| Pages:
1
..
9
10
11
12 |
Σldritch
Hazard to Others
Posts: 310
Registered: 22-3-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
We are supposed to be mad scientists but scientists none than less, right? Neither philosophy nor morals are scientific. Questioning the nature of
political entities through those models is meaningless. Do not ask if states are good or bad but ask why do states exist at all? And maybe we should
do that in another thread, not that i am any less guilty.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Ph.D. is a Latin abbreviation meaning "doctor of philosophy".....
Latin, Philosophiae Doctor...or Dr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy
Philosophy - literally, "Love of Wisdom" , synonyms are Thinking, Thought, Reasoning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
Doctor - Latin, literally, "teacher"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_(title)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorate
"Doctor" is also originally a synonym for "master" as used by an apprentice student
Philosophy of Science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
"Scientism"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
Logical Positivism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
Science - from Latin, scientia - literally, "knowledge"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Demarcation Problem - What is or isn't "science"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem
Uh oh, here is another one that knows more than they should know, and more than they can know, so what shall we do with this one? 
[Edited on 5/9/2018 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
User13579
Harmless
Posts: 14
Registered: 27-2-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Have you heard of the term 'natural philosophy'? The word 'scientist' is quite a recent invention -- in fact it was proposed as a joke by a natural
philosopher! Philosophy of nature, you see? Scientific theories, after all, are not facts per se, but evolving philosophies which are continually
being developed through experimental enquiry. In my worldview nothing can be outside of nature, so certainly human morals could be subjected to the
same experimental philosophic enquiry. In fact they are in deed, but I can't remember the name of the field. 'Ethology' comes to mind but I think
that's an outdated term.
[Edited on 9-5-2018 by User13579]
[Edited on 9-5-2018 by User13579]
[Edited on 9-5-2018 by User13579]
|
|
|
Σldritch
Hazard to Others
Posts: 310
Registered: 22-3-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It seems we are not talking about the same thing, science to me is a model to make other models which is based on some fundamental assumptions which
are (if i can remember correctly):
1. The universe is real.
2. We can affect the universe.
3. The universe has predictable behavior.
From these assumptions we can deduce other things and create better scientific models, the culmination of which is modern science. Philosophy can be
considered a early scientific meta model. Theoretically there should be some line of reasoning and experiments that lead to our current models but in
reality it is more messy as people are not "perfect". Where the word comes from does not really matter. Of course science can mean different things to
different people which you have proven very well though also very redundantly.
The point is: approach politics as a any other problem. Do not make dubious assumptions. What i wanted you to do was research political science for
your self because i think people are easier to convince if they research their own sources. Especially politics because it is misleading by nature.
You seem to have no such reservations though so ill just recommend you De Mesquita's books on politics.
Considering the scientific theory's roots, would not a philosophy forum be fitting? If there is any place on the internet which could have civilized
discussion about such topics it should be here. It is too bad political science is so hard to discuss, it is such an interesting subject.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Where any word comes from assuredly does matter.
Actual "science" has much more depth and a much broader meaning than the constrained marginal definition that is a common error of many who
incorrectly assert what is actually "scientism" (that is a corrupted Newspeak definition of science) is instead supposed to be "science", however what
is actual science has a much broader meaning as valued practical "knowledge".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology
Scientific language makes heavy usage of Latin, and to a lesser extent Greek.
Liberty is a derivative of Latin, liber - "free"
Being free from despotic oppression by government is an important aspect of liberty, to pursue science or art or any endeavor.
To recognize and identify correctly that science or any other pursuit of LIBERTY is being obstructed or prohibited by tyrannical and despotic
government as part of some grand "social engineering" that DEVALUES liberty for ALL in order to "improve security".....
is NOT "politics".....but is simply stating what is the FACT being observed.
Those who value "cultural diversity" and "political correctness" as some kind of utopianist "enlightenment" to be prioritized and prized so highly
that a great LOSS of individual LIBERTY is simply the FAIR PRICE that must be PAID BY ALL in order to facilitate and accommodate what is a truly
INCREDIBLE and PREPOSTEROUS "theory" of utopianist social engineers who literally "bet the farm" that mutually exclusive ideologies can be FORCED to
"coexist" .....will happily FORFEIT all of their individual LIBERTY to THE STATE as their "price to be paid" and "ethical duty" to "society".
Those "good citizens" of THE NEW WORLD ORDER will become good little drones in the hive mind collective of PC clones who no longer are able to
exercise free thought or free action, because
they have become sycophant adherents in the global PC cult and
every LIE it teaches has become adopted by the BRAINWASHED as their own noblest VIRTUE and HIGHEST TRUTH.
That is the "cultural hegemony" that Antonio Gramsci identified. It is also the Orwellian FACT that is too much upon the entire world as a dystopian
reality in the present time. The mechanism by which this dystopianism has been implemented is PROPAGANDA which has instead of being correctly
identified as advocacy has been misidentified as "knowledge". So much of what too many people "think they know" is pure propaganda they have
incorrectly counted as being knowledge. After all, it is what they were "taught" and "learned" well to "believe", without ever testing or confirming
what was complete propaganda and was adopted as their "ethic".
Those who DO NOT accept such "social engineering" are refuseniks who are the individuals who more highly value LIBERTY and refuse to comply with the
COLLECTIVE. Any authentic virtue is theirs. Such refuseniks are the PATRIOTS and the honorable men.
Statists and their sycophant hive mind following are actual CRIMINALS of a sort that have been around since the beginning of the world, having the
same grand utopianist schemes which have been burned down every time they appear throughout history.
[Edited on 5/10/2018 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
BJ68
Hazard to Others
Posts: 105
Registered: 12-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
New Draft: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/wh...
Please read page 19 number 6 and 7 and have the new list in mind: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/wh...
Updated Links for the outlook:
CoRAP
https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/evaluation/c...
RMOA
https://echa.europa.eu/understandng-rmoa
PACT
https://echa.europa.eu/pact
bj68
|
|
|
Herr Haber
International Hazard
Posts: 1236
Registered: 29-1-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It's time to stop being a member of the general public and make a business.
I suppose a Youtube channel about science and experimentations would be enough. The licenses for the public will certainly be even harder to obtain
than in the UK.
|
|
|
BJ68
Hazard to Others
Posts: 105
Registered: 12-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Herr Haber  | It's time to stop being a member of the general public and make a business.
I suppose a Youtube channel about science and experimentations would be enough. The licenses for the public will certainly be even harder to obtain
than in the UK. |
Can be a solution, but with a business, the question is, what restrictions will be made from the authorities?
E.g. storage of chemicals or that your equipment is "state-of-the-art" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art#Tort_liabilit... which is mostly not the case, if you use "used" equipment.
I know from some chemistry boards people with home laboratories which are very nicely equipped, they have GC, HPLC, fume hood, fire proof storing
cabinets and other stuff. But none of that labs will be approved from the authorities, if one of that guys registers a business, because it is not
"state of the art".
The other point is that if you have a business the whole REACH-Complex and here in Germany TRGS https://www.baua.de/EN/Service/Legislative-texts-and-technic... kicks in....included inspections from TÜV, fire police, factory inspectorate
(Gewerbeaufsichtsamt). Will be a difficult way and honestly I have my doubts that authorities will accept this and not to try to find reasons to shut
down the business forcefully, because for them this is a red rag.
bj68
|
|
|
Herr Haber
International Hazard
Posts: 1236
Registered: 29-1-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
True, but I am interested in the status of "independant researcher" which is a blanket word here.
I've been looking and looking for a catch and found none.
Maybe other countries have similar status.
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8027
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
If these new regulations become active, then of course they are quite annoying for doing experiments, but they do not make things impossible. Most
annoying is the limit of 15% H2SO4. For many experiments, however, this concentration is OK, and if you need higher concentrations for a specific
experiment you can boil down a little of the acid and increase its concentration. You can even go to 90+ % concentration if you have good pyrex
glassware. By boiling down 100 ml of acid you can make nearly 10 ml of such concentrated acid.
These rules prevent someone making large amounts of explosives from gallons of 96% H2SO4 or 65% HNO3, but they still allow me to do experiments on a
small scale (milliliters) with concentrated acids because I can make these from the dilute acid. Making a little concentrated HNO3 is possible from
boiled down H2SO4 and e.g. KNO3.
The only really difficult thing is nitromethane. We should accept that experimenting with this will be beyond reach of most home chemists.
Of course, I would prefer the system they use in the US, where people can buy certain chemicals (like KClO3 or KClO4), but only limited quantities
(IIRC max. 1 lb per year). If limits of e.g. max. 1 liter per year would be used for the concentrated acids, then things would be easier for genuine
hobbyists, but as I said above, the regulations do not make experimenting impossible, they only make it less convenient. A really determined hobbyist
does not stop experimenting 
I have a double feeling with this kind of regulations. In an ideal world we would not need such things, but recent history has proven that
unfortunately there are mad people around who use all kinds of materials for killing people. If a certain regulation makes this very hard or
impossible, then that is a good thing. Unfortunately there is some collateral damage in the sense that people who use these materials for legit
purposes are affected as well and experience inconveniences in doing what they like.
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1379
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
Considering that the concentration of sulphuric acid in lead-acid batteries is around 30% (w/w), a 15% limit is surprising. Anyone with a car would be
in violation. The previous limit was 40% IIRC, which made more sense in that respect.
I find the 4% limit on nitric acid especially inconvenient myself.
I enjoy refining precious metals, and 4% is useless for dissolving base metals or making aqua regia. I now have resort to alternatives, which result
in much more (toxic) waste and higher expenses.
As Woelen says, an annual limit on any chemical seems like a great system. It restricts access to dangerous quantities of certain chemicals, yet
allows for smal scale experimentation. But the EU seems to have chosen this path, it expect it will be extremely difficult to accomodate this in
future legislation.
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
BJ68
Hazard to Others
Posts: 105
Registered: 12-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The problem with boiling down or concentration of weak acids, is the fact, that (so far I see) there is no exceptional regulation for small amounts
and according to the new draft there should made no exemption see:
| Quote: | (6)Members of the general public should not be able to acquire,
introduce, possess or use those explosives precursors at concentrations at or above certain limit values. However, it is appropriate to
provide for members of the general public to be able to acquire, introduce, possess or use some explosives precursors above that concentration limit
for legitimate purposes, only if they hold a licence to do so.
(7) Licences may only be provided for substances in concentrations not exceeding the upper limit set by this Regulation. Above that
upper limit, the risk in relation to the illicit manufacture of explosives outweighs the negligible legitimate use by the general public of these
explosives precursors, for whom alternatives or lower concentrations can achieve the same effect.
|
That means your lab book, your notes and even your products can used against you...
See how it works e.g. in Austria:
| Quote: | | Members of the general public are not allowed to acquire, introduce, possess or use those explosives precursors at concentrations above the limit
values. |
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/wh...
If you get caught in Austria the fine will be minimum 500 Euro and the items (plus equipment) will be sized and destroyed.
Edit: and if you have a firearm licence (or other licences), you should think twice....
BJ68
[Edited on 27-5-2019 by BJ68]
[Edited on 27-5-2019 by BJ68]
[Edited on 27-5-2019 by BJ68]
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8027
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
I boil down small quantities and do experiments on a ml-scale. Do you really think that someone, who makes 10 ml or so of concentrated acid from
standard available materials and uses that up in small-scale experiments will get caught by police?
Similarly, I made a small quantity of KClO3 from KCl by means of electrolysis (see my webpage on a miniature chlorate cell, useful for making
chlorates on a mini-scale of tens of grams on a desk, not suitable for making kilos of it). I still have some 40 grams around of this.
I also have HClO4 and NH4ClO4, which can be purchased, although they are expensive. When I use these in experiments, such as making transition metal
salts with a non-coordinating counter-ion, then I do not throw away the waste. I add some KCl and then KClO4 precipitates, almost quantitatively. It's
a pity to discard the precious perchlorate, hence my recycling. It also is better for the environment to give the waste a second life, and it can be
used for some little fun demos. At the moment I think I have a few tens of grams of recycled KClO4.
I recycle quite a few chemicals, giving reagents a second life in non-critical but funny demos, e.g. for kids, in order to make them fascinated about
the subject of science and technology.
[Edited on 27-5-19 by woelen]
|
|
|
BJ68
Hazard to Others
Posts: 105
Registered: 12-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by woelen | I boil down small quantities and do experiments on a ml-scale. Do you really think that someone, who makes 10 ml or so of concentrated acid from
standard available materials and uses that up in small-scale experiments will get caught by police?
Similarly, I made a small quantity of KClO3 from KCl by means of electrolysis (see my webpage on a miniature chlorate cell, useful for making
chlorates on a mini-scale of tens of grams on a desk, not suitable for making kilos of it). I still have some 40 grams around of this.
[Edited on 27-5-19 by woelen] |
Directly not, if you think at "caught in the act", but if you get a "home visit" with search warrant e.g. because you triggered a red flag with some
chemical orders and they find nothing, then it´s very likely that they use this things to justify the search warrant otherwise they have to pay
compensation.
Know one case in Germany, where the guy got a house search. because he had ordered HF over the internet. They found nothing illegal, but they insisted
to scan his computer for pirated material (illegal software) to get some accidental discoveries, which can be prosecuted in Germany.
The other point is, that I have a bad feeling with this lists (and the other things REACH and Co.), because they will be expanded and the supply of
chemicals more and more restricted for the general public and this tendency has to be combated.
bj68
|
|
|
Schleimsäure
Hazard to Others
Posts: 156
Registered: 31-8-2014
Location: good ole Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: Probably
|
|
With the burocrats in Brussels in 10 years you will need a license to buy table salt.
|
|
|
Pumukli
National Hazard
Posts: 708
Registered: 2-3-2014
Location: EU
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
"this tendency has to be combated"
Yeah.
And who will do the combatting and how? 
|
|
|
Herr Haber
International Hazard
Posts: 1236
Registered: 29-1-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
|
|
|
hiperion42
Hazard to Self
Posts: 75
Registered: 24-8-2009
Location: european mainland
Member Is Offline
Mood: overwhelmed
|
|
The draft was dated 04/2018 and it would apply 1 year after publication.
Any guess on the effective implementation timeline?
greetings
[Edited on 6-10-2019 by hiperion42]
.....ejuu....................................................................Ffg..............................g.............
|
|
|
BJ68
Hazard to Others
Posts: 105
Registered: 12-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
At least the german authorities made a complete ban for all precursor chemicals, WITHOUT the option for private citizens to get a permit to use higher
concentrations which are called "3. Upper limit value for the purpose of licensing under Article 5(3)". That means for nitric acid the highest
concentration is 3%, for sulfuric acid 15%.....see "2. Limit value" in
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
Here are the two drafts in german:
http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/19/235/1923565.pdf
Addition changes: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/19/241/1924122.pdf
The "interesting" § is §13....in short: The preparation, use, possession of the chemicals with higher concentrations as mentioned in Point "2. Limit
value" can be penalized with financial penalty or imprisonment up to 3 years.
bj68
|
|
|
valeg96
Hazard to Others
Posts: 254
Registered: 6-4-2014
Location: Italy
Member Is Offline
Mood: Moodless
|
|
The next step is going to be a EU-wide ban on compounds with free chlorine, like NaClO, Ca(ClO)2, ClO2 and so on. I can bet my ass on that; bleach is
already virtually impossible to find in Germany.
After all, you can make chlorine bombs with those.
Funny thing is, a good chemist could probably turn anything into a dangerous device. Just quietly blow a bunch of chromatography silica gel into a
building's ventilation system and enjoy everyone getting lung cancer after 30 years. Will they ban sand for personal use? I guess it's going to be
hard to recall all european beaches before 01/01/2030.
[Edited on 28-12-2020 by valeg96]
|
|
|
dawt
Hazard to Self
Posts: 74
Registered: 9-5-2016
Location: EU
Member Is Offline
Mood: fluorescent
|
|
Shit.
|
|
|
teodor
National Hazard
Posts: 924
Registered: 28-6-2019
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
|
|
What I don't see and what I expect to see in the documents is reference to some analysis how this ban can impact society. They say "we eliminate such
and such dangers" and I can find references to actual cases of terrorism if I have a patience/use a search and follow links. It is good. But it is
"pros" section. Where is "cons" section in the analysis? Of course everybody will vote to support "pros" if he don't see any "cons".
And it looks unprofessional like the people who made the document have no idea what is it about.
What I see is just some trend to ban chemicals . By some reason they like to ban chemicals. Everybody respect you if you ban. You don't know what to
do with terrorism in the country but surely you know that people don't need any chemicals.
[Edited on 30-12-2020 by teodor]
|
|
|
BJ68
Hazard to Others
Posts: 105
Registered: 12-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It´s very easy....please read (7) in https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
which notes: [...]For some restricted explosives precursors at concentrations above the limit values provided for in this Regulation, there exists no
legitimate use by members of the general public.[...]
But e.g. in the book "Colouring Bronzing and Patination of Metals A Manual For Fine Metalworkers, Sculptors And Designers" you fill find recipes
which are using potassium/sodium chlorate, ammonium nitrate, hydrigen peroxide for this purpose.....
So the phrase "there exists no legitimate use by members of the general public" is simply a lie.....and if you take ohther things etching of copper or
making silver nitrate for photography you need concentrated acids and that is a legitimate use for the chemicals....even for members of the general
public.....
|
|
|
valeg96
Hazard to Others
Posts: 254
Registered: 6-4-2014
Location: Italy
Member Is Offline
Mood: Moodless
|
|
Since when the average bureucrat in Bruxelles is professional, competent and/or educated? Except for a few folks, most of them are elected among the
very same ignorant scum that fills our national parliaments.
The EU has brought us amazing environmental, food safety, work laws, stuff that many national governments would have never bothered to deal with (or,
think about the utter lack of workers' rights in the US compared to here). But also a load of bullcrap.
[Edited on 30-12-2020 by valeg96]
|
|
|
Fyndium
International Hazard
Posts: 1192
Registered: 12-7-2020
Location: Not in USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
Still, the restrictions are trivial to circumvent by simply getting a business number. I don't see this as a big deal as in most countries it should
be just filling out a single paper. I just guided a couple of friends getting one for their online gaming stuff.
Someone from Germany cited that they need some sort of business chamber approval, but I highly doubt that just getting a simple company with vat
number filing would need such a mess. Perhaps, distributing hazardous materials could need some special stuff, but at least in here it only concerns
the storage and handling of them, but the quantities are way beyond any reasonable measure to stress with. For sulfuric acid, for example, the limit
is 5 tons.
In UK, if you establish an official license for some sort of hazmat, unscheduled visits may result, but likely purchasing the stuff as company should
not be an issue without such licenses, as they concern the public.
And then there are these certain suppliers that can get you most anything in decent prices, probably only excluding pharmaceuticals and energetics.
There will be new grey market for these reagents for various uses, since they now command a much higher price.
[Edited on 30-12-2020 by Fyndium]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
9
10
11
12 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
