4-Stroke
Hazard to Self
Posts: 59
Registered: 20-4-2024
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Often Wrong, Never Unsure
|
|
Discussion of Chemical Weapons
Is the discussion about chemical weapons permitted here? Not their weaponization, but the hypothetical synthesis, toxicology, protection,
neutralization, etc.? I have seen threads about mustard gas, Novichok agents, phosgene, many different organophosphates, and other compounds, but I
just want to make sure that posting about this is allowed. In the rules section there are some restrictions about discussing "psychoactive
substances", but chemical agents are not mentioned, so I am just double-checking because I value my access to Sciencemadness.
Note: I am not planning to make any chemical weapons, and everything I might ask is purely because of my own curiosity, NOT because I
actually want to try any of it (that's why I'm asking). I can imagine myself performing a test-tube scale synthesis of chloroacetone, but making
actual lethal agents like phosgene or nerve gases just seems beyond stupid to me.
Ukrainium
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6335
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
Other mods may chip in. Thanks for the question.
We would draw the line at executable synthesis methods. Obviously no encouragement of synthesis by amateurs or within a commercial or official
context. We would also draw the line at anythjng but the broadest and most general dispersal mechanisms.
I for one would welcome a wholesome discussion on historical use, toxic effects, mechanisms of harm, relative ease of manufacture, resultant current
risks and so forth. I think there is good reason to be informed about such things. Ignorance is not bliss.
But it is a sensitive issue and there are ways that the discussion bould stray onto territory that is legally questionable or brings the board into
disrepute. Please wait until another couple of mods have offered their thoughts before starting anything. I know I have blind spots and I am sure to
have overlooked something. Know also that such a thread will be monitored closely and will be closed quickly if it starts to go sour.
|
|
|
teodor
National Hazard
Posts: 924
Registered: 28-6-2019
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
|
|
There are 2 sides.
One side is that my current interest in chemistry was started in 2018 by searching information about the Novichok agent. There are some movies like
"Inside Porton Down" and some interviews which were also influential, so they turned me from searching of some particular information about nerve
agents to study the whole chemistry.
But I remember 2 stories here when people who participated in discussions on this forum actually were gathering information with the purpose to poison
somebody.
So, please be aware that such people exist.
I prefer when discussion have a broader topic than just one substance. For example, the discussion which phosphororganic substances are poisonous and
which are not could be of general interest just because phosphorus could have an interesting chemistry beyond few compounds which are used to kill
people. And discussion which is concentrated only on one topic (killing people) I think is only for those who has more interest in something else than
in chemistry.
|
|
|
Sulaiman
International Hazard
Posts: 3723
Registered: 8-2-2015
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Member Is Offline
|
|
Just a couple of thoughts..
The only outcomes of your interests that I can see are....
Frustration due to inaccessibility of good data,
causing you to look where you should not
and receive visitors early one morning
or
satisfying your curiosity and, taking all precautions, carefully experiment,
causing you and/or others to be less than healthy,
and a chat with some less than friendly gentlemen.
I've heard that fishing is a pleasant hobby.....
PS I may be mirroring a little ...sorry
CAUTION : Hobby Chemist, not Professional or even Amateur
|
|
|
bnull
Hazard to Others
Posts: 478
Registered: 15-1-2024
Location: South of the border, wherever the border is.
Member Is Offline
Mood: "Ah, what the hell; it's Christmas!" - Carmine Lorenzo
|
|
Explosives have legitimate uses other than death and mutilation of targets (construction of tunnels and control of forest fires, for example), and so
are permitted here.
Psychoactive substances, their legality varying from country to country, are permitted here when the discussion is centered in their chemical
properties rather than psycho-physiological effects. For the chemical and psycho-physiological effects one has The Hive, which is archived at Erowid,
if I'm not mistaken, The Vespiary and the Shulgin stuff.
Radioactive substances are also permitted because (1) everything is radioactive, bananas and everything else, whether you like it or not, (2) the
minute quantities involved generally pose no risk to the experimenters or their neighbors, and (3) they have legitimate uses (smoke detectors and
thorium mantles, for example). A bonus is that the scale needed to process weapon-grade radioactive material is monumental and requires expertise,
which is not something a dime a dozen in a forum dedicated to amateur/hobby/home science.
Now, chemical weapons. Do they have legitimate uses? No. You don't kill cockroaches with Novichok, do you? What would you need mustard gas or lewisite
for? For the rats?
The discussion of chemical weapons and their synthesis and so on is, pending a reformulation of the rules, prohibited here. They are primarily
weapons, as their name say, and per the Mad Science Forum FAQ, section 2.1 (Board topics), under the heading "Miscellaneous":
| Quote: | | Certain topics are unwelcome no matter what section they are posted in. The discussion of criminal enterprises or weapons production is inappropriate.
|
The way the paragraph was worded allows the rule to encompass all kinds of weapons, not only the commonplace things that go bang and shoot bullets,
but all kinds of weapons. Since the production of these chemical agents (the whole majority have no legitimate uses, mind you) is also a criminal
enterprise, whether sponsored by a government or not, it is again prohibited. They are listed somewhere in the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons website. I suggest you check it out.
A discussion about what are the substances used in those color tests for nerve agents is permitted (many are acid-base indicators); a discussion about
how the nerve agents interact with the substances in the color tests is permitted; the discussion of a synthesis of a nerve agent with the intent to
verify the reactivity of the color tests, whether bought from a legit supplier or developed by the experimenter, is not permitted. In other words, you
can see the thing from without but not from within. It is safer for everyone this way.
I'm not the forum's in-house lawyer; this is simply how I see and interpret the rules, they're there for all to see. You can ask @Polverone directly if you haven't done it already, but I don't think he will change the rules.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
B. N. Ull
P.S.: Did you know that we have a Library?
|
|
|
teodor
National Hazard
Posts: 924
Registered: 28-6-2019
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
|
|
I like your position, @bnull, because it is quite clear and sharp. But can I suggest that some topics related to nerve agent chemistry is still could
be a subject of interest on this forum. Because if the knowledge will be limited to unedentified cryminals we, people who pretend that we understand
something from chemistry, will be in the position even not understanding that some new member trying to collect information and practical advice piece
by piece here to get, let say, the full synthesys of sarin (and it was the case several years ago), not saying unability to detect and prevent an
actual danger when somebody nearby is trying to make or use the toxic substance. So, everybody who want to be aware could be aware. But the discussion
should never simplify the goal of criminals. Pointing to the generic chemical topics and checking the intentions should be part of such discussion.
Also, we need to know who is who here and such discussion can immediately show this.
There are some particular topics here I am also interested in, like binary compounds, the technical ability to use them against people in a crowd, the
way of protection etc etc, but, let say, this is not what I will spend time to study by myself.
I know some amateur in our society with particular interest to toxins. And I know that it is just his topic of study. He even collects empty bottles
from poisons. And I am aware of some another member who tried to use a poison and this was prevented by our amateur members. But, you see, without
having the first kind (the people who are scientifically mad on poisons) we will unable to detect the secind kind.
[Edited on 27-11-2024 by teodor]
[Edited on 27-11-2024 by teodor]
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4619
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
I think bnull sums it up perfectly. There is generally no reason to produce compounds used as chemical weapons for any purpose other than to use them
as a weapon. A quick SciFinder search for reactions using sulfur mustard, for instance, turns up about 100 results, the majority of which are from
papers reporting ways to neutralize sulfur mustard or treat exposure to it. The remainder are syntheses of very niche molecules that are unlikely to
be of interest to amateur chemists. And that is for a compound that is actually plausibly synthetically useful in its own right (the related, but
significantly less hazardous nitrogen mustards have many synthetic uses). Other chemical weapons don't even have that going for them.
The bottom line is, discussion of the production of chemical weapons is off limits. Discussion of formulations/dispersal/usage of chemical weapons is
way off limits and also off topic. The possibility of niche legitimate uses does not outweigh the danger of making the information freely available to
people with nefarious intentions and potentially compromising the forum.
|
|
|
4-Stroke
Hazard to Self
Posts: 59
Registered: 20-4-2024
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Often Wrong, Never Unsure
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by teodor  | There are 2 sides.
One side is that my current interest in chemistry was started in 2018 by searching information about the Novichok agent. There are some movies like
"Inside Porton Down" and some interviews which were also influential, so they turned me from searching of some particular information about nerve
agents to study the whole chemistry.
But I remember 2 stories here when people who participated in discussions on this forum actually were gathering information with the purpose to poison
somebody.
So, please be aware that such people exist.
I prefer when discussion have a broader topic than just one substance. For example, the discussion which phosphororganic substances are poisonous and
which are not could be of general interest just because phosphorus could have an interesting chemistry beyond few compounds which are used to kill
people. And discussion which is concentrated only on one topic (killing people) I think is only for those who has more interest in something else than
in chemistry. |
Yes, exactly, some people (like me and you before) can simply be interested in chemical
agents, not the act of killing people (using CW's or otherwise). Those who actually gather information for the purpose of killing people shouldn't be
allowed to do that here, but nobody sane would do that (and especially admit to it on the internet!). Discussing chemical weapons and the discussion
of killing people are two very different things. Germany made 12,500 tons of tabun during WWII but never actually used it  .
| Quote: Originally posted by Sulaiman | The only outcomes of your interests that I can see are....
Frustration due to inaccessibility of good data,
causing you to look where you should not
and receive visitors early one morning
or
satisfying your curiosity and, taking all precautions, carefully experiment,
causing you and/or others to be less than healthy,
and a chat with some less than friendly gentlemen. |
You only get to talk to those gentleman if you actually
harmed someone, and if you harmed someone, you will get a chance to talk to them regardless of the method you used to harm people  .
(Also, what is that 'forbidden' source of information you're talking about?)
| Quote: Originally posted by bnull | | Explosives have legitimate uses other than death and mutilation of targets (construction of tunnels and control of forest fires, for example), and so
are permitted here. |
Yes, but who here is building tunnels or fighting forest fires?
| Quote: Originally posted by bnull | | Radioactive substances are also permitted because (1) everything is radioactive, bananas and everything else, whether you like it or not, (2) the
minute quantities involved generally pose no risk to the experimenters or their neighbors, and (3) they have legitimate uses (smoke detectors and
thorium mantles, for example). A bonus is that the scale needed to process weapon-grade radioactive material is monumental and requires expertise,
which is not something a dime a dozen in a forum dedicated to amateur/hobby/home science. |
Well everything is
also toxic if you eat enough of it. Nobody here is building thorium batteries or smoke detectors (usually they are disassembling them). And chemical
agents are the same: you need very significant amounts of resources to produce any 'useful' (if the goal is terrorism) amounts. If one has enough
resources, he can make both, weapons grade radioactive material or significant quantities of chemical agents, if he does not have the funds, he can
make neither weapons grade radioactive material not any significant quantities of chemical agents.
| Quote: Originally posted by bnull | | Now, chemical weapons. Do they have legitimate uses? No. You don't kill cockroaches with Novichok, do you? What would you need mustard gas or lewisite
for? For the rats? |
Nitrogen mustard is (or at least was) used for chemotherapy. Yes, of course nobody here
is going to perform chemotherapy using nitrogen mustard, but neither will anyone construct tunnels, fight forest fires, build thorium batteries...
| Quote: Originally posted by bnull | The discussion of chemical weapons and their synthesis and so on is, pending a reformulation of the rules, prohibited here. They are primarily
weapons, as their name say, and per the Mad Science Forum FAQ, section 2.1 (Board topics), under the heading "Miscellaneous":
| Quote: | | Certain topics are unwelcome no matter what section they are posted in. The discussion of criminal enterprises or weapons production is inappropriate.
|
The way the paragraph was worded allows the rule to encompass all kinds of weapons, not only the commonplace things that go bang and shoot bullets,
but all kinds of weapons. Since the production of these chemical agents (the whole majority have no legitimate uses, mind you) is also a criminal
enterprise, whether sponsored by a government or not, it is again prohibited. They are listed somewhere in the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons website. I suggest you check it out. |
It'll be a
shame if discussing such an interesting topic here gets banned. Chemical agents aren't necessarily "weapons", they become weapons when they are
weaponized (simply a bottle of a chemical agents isn't a weapon in itself), but I understand that the line when they become weapons is not very clear.
But I (and I don't think that anyone else on this forum) has discussed the weaponization of chemical agents. And in terms of legality, yes,
they aren't, but so are explosives (in most countries), toxins, psychoactive substances, in some cases radioactive substances and toxic
byproducts/reactants, but none of these are banned here, so why shouldn't we be able to discuss chemical agents here?
| Quote: Originally posted by bnull | A discussion about what are the substances used in those color tests for nerve agents is permitted (many are acid-base indicators); a discussion about
how the nerve agents interact with the substances in the color tests is permitted; the discussion of a synthesis of a nerve agent with the intent to
verify the reactivity of the color tests, whether bought from a legit supplier or developed by the experimenter, is not permitted. In other words, you
can see the thing from without but not from within. It is safer for everyone this way.
You can ask @Polverone directly if you haven't done it already, but I don't think he will change the rules. |
But why isn't it permitted? As I said, it makes no sense, especially if the questions are based on small-scale,
non-weaponization-oriented synthesis, or even just simply discussion.
I am of course nobody to decide the rules, but Polverone himself has contributed lots of very useful information on the E&W forum, so I hope that
he won't be against this.
Ukrainium
|
|
|
4-Stroke
Hazard to Self
Posts: 59
Registered: 20-4-2024
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Often Wrong, Never Unsure
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by teodor | I like your position, @bnull, because it is quite clear and sharp. But can I suggest that some topics related to nerve agent chemistry is still could
be a subject of interest on this forum. Because if the knowledge will be limited to unedentified cryminals we, people who pretend that we understand
something from chemistry, will be in the position even not understanding that some new member trying to collect information and practical advice piece
by piece here to get, let say, the full synthesys of sarin (and it was the case several years ago), not saying unability to detect and prevent an
actual danger when somebody nearby is trying to make or use the toxic substance. So, everybody who want to be aware could be aware. But the discussion
should never simplify the goal of criminals. Pointing to the generic chemical topics and checking the intentions should be part of such discussion.
Also, we need to know who is who here and such discussion can immediately show this.
There are some particular topics here I am also interested in, like binary compounds, the technical ability to use them against people in a crowd, the
way of protection etc etc, but, let say, this is not what I will spend time to study by myself.
I know some amateur in our society with particular interest to toxins. And I know that it is just his topic of study. He even collects empty bottles
from poisons. And I am aware of some another member who tried to use a poison and this was prevented by our amateur members. But, you see, without
having the first kind (the people who are scientifically mad on poisons) we will unable to detect the secind kind. |
I fully agree with this. The knowledge is available to those who look for it, and determined criminals will look for it and no doubt
find it. So we (the amateur 'scientists'-who have no criminal intent) shouldn't be banned from discussing something on which there is information
already available.
| Quote: Originally posted by Texium | I think bnull sums it up perfectly. There is generally no reason to produce compounds used as chemical weapons for any purpose other than to use them
as a weapon. A quick SciFinder search for reactions using sulfur mustard, for instance, turns up about 100 results, the majority of which are from
papers reporting ways to neutralize sulfur mustard or treat exposure to it. The remainder are syntheses of very niche molecules that are unlikely to
be of interest to amateur chemists. And that is for a compound that is actually plausibly synthetically useful in its own right (the related, but
significantly less hazardous nitrogen mustards have many synthetic uses). Other chemical weapons don't even have that going for them.
The bottom line is, discussion of the production of chemical weapons is off limits. Discussion of formulations/dispersal/usage of chemical weapons is
way off limits and also off topic. The possibility of niche legitimate uses does not outweigh the danger of making the information freely available to
people with nefarious intentions and potentially compromising the forum. |
Yes, the main usage of chemical
weapons is as weapons, but that doesn't mean that that's what it's going to be used for. Just like explosives, people here make them just for the
sake of making them. Very little of them have an actual, practical, purpose for making them. They just want to. Amateur science itself is about
making and doing different things, even though someone can make it better, faster, cheaper... So how are chemical agents so much different?
Also, I have a few questions if you don't mind:
1) So discussion of production of chemical weapons is forbidden, but is just simply discussion of chemical weapons in general allowed?
2) Is discussion of small scale synthesis (or just general discussion) of obscure and not well-known chemical agents allowed?
3) Is discussion of protection/antidotes from chemical weapons allowed?
Thanks.
Ukrainium
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4619
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by 4-Stroke | | Yes, the main usage of chemical weapons is as weapons, but that doesn't mean that that's what it's going to be used for. Just like explosives, people
here make them just for the sake of making them. Very little of them have an actual, practical, purpose for making them. They just want to. Amateur
science itself is about making and doing different things, even though someone can make it better, faster, cheaper... So how are chemical agents so
much different? |
It's actually quite different. Energetic materials have the fun factor of "making things go
boom." There is a lot of enjoyment to be had from testing different explosives in a safe and controlled way. It's not a part of the hobby I personally
engage in, but there are others here who primarily focus on that, and it's fine. This does not apply to chemical weapons. If you made a nerve agent,
the only responsible action would be to immediately destroy it. If your goal is to make things "just to make things," why not make stuff that you can
actually keep around and put on display, like dyes or fragrances? | Quote: Originally posted by 4-Stroke | Also, I have a few questions if you don't mind:
1) So discussion of production of chemical weapons is forbidden, but is just simply discussion of chemical weapons in general allowed?
2) Is discussion of small scale synthesis (or just general discussion) of obscure and not well-known chemical agents allowed?
3) Is discussion of protection/antidotes from chemical weapons allowed? |
1. "Discussion of chemical weapons in general" would theoretically be allowed, but it will depend on the context and moderators' discretion. Your
thread about why DMSO hasn't been used as a dispersal agent to your knowledge gets a bit too close to discussion of deployment techniques, especially
given the context of your other posts which have veered close to that line repeatedly.
2. If it is something that is largely ineffective as a weapon, or if it is being made as an intermediate to something else that can't be used as a
weapon (e.g. generating small amounts of phosgene in situ to immediately react with another substance), it will likely be permitted so long as the
poster seems responsible and is not promoting dangerous methods. Making it "just for the sake of making it" is fine for relatively docile substances,
but does not justify the synthesis of easily weaponized chemicals. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
3. Of course, as long as the discussion doesn't involve gassing yourself to test your antidotes.
|
|
|
teodor
National Hazard
Posts: 924
Registered: 28-6-2019
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by 4-Stroke | You only get to talk to those gentleman if you actually harmed someone, and if you harmed someone, you will get a chance to talk to them regardless of
the method you used to harm people .
|
It's not exactly so simple. The chemistry usage and development is more or less regulated by modern society and this is something which is not
depending on chemist intentions, it is just how it is. In the situation when there is no special (detailed) regulations for amateur chemistry we
should develop and follow some rules by ourselves, otherwise people will be looking on us as a source of danger. For them our good intentions will be
a weak argument and one or two cases when someone else can get our instructions and make something dangerous would be a strong argument against us.
|
|
|
jackchem2001
Harmless
Posts: 48
Registered: 2-6-2024
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by 4-Stroke |
| Quote: Originally posted by bnull | | Explosives have legitimate uses other than death and mutilation of targets (construction of tunnels and control of forest fires, for example), and so
are permitted here. |
Yes, but who here is building tunnels or fighting forest fires?
[...]
It'll be a shame if discussing such an interesting topic here gets banned. Chemical agents aren't necessarily "weapons", they become weapons when they
are weaponized (simply a bottle of a chemical agents isn't a weapon in itself), but I understand that the line when they become weapons is not very
clear. But I (and I don't think that anyone else on this forum) has discussed the weaponization of chemical agents. And in terms of legality,
yes, they aren't, but so are explosives (in most countries), toxins, psychoactive substances, in some cases radioactive substances and toxic
byproducts/reactants, but none of these are banned here, so why shouldn't we be able to discuss chemical agents here? |
Yes these things are slightly comparable (people making energetics or drugs here don't usually have a 'legitimate' reason) but at some point the
materials are so dissimilar that the comparison is not helpful. Compare these things:
preparing a few grams of nitroglycerin (you would need kilograms confined to do real damage and you can detonate it reasonably
safely for fun, seeing how different explosives compare etc)
preparing a few grams of MDMA precursor like a recent thread here (already a widely available drug)
preparing a few grams of a war gas (only uses are killing and maiming - usually innocent people since soliders have protection at hand)
Clearly a line has been crossed. Some war gas discussion is on the board already such as with chlorine because (1) it has very interesting and useful
chemistry besides killing and (2) would be challenging to use it as a weapon anyway. Its preparation is obvious and is already widely discussed so
there is no benefit to blocking discussion.
Compare that to more effective war gases. The fact you are persistently asking here shows there is at least some difficulty in finding information.
These materials do not have a not-horrible use (note I didn't say legitimate, I mean these materials have no use besides killing) on both small and
large scales unlike with energetics or drugs. Since there seems to be a lack of good synthetic information available, there is a purpose to blocking
discussion since it increases the barrier to carry out an attack. After preparing a war gas, there isn't the 'fun' factor like with drugs or
explosives, there isn't any useful/unique chemistry like with chlorine, etc. Just immediate disposal or killing and maiming. The comparison to
drugs/energetics just because all three materials are illegal is not valid.
|
|
|
bnull
Hazard to Others
Posts: 478
Registered: 15-1-2024
Location: South of the border, wherever the border is.
Member Is Offline
Mood: "Ah, what the hell; it's Christmas!" - Carmine Lorenzo
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by 4-Stroke | | Quote: Originally posted by bnull | | Explosives have legitimate uses other than death and mutilation of targets (construction of tunnels and control of forest fires, for example), and so
are permitted here. |
Yes, but who here is building tunnels or fighting forest fires? |
Construction and firefighting are just two examples of the use of explosives. Entertainment is another use. I, like so many others, love seeing things
go boom.
| Quote: Originally posted by 4-Stroke | | Well everything is also toxic if you eat enough of it.
Nobody here is building thorium batteries or smoke detectors (usually they are disassembling them). |
I never said someone is building the stuff. Again, those two were examples of legitimate use.
| Quote: Originally posted by 4-Stroke | | Quote: Originally posted by bnull | | Now, chemical weapons. Do they have legitimate uses? No. You don't kill cockroaches with Novichok, do you? What would you need mustard gas or lewisite
for? For the rats? |
Nitrogen mustard is (or at least was) used for chemotherapy. Yes, of course nobody here
is going to perform chemotherapy using nitrogen mustard, but neither will anyone construct tunnels, fight forest fires, build thorium batteries...
|
All that stuff is examples, which means they are objects that represent a class, and in no circumstance whatsoever said class is formed only by said
objects. If I say that tuna is a fish, I'm not saying that only tuna is a fish, but that there is a class of animals collectively
known as "fish" of which tuna is a member.
| Quote: Originally posted by 4-Stroke | It'll be a shame if discussing such an
interesting topic here gets banned. Chemical agents aren't necessarily "weapons", they become weapons when they are weaponized (simply a bottle of a
chemical agents isn't a weapon in itself), but I understand that the line when they become weapons is not very clear. But I (and I don't think that
anyone else on this forum) has discussed the weaponization of chemical agents. And in terms of legality, yes, they aren't, but so are
explosives (in most countries), toxins, psychoactive substances, in some cases radioactive substances and toxic byproducts/reactants, but none of
these are banned here, so why shouldn't we be able to discuss chemical agents here?
But why isn't it permitted?
As I said, it makes no sense, especially if the questions are based on small-scale, non-weaponization-oriented synthesis, or even just simply
discussion.
I am of course nobody to decide the rules, but Polverone himself has contributed lots of very useful information on the E&W forum, so I hope that
he won't be against this. |
The sole purpose of chemical weapons or agents or whatever you want to call them is death and destruction, in ordinary terrorism or state-sponsored
terrorism. There is no pacific use for them, except for research, and even so the greater part of the research involves how to protect our people
while attacking theirs.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
B. N. Ull
P.S.: Did you know that we have a Library?
|
|
|
Precipitates
Hazard to Others
Posts: 136
Registered: 4-12-2023
Location: SE Asia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Acid hungry
|
|
The production of chemical weapons is already scarily too easy, with information widely available, to warrant discussion on this forum*, potentially
harming the public and bringing the forum into disrepute. All it takes is someone to read the thread, have a go at producing the agent, and injure or
kill themselves** or/and other people in the process.
These chemicals can be extremely toxic at nanogram quantities, which is why, as mentioned above, there is no safe amount for storage.
It's worth noting that the discussion of lethal explosives such as acetone peroxide is also frowned upon.
Most people are vehemently against discussion of these chemicals, and for good reason.
Sure, experiments can be performed with these agents, but they must be performed at a dedicated research institute with the proper safety protocols in
place***. Similarly, they will safeguard all the knowledge on these chemicals, to avoid people using it for unsafe or nefarious purposes.
*There are probably other forums where such discussions are allowed - probably with highly debatable ethics.
**I believe this may have happened with a gas on this forum before.
***It's worth noting that even when performed at the proper research facilities, many members of the public still oppose such experiments.
Edited for clarity.
[Edited on 28-11-2024 by Precipitates]
|
|
|
RedDwarf
Hazard to Others
Posts: 167
Registered: 16-2-2019
Location: UK (North West)
Member Is Offline
Mood: Variable
|
|
I have to confess to being interested in all sorts of chemistry (and science) most of which I will never get round to doing anything about but I have
to say I've had concerns looking at the OP's recent posts which include:
Cheapest Source of Chlorine
Glass Batch Reactors vs RBFs
A Book - Chemical Warfare
and multiple threads on Sulfur Chlorides.
Taken individually they could be considered benign, but as a collection they suggest that either the OP has a complete lack of awareness of impact
they could be having on anyone looking at the forum, or is possibly deliberately setting up the forum for investigation by government agencies. I hope
a third possibility that the OP is actually considering bulk production of chemical weapons is just a product of my (over) fertile imagination.
I never met my grandfather who died (when my father was 13) from stomach cancer after having been gassed during World War I. Chemical weapons are not
something to be considered or discussed lightly.
|
|
|
Sir_Gawain
Hazard to Others
Posts: 458
Registered: 12-10-2022
Location: [REDACTED]
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stable
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by RedDwarf | I have to confess to being interested in all sorts of chemistry (and science) most of which I will never get round to doing anything about but I have
to say I've had concerns looking at the OP's recent posts which include:
Cheapest Source of Chlorine
Glass Batch Reactors vs RBFs
A Book - Chemical Warfare
and multiple threads on Sulfur Chlorides. |
And another on ethylene production. I agree, all threads considered, it is extremely concerning. Even if the OP has benign intentions, compiling
detailed information about large scale production of chemical weapons is a bad idea.
[Edited on 11-28-2024 by Sir_Gawain]
“Alchemy is trying to turn things yellow; chemistry is trying to avoid things turning yellow.” -Tom deP.
|
|
|
jackchem2001
Harmless
Posts: 48
Registered: 2-6-2024
Member Is Offline
|
|
American tax dollars at work lol
|
|
|
4-Stroke
Hazard to Self
Posts: 59
Registered: 20-4-2024
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Often Wrong, Never Unsure
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by RedDwarf | I have to confess to being interested in all sorts of chemistry (and science) most of which I will never get round to doing anything about but I have
to say I've had concerns looking at the OP's recent posts which include:
Cheapest Source of Chlorine
Glass Batch Reactors vs RBFs
A Book - Chemical Warfare
and multiple threads on Sulfur Chlorides.
Taken individually they could be considered benign, but as a collection they suggest that either the OP has a complete lack of awareness of impact
they could be having on anyone looking at the forum, or is possibly deliberately setting up the forum for investigation by government agencies. I hope
a third possibility that the OP is actually considering bulk production of chemical weapons is just a product of my (over) fertile imagination
|
Well it is the first case. I really don't understand what harm is being done to the forum (or
anyone/anything else for that matter) by discussing topics that aren't even directly related to chemical weapon production. Who could even investigate
the forum because someone (who is in no way related to the administration of the forum) is asking questions simply out of their own curiosity? Even to
simply piece together all of my questions and somehow relate them to chemical weapons production a person must have at least a basic understanding of
chemistry and a vivid imagination. Law enforcement agents, in addition to (most likely) not visiting this forum often, have neither of the
aftermentioned things.
| Quote: Originally posted by Sir_Gawain | | Even if the OP has benign intentions, compiling detailed information about large scale production of chemical weapons is a bad idea.
|
Why is it a bad idea? How can knowledge be bad? Plus, why are you automatically assuming that I am
"compiling information about large scale production of chemical weapons"?
Ukrainium
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4619
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
Jeez guys, put away the tinfoil hats. If the government wanted to shut down
this forum they'd just do it. There's absolutely no reason they would need to run some kind of convoluted sting operation to give them justification.
Given that this forum has been up for 22 years without any government intervention, the reasonable conclusion is that we are simply not that important
or interesting to them.
| Quote: Originally posted by 4-Stroke | | I really don't understand what harm is being done to the forum (or anyone/anything else for that matter) by discussing topics that aren't even
directly related to chemical weapon production. Who could even investigate the forum because someone (who is in no way related to the administration
of the forum) is asking questions simply out of their own curiosity? Even to simply piece together all of my questions and somehow relate them to
chemical weapons production a person must have at least a basic understanding of chemistry and a vivid imagination. Law enforcement agents, in
addition to (most likely) not visiting this forum often, have neither of the aftermentioned things. |
You see,
part of my job as an administrator is to make sure that things don't get to the point where they draw the attention of those with a substandard
knowledge of chemistry and a lack of imagination. I'd prefer our community to stay uninteresting to those people. It is by sticking to good clean
science that we avoid the fate of bygone forums like The Hive or E&W.
| Quote: Originally posted by 4-Stroke | | Why is it a bad idea? How can knowledge be bad? Plus, why are you automatically assuming that I am "compiling information about large scale production
of chemical weapons"? |
First of all, knowledge is not bad in and of itself. What is bad is having incomplete
knowledge of a dangerous procedure while lacking the knowledge and experience needed to recognize that you are not properly equipped or trained to
carry it out. When I read your posts, I don't suspect you to be a terrorist or a government spy, I see some dumbass kid who gets a little tingle in
his brain at the thought of going out in the woods with his gas mask and setting up his little mustard gas factory cause wow what a rush that would
be. I don't think you have diabolical intentions, I think you just have extremely bad judgement, and it would be absolutely irresponsible and
negligent for me to answer your questions. And whether intentionally or not, you ARE "compiling information about large scale production of chemical
weapons." Or at least you would be if we took your questions at face value and answered them in detail. Need evidence? Just look at your posts.
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
