but people who make drugs in order to get high are fools. They immensely degrade the public's image of chemistry, and they are the part of the problem behind the "chemophobia" that makes life so difficult for genuine amateur chemists. Plain and simple.

Cyrus

chemoleo - 28-9-2005 at 15:32

Why is it foolish to make drugs?

Alcohol, ethanol, and the destillation thereof, isn't considered foolish. And it certainly is a strong drug, considering the damage it does.

It's all a very tricky subject, and there aren't many black and white solutions.

12AX7 - 28-9-2005 at 18:46

Quote:

Originally posted by chemoleo
Why is it foolish to make drugs?

It isn't (except under current law which finds it criminal). Using them however is downright idiotic.

Tim

Dr.Freemanstein - 29-9-2005 at 10:30

Quote:

Originally posted by chemoleo
Why is it foolish to make drugs?

Alcohol, ethanol, and the destillation thereof, isn't considered foolish. And it certainly is a strong drug, considering the damage it does.

It's all a very tricky subject, and there aren't many black and white solutions.

Thats funny....i was unbder the impression that the unlicenced distillation of alchohols was illegal too.....at least here i good ol blighty!!!

Not to mention that making it can result in nasty side effects like fires, explosions, blindness etc...

Cyrus....
You got it nailed buddy!! My girlfrined tried to buy some Citric Acid for a friend to use in baking, and had a tough time finding it anywhere because shops have stopped selling it!!! The reason given???

Drug dealers use it to cut with!!! Stop selling it...make life harder for them!!!

12AX7 - 29-9-2005 at 12:15

Alcohol can be distilled legally, IFF you denature it for fuel use, IIRC. Which I guess means it's illegal for those two hours it sits in the reciever as it collects before you can denature it, or something, I don't know. Maybe that has one of those "use in 24 hours" things, if that isn't an imaginary loophole.

Tim

neutrino - 29-9-2005 at 19:03

Actually, I’d consider that one of those ‘use before they catch you’ things. This nitpicking is a bit of a gray area and would probably depend on your lawyer.

This Is a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE you have brought up!

quicksilver - 2-10-2005 at 11:07

There has been more than one organization that make it a point to harrass web sites that are in their opinion "bomb making information sites" and legislation to do the same. The focus of this board was well thought out. And I believe that it will continue to be a source of information and an appropriate interchange of ideas for years to come.
I don't believe that one needs to be as strict as roguesci became but I understand the issues involved. THEY actually were attacked by some crusading jerks and their ISP was pressured.
Just the same, when someone obviously posts a "KeWl B0Mz"-type post that should be deleted ASAP..... This is just common sence and self preservation. I don't believe that the posting of chem-weapons and related subject matter should be taken lightly. Posts that deal w/ same via OTC sources are inviting a serious look and a response. The subject, per se' should be open for discussion as should all things in life but we live in a very different world now and we would be foolish to ignore the realities of open dissemination of OTC chem weapons.
Energetic materials are NOT what I believe the authorities are focused on but they ARE looking at WMD info that does exist on the web.
I don't know the whole story but the major hit (I believe) that roguesci got was when an Arab web site linked to them. That's whenI think some crap started happening that was very unfortunate.

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by quicksilver]

Chris The Great - 2-10-2005 at 13:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris The Great
and of course sciencetists need to be able to bublicaticate results...

Huh?

ME SPEEKS TEH ENGLSH GREAT GOOD!
Should be duplicate. Dunno how it became bublicaticate.

Quote:

I don't believe that the posting of chem-weapons and related subject matter should be taken lightly. Posts that deal w/ same via OTC sources are inviting a serious look and a response. The subject, per se' should be open for discussion as should all things in life but we live in a very different world now and we would be foolish to ignore the realities of open dissemination of OTC chem weapons.

CWs are chemistry too, and one that is often not discussed and never experimented in yet. Just because like other chemicals (explosives, drugs, etc) they can cause harm doesn't mean we should immediately discourage discussion against them.
Besides, terrorists already made nerve gas, they couldn't figure out how to use it effectively at all, and they could have killed more people by spending their $11 million on ammonium nitrate and diesal. Nerve agents suck for WMD style attacks if you don't know how to use them, and you certainly aren't going to learn that here. None of us really care how to weaponize CW just how to make them and such. As well as the biological effects, that is another interesting area of research nowadays since there is new stuff being discovered on how nerve agents actually effect the human body.

Blah blah the essential point of my post is that we are a chemistry board, we discuss chemistry but not the generally frowned upon practical use of some of that chemistry, and that banning certain topics because they are considered bad by the government is a horrible form of self censorship and should never be done as long as we maintain our dedication to freedom especially to freedom of speech.

[Edited on 2-10-2005 by Chris The Great]

quicksilver - 3-10-2005 at 07:43

Quote:

Blah blah the essential point of my post is that we are a chemistry board, we discuss chemistry but not the generally frowned upon practical use of some of that chemistry, and that banning certain topics because they are considered bad by the government is a horrible form of self censorship and should never be done as long as we maintain our dedication to freedom especially to freedom of speech.

I would not argue with that from a generalist standpoint. I agree for the most part. Where I have concerns is that the subject matter (chem-weps) often would invite those with a maturity level of a child and then we would be presenting the discussion for attack on the grounds that it would not be a chemestry discourse but a "how-to" discussion for anyone with an interest (thus, a disturbed individual, an idiot, etc).
My point here is similar to gun-control agruments in that it is obvious that the person pulls the trigger but the gun (the object) receives blame for an attack because it "was available". We hear those points of wiew all the time and providing information invites that response (knowlege is power)....and I just don't want to see the people here get any heat for ANY DISCUSSION in science. But let's face it; it happens all too frequently. Princiipally due to that mind-set (i.e. the object or subject is to blame). There are some very narrow minded activists in this world.
Can you imagine blowing up a building that does life-saving research because animals are involved? It happens all the time. Can you imagine how the media could "pump-up the storyline" of this discussion board if it would further a politician's agenda?
Do a "Google" on the "Fienstein Bill, Bombmaking information on the web" and let me know what you think. It will possibly get you a bit angry....but it's very real and strongly supported.

Sauron - 28-12-2006 at 05:44

Scientific inquiry should be free.

Maybe expensive but untrammelled.

The Nanny State should be resisted as much as Big Brother.

Lest we forget, how many public and university libraries are there? Many many yet not enough. Should censors be rifling through the journals and the books ripping out politically incorrect knowledge? As if there was such a thing!

Personally I find energetics chemistry fascinating but am not motivated to actually make any. Been there, done that.

Military chemistry, fascinating. That does not mean I want to make chemical weapons. The more you know about them the less you ever would want to be anywhere near them. There are quite a few Edgewood scientists whose vervous systems are a mess because of long term exposure to agents that were at levels that for many years were considered harmless. Turns out otherwise.

But on paper, quite fascinating.

The drugs thing, personally I am sick to death of it, and grit my teeth every time I see a post about an amphetamine precursor etc etc BUT I am not about to advocate telling another chemist what to investigate. Once upon a time heroin was a Bayer cold remedy, cocaine was a soft drink ingredient. The governments passed out amphetamiones to troops in wartime. Who's to say what perfectly respectable pharmaceutical of today might not be tomorrow's Schedule One abuse drug? PCP was developed as a therapeutic agent by Eli Lilly. Then the military spent years testing its potential for use as a chemical weapon (failed.) It didn't become a street drug till after that, maybe because of that.

What I REALLY hate is being told by some mindless Nanny State bureaucrat that I can't have a perfectly legitimate solvent or reagent or even certain elements. That's an insult to human ingenuity. And it's arbitrary and ineffectual. That is when I crack a reference book and start planning a preparation.

roamingnome - 28-12-2006 at 12:04

interestng rant Sauron

if big brother is the USA who is the Nanny State? china?

not everyone can fit into the mold.... like Vincent van Gogh sometimes we have to drink absinthe, cut off our ear, and paint something that will go on beyond ourself....

yes cutting your ear off is foolish and absinthe probably aint good for ya either....
what should i do, work on my 401K and play golf when im sixy till i die a quite little death

shoot poor me some absinthe

not that there is anything wrong with golf mind you....

Sauron - 28-12-2006 at 13:01

Interesting that you would bring up absinthe. I'll get back to that in a moment.

Many governments are Big Brother not only the US. Many governments are Nanny States and treat their citizens like children in need of comprehensive protection. For example the EU tramples on free speech in certain areas (arguably with some justification) but much more so than does the US. The UK and its pervasive use of CCTV surveillance is definitely turning into Big Brother even down to the infamous telescreens of Orwell's nightmare dystopia.

Back to absinthe. I used to make absinthe, I used to drink absinthe, and I know something about the subject. I almost started making it commercially, formed a company to do it, then opted out. My former partner continued with the project and now rents one of the remaining two absinthe distilleries in France in Pontarlier near the Swiss Jura, that is the original home of absinthe. He makes Jade absinthe there, which is distributed by Liqueurs de France in the UK, to worldwide.

If you go to the Oxford University chemistry Dept. website you can find a page in the Molecule of the Month section called Absinthe & Thujone. I am the author of that page. I am told that it is their most popular webpage.

You may or may not know that absinthe is once again perfectly legal in the EU and also in Switzerland. Just about the only place that still bans it is USA and that is merely the US FDA being obstinate.

Thujone is the supposedly psychoactive component of wormwood. (Artemisia absinthium) and is a monoterpene closely related to camphor and menthol. The simple fact is that thujone does not drive anyone mad. It is the principle component of the culinary spice sage's essential oil. Sage does not make us crazy. It is the principle component of red and white cedar oil. Anyway there is not much thujone in absinthe and never was. The main herbal component of absinthe is anise while wormwood is a relatively minor part of the mix. There's more fennel in there than wormwood. Absinthe is made much in the same manner as gin, but the steep or maceration is done at high proof and the mixture is distilled with the herbs still in the pot. A delicate coloration step with more herbs balances the flavor and bouquet and provides the famous peridot green color. That is how authentic absinthe is made, from only herbs, grape alcohol and water.

The problem was that in the 19th and very early 20th century absinthe became so popular and so profitable that besides the 3-4 major distillers like Pernod and Berg who made real absinthe there arose scores of slipshod imitators who did not know or care how to make the real absinthe. They used chemicals to imitate the properties of genuine absinthe. For example they sometimes used aniline green dyes to color the drink or even Paris green rat poison (copper acetoarsenate.) They used antimony compounds to make the liquor cloud when diluted with water. Now what do you think the health effects were of that sort of chemical soup? And in a typical alcohol content of 72 degree -- 144 proof.

Old Vincent by the way was barking mad and had a pica for turpentine (a-pinene mostly)

Anyway politics reared its head. The wine industry, dormant since the phylloxera blight of the mid 1800s, had recovered and wanted their customers back, who by then had been drinking absinthe in place of wine for 50 years. They joined forces with the church based temperance movement and lobbied to ban absinthe and all other herbal liquors. They suborned the press, notably polemicist Emile Zola, to pamphleteer against absinthe. In the buildup to the World War the French military jumped on the bandwagon, they wanted to sober their cannon fodder up so they could go kill Germans with a clear head. By 1915 absinthe was banned in many countries. Not all. Spain never banned it. The UK never banned it. Pernod moved to Terragona, Spain and continued to make absinthe until 1957.

Much of the culture and artistic and literary history of the Belle Epoch is steeped in absinthe, For a highly ideaolized glimpse see Moulin Rouge (the recent musical film), or Johnny Depp's From Hell. Or the absinthe scene in Dracula. The real absinthe is a refined floral drink that is without peer. (Pastis is a pale imitator, mixed from oils and not distilled at all.)

Sadly I can no longer drink due to diabetes and hypertension but, I have my memories of la Fee Verte. (The Green Fairy.)

roamingnome - 28-12-2006 at 15:07

Wow, I love when I accidentally mention the right word to the right person. Of all the people in the whole world to mention that word to.

See Ive started to still up alcohol for fuel purposes, but im working on a good whiskey recipe on the side. Ive wanted to make some absinthe mainly because its illegal is the USA. Hahaha go figure… I have a feeling it will just make me puke though, it appears that alcohol is the “effect” of the drink then…. Which makes me puke usually…

But after reading your page at oxford it appears the over all effect is the presentation and boutique. The act, the pomp, maybye a bit of circumstance…

Sauron - 28-12-2006 at 19:45

The main "active" component in absinthe is not thujone but anethole, q.v. Oil of anise.

The subject is OT in this thread, and except in general terms I am constrained by agreement with my former partner from giving his secrets away. He has spent years collecting unopened bottles of well preserved century old absinthe. He has reverse engineered the very best of them using GC-MS on aliquots taken by syringe through the cork and lead seal. About 9 years of research altogether. He is one of us, a chemist, also an envirnmental microbiologist working in remediation. He lives in New Orleans. If you Google on Jade absinthe you will read about his Edouard and Nouvelle Orleans labels. IMO the finest and by far most absolutely authentic absinthes the world has seen for at least 50 years since Pernod went out of business. (The modern conglomerate Pernod-Ricard bought the Pernod name a decade later but they know little about making absinthe. They are european Big Liquor.

absinthe

Magpie - 1-1-2007 at 23:44

Sauron, I thought you might enjoy hearing that your former partner and his absinthe distillery (Combier) were shown on the History channel tonight. His name was Breaux. He talked about the history of absinthe and his reverse engineering of the old recipes. He gave a plant tour showing how he makes Jade absinthe. He also showed how it is properly drunk using the double glass with the ice on top. Very nice presentation.

Sauron - 2-1-2007 at 01:21

Thanks Magpie for calling that to my attention. I don't bother with cable TV in Thailand. It's available but boring.

Ted Breaux is a genius at publicity. He is also a vert personable fellow who strongly resembles Brad Pitt or Val Kilmer.

For which I hate him.

Just kidding.

BTW I am the one who named Jade Absinthe, while Ted picked the names of the specific variations, Edouard (after Edouard Pernod) and Nouvelle Orleans (for our mutual home town.)

I wish him all success.

[Edited on 2-1-2007 by Sauron]

Sauron - 2-1-2007 at 02:01

Back to the topic of politically incorrect chemistry:

I'd like to reiterate that there is no such thing as good chemistry vs evil chemistry, in the abstract. Just as explosives can be applied for good or ill, and almost all drugs of abuse have legitimate applications as well, if only in research in some instances, so also is it true that "chemical weapons" have their little publicized up side.

Cancer chemotherapy is an application of mustard vesicants to the selective destruction of tumors. Cancer chemo compounds are all or almost all derivatives of, or variations on nitrogen mustards (HN3 etc) not to be confused with hydrazoic acid. HN3 is the chlorinated form of triethanolamine.

DFP, an early nerve agent, is a standard tool in opthamology.

Esters of 3-quinuclidinol are important pharmacologic agents while BZ itself (renamed QCB) is a niche tool in psychopharmacology.

It's an ill wind indeed that blows no good.

The crimes against humanity associated with CW, and in some cases crimes against the environment and the very human genome, were committed not by individuals or by terrorists but by GOVERNMENTS who perverted science to their own ends.

So the proposition that the science itself is now beyond the Pale, is simply Thought Control and soon to be followed by the Thought Police.

What's next, Fahrenheit 451 and burning books?

Let me cite some examples of the utter absurdity this has already led us into:

The CWC bans pinacolyl alcohol and the Australia Group would like to extend that to pinacol and ponacolone.

Pinacolyl alcohol is the alcohol portion of the chemical agent GD (Soman).

Now, pinacolyl alcohol is prepared by the reduction of pinacolone, and pinacolone is the rearrangement product of pinacol and pinacol is prepared by the reduction, usually with Al-Hg (aluminum amalgam) in ethanol, of acetone.

The prep of pinacol and the conduct of the pinacolone rearrangement used to be very very ubiquitous instructional lab procedures. They are covered in Vogel.

Bear in mind that the other major nerve agents also have alcohol moieties. GA and VX have ethanol while Sarin (GB) has 2-propanol.

So why ban pinacolyl alcohol and not ban ethanol, or isopropanol?

Well, those have other uses while pinacolyl alcohol has few if any other uses. So it was easy for the member nations to agree on.

But pinacolyl alcohol is in and of itself HARMLESS in exactly the same way that rubbing alcohol (isopropyl) is harmless. The "business end" of the agents is the alkylphosphonate (or phosphorlamine) part.

What rubbish.

Furthermore, how do you effectively ban something that is facily prepared from nail varnish remover (acetone) by treatment with aluminum foil that has been brushed with a wee bit of HgCl2? Making pinacol>pinacolone>pinacolyl alcohol is child's play.

You see the absurdities?

There are many others.

Ever heard of the red tide? Off the pacific northwest coast, periodically there's a bloom of a specific dinoflagellate (algae) which produce a toxin called saxitoxin. The saxitoxin accululates in certain shellfish, and sometimes people who east the shellfish are poisoned. A certain well known alphabet soup agency had its technical services division study this toxin. They laboriously obtained it in pure form. AFAIK it was never used and it was banned by that agency's director in the 1970s.

Well, CWC has saxitoxin on its list.

There's a small company in Canada which developed a useful test kit to determine the presence of saxitoxin in mollusks in order to prevent any more outbreaks of shellfish poisoning in seafood restaurants.

The kits included an infinitesmal amount of saxitoxin to be used as an internal standard. The kits could have and would have saved who knows how many human lives?

CWC BANNED THE TEST KITS.

fajahadita - 13-1-2007 at 07:18

Illegal drugs are just active substances with a pharmaceutical affect. What those evil connotations to illegal drugs do is make it harder for the pharmacists to do real research on basic active structures. Think about legal drugs like dihydroergotamine. By making the processes and the natural sources of these substances taboo, power is taken away from the individual researcher and given to the corporations. It says "Hey, you can play with whatever chemicals you want as long as you do it under the supervision of the pharmaceutical industry". Then, any new drug or chemical synthesized is then property of the company the chemist works for.

All chemical legislation targets home chemists, both drug makers and legitamite scientific researchers. I just don't understand why we can't just let people do drugs. They're usually only hurting themselves.

Sauron - 13-1-2007 at 07:30

Academic and pharmaceutical chemists have little or no trouble obtaining licenses to work with controlled substances. A good friend of mine is a professor of biochemistry at a medical school in Switzerland and he spends a fair amount of time filling out paperwork so that his department can buy for example piperidine to use as deprotecting reagent for Fmoc strategy peptide synthesis. They use maybe 50 liters a year. The Swiss govt does not say "no" they just want assurances that the material won't be diverted to making phencyclidine (for example.)

In the USA most every MD has a DEA number. So does every pharmacist. The pharm companies have them, academic labs have them if they need to buy reagents that are controlled, or study substances that are controlled.

Caught in the middle are the "home chemists" who can't qualify for lack of licensable facilities, credentials, or qualifications. You and I agree that this is a shame.

Sandmeyer - 13-1-2007 at 07:38

One of the few researches in the US that has the DEA permit to work with schedule 1 drugs is David Nichols, so it is simply not true that it is easy to get the permit, for Strassman it took several painstaiking years to get the permit to work with DMT on adult volonteers. Admittedly I have no idea how it is with controlled substances that are not schedule 1, maybe it is easier but I doubt it is easy, at least if you are in the USA.

[Edited on 13-1-2007 by Sandmeyer]

Sauron - 13-1-2007 at 08:27

DEA does not regulate human trials of anything, that is an entirely different regulatory framework

And it applies to substances that are not and have never been DEA scheduled.

I am not in life sciences, I am not sure where that authority resides, whether it is at NIH Bethesda, or the NRC, NAS or what. I believe it is a committee. Anyone have the details?

ANYWAY there are myriads of sorts of research that do not involve human trials. There's in vitro. There's animal studies. There's development of novel analytical assays and protocols. The list could go on and on. The DEA is only involved in licensing the possession, or manufacture, of scheduled substances, their storage and secure transport, accounting, and counterdiversion. I doubt that any serious university or institutional or pharm compny R&D lab gets turned down.

After all, doesn't Merck still get all the ecgonine from Coca Cola Co. after it is extracted from the raw syrup? Merck processes that into pharm grade cocaine. The entire US end of the process under DEA control no doubt from import to processing to export. Or am I out of date on this?

[Edited on 13-1-2007 by Sauron]

[Edited on 13-1-2007 by Sauron]

[Edited on 13-1-2007 by Sauron]

tnhrbtnhb - 13-1-2007 at 09:00

Coca-cola doesn't have anything to do with cocaine or cocao anymore, and hasn't since it stopped putting cocaine in it's products

[Edited on 13-1-2007 by tnhrbtnhb]

[Edited on 13-1-2007 by tnhrbtnhb]

Sauron - 13-1-2007 at 09:24

I think you are ill informed.

It is precisely when Coca Cola Co. stopped leaving the cocaine and its immediate precursors the ecgonines in their syrup, that they started removing it, and supplying it to E.Merck to be used to make medical and dental pharmaceutical cocaine. I believe it is still done that way today, because it is far cheaper than the total synthetic routes which suffer from vast inefficiencies due to multiple chiral centers and a largish number of undesirable isomers that must be removed with difficulty by special techniques.

And it is coca extract not cocoa.

Cocaine still has medical and dental uses and where do you think it comes from?

Rosco Bodine - 13-1-2007 at 10:56

I have seen cocaine containing antiseptic solution used in recent time as an anesthetizing wound cleaning irrigant and wash used immediately before suturing
gashes closed on conscious pediatric patients .

I know that is what it was because I read the bottle
label , and the doctor mentioned it also .....so cocaine most definitely has legitimate uses . It is possible too
that there may be tolerance for cocaine as a local in dental procedures for some patients that may have
difficulty with some of the synthetic analogues . Eye surgery is another legitimate use for cocaine .

Sauron - 13-1-2007 at 11:10

All that abour Merck was an aside, my point was that licensed (by DEA) legitimate uses do exist even for Schd 1 stuff. Some anyway. What schedule is Ketimine on? It's still a common veterinary anaethetic. I am not so sure about phencyclidine. Carfentanyl is used in Africa and Asia to take down rogue elephants. I know that for a fact because we have this problem sometimes, and a decade or so ago I was agent for the South African arms industry here, and the Thai Police wanted a nonlethal system because there was a huge public outcry when they shot a rogue elephant to death even though he had just killed several people. So I approached the RSA folks and they came up with the carfentanyl answer.

(And when the Russians used the same stuff against the Chechen rebels in the movie theatre I figured out what they were using about three days before CNN did.)

Fleaker - 13-1-2007 at 21:56

@Sauron: The first few pages of your Alfa Aesar or Sigma Aldrich catalog will tell you what schedule it is. All of their ''listed'' products are in fact listed there as to which class they belong in.

Sauron - 13-1-2007 at 22:03

Thanks. My hardcopy Alfa Aesar and Aldrich are 12 years old and do not contain such a list. I generally search them online now, but, I will request current catalogs and retire the old ones to Chemical Heaven.

The DEA schedules are also online. So are the Canadian and the EU and the UN. All that used to be posted on Rhodium too.