Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Periodic Tables to become ILLEGAL in Europe

Periodic Tables to become ILLEGAL in Europe

veganalchemist - 4-6-2015 at 11:24

Hi all,

the Explosives Precursors and Poisons (EPP) regulations where update on the 22nd May this year.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/licensing-for-hom...

The following has been added:-

Poisons:

Aluminium phosphide
Arsenic and its compounds (other than calcium arsenites, copper acetoarsenite, copper arsenates, copper arsenites, lead arsenates)
Barium salts (other than barium sulphate, barium carbonate and barium silicofluoride)
Bromomethane
Chloropicrin
Fluoroacetic acid, its salts and fluoroacetamide
Hydrogen cyanide and metal cyanides (other than ferrocyanides and ferricyanides)
Lead acetates and compounds of lead with acids from fixed oils
Magnesium phosphide
Mercury and its compounds (including: nitrates of mercury; oxides of mercury; mercuric cyanide oxides; mercuric thiocyanate; ammonium mercuric chlorides; potassium mercuric iodides; organic compounds of mercury which contain a methyl group directly linked to the mercury atom)
Oxalic acid- 10% w/w
Phenols (phenol; phenolic isomers of the following — cresols, xylenols, monoethylphenols); compounds of phenols with a metal- 60% w/w of phenols or, for compounds of phenols with a metal, the equivalent of 60% w/w of phenols
Phosphorus yellow
Strychnine and its salts and its quaternary compounds
Thallium and its salts

This means that arsenic, mercury, phosphorus (white) and thallium will be illegal without a EPP license.

Not sure about mercury as some people may have old mercury (clinical) thermometers.

Not good for element collectors.

phlogiston - 4-6-2015 at 11:38

And mineral collectors.
And people who make ceramics.
And painters.

How come these lists always look like they were made by somebody with a very limited understanding of chemistry and common naming conventions?

"Lead acetates and compounds of lead with acids from fixed oils"... What is that supposed to mean? How many 'lead acetates' do they believe there are, never mind the cryptic remaining part of the line.

and "Mercury and its compounds (including: ---snip a list of compounds---)".
Now, I would understand if there were a few excluded compounds that you would need to name them specifically. But 'including' is pointless... "and its compounds" already covers all of them.

blogfast25 - 4-6-2015 at 11:48

Gotta love that bit:

Quote:

Certain chemicals can be used in the illicit manufacture of explosives or to cause harm.

Make that ALL chemicals. Ergo, ban ALL chemicals, except for use/misuse/marketing by Neoliberal Companies, of course...

unionised - 4-6-2015 at 13:10

Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston

"Lead acetates and compounds of lead with acids from fixed oils"... What is that supposed to mean? How many 'lead acetates' do they believe there are, never mind the cryptic remaining part of the line.

Lead (II) acetate, lead (II) subacetate and lead (IV) acetate (possibly others too).
The fixed oils are the ones that are not essential oils (so we are talking about triglycerides of the fatty acids). They are lead compounds used in (among other things) paint.

What was that about a "limited understanding of names"?
They make perfect sense to me.
However it's still a daft law.
Exactly what do they think will happen with people's collections when they become illegal? An amusing idea would be to drop the stuff off at the local police station the day before the law takes effect.

Texium - 4-6-2015 at 13:35

Oxalic acid??? To me that's the one that looks the most ridiculous on that list. What, are they scared that somebody is going to go around slipping it into people's food to try and give them kidney stones?

blogfast25 - 4-6-2015 at 14:13

Quote: Originally posted by unionised

The fixed oils are the ones that are not essential oils (so we are talking about triglycerides of the fatty acids). They are lead compounds used in (among other things) paint.

What was that about a "limited understanding of names"?

C'mon, unionised. That term is far from unambiguous. And good Laws rely on clarity. 'Soaps of lead' would have been far more meaningful. It's a stupid point to attack phlogiston on, if you ask me...

Sulaiman - 4-6-2015 at 15:10

I guess it is about time that I applied for a license ...
has any UK member applied, been granted or refused?

[Edited on 4-6-2015 by Sulaiman]

macckone - 4-6-2015 at 17:49

Does this mean Thalium and lead containing electronic products too? Because almost all electronic solder contains lead. Thalium based capacitors are in most computers. And substantial portion of plastics are phenol based. Mercury relays are still used in a lot of industrial applications. And then there are old thermometers and thermostats.

Edit sorry the capacitors are tantalum not thalium.

[Edited on 5-6-2015 by macckone]

byko3y - 4-6-2015 at 18:16

My opinion about the list:

Quote:

Aluminium phosphide
Magnesium phosphide
Phosphorus yellow
Arsenic and its compounds (other than calcium arsenites, copper acetoarsenite, copper arsenates, copper arsenites, lead arsenates)
Bromomethane
Chloropicrin
Hydrogen cyanide and metal cyanides (other than ferrocyanides and ferricyanides)
Mercury and its compounds (including: nitrates of mercury; oxides of mercury; mercuric cyanide oxides; mercuric thiocyanate; ammonium mercuric chlorides; potassium mercuric iodides; organic compounds of mercury which contain a methyl group directly linked to the mercury atom)
Strychnine and its salts and its quaternary compounds
Thallium and its salts

Are all dangerous and it's good that they have been banned. Ferrocyanides and ferricyanides are legal, so you can still make OTC cyanides.
But this

Quote:

Fluoroacetic acid, its salts and fluoroacetamide
Lead acetates and compounds of lead with acids from fixed oils
Oxalic acid- 10% w/w
Phenols (phenol; phenolic isomers of the following — cresols, xylenols, monoethylphenols); compounds of phenols with a metal- 60% w/w of phenols or, for compounds of phenols with a metal, the equivalent of 60% w/w of phenols

makes me feel like WTF? I don't really get the idea.
Also, lead metal seems to be not banned, as well as lead oxides and sulphates, otherwise most cars would become illegal. I can just thank gods that we have cars which need sulfuric acid and lead, because otherwise I don't really see other ways to obtain them.

Quote:

Barium salts (other than barium sulphate, barium carbonate and barium silicofluoride)

You can actually use barium carbonate to make any barium salt, including barium chloride (but you can't make barium hydroxyde easily).

j_sum1 - 4-6-2015 at 18:27

I think the only thing that is allowable is helium.

Corrosive Joeseph - 4-6-2015 at 22:26

Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston

How come these lists always look like they were made by somebody with a very limited understanding of chemistry

That's because they are.

And this situation will not get any better.

Only worse........................

turd - 4-6-2015 at 22:45

The title is wrong, please fix it.

The UK is not the EU and the EU is not Europe.

To my understanding only the explosive part is the implementation of an EU directive. With the exception of HNO3, that part is not the catastrophe some people think it is, because the chemicals are only banned above a certain (still useful) concentration.

The poison part is the UK government going over board. They have this talent of implementing by far the strictest rule in the whole EU and then blaming the EU for it.

phlogiston - 4-6-2015 at 23:37

Quote: Originally posted by unionised

Ok, I agree perhaps 'lead acetates' isn't so bad. I admit I naively only thought of lead(II) and lead(IV) acetate, so simply 'lead acetate' would have covered both.

I still think the rest is unnecessarily cryptic, though.
"acids of fixed oils" yields exactly 1 google hit. That's rare these days.
Blogfasts suggestion "lead soaps" yields more than 9000 and in addition covers similarly poisonous compounds that people could make from fatty acids not obtained from ‘fixed oils’.

Worse, the meaning of ‘fixed oils’ appears ambiguous. If you look at the use of the term in different contexts, some take it to be non-volatile oils, others define it as non-essential, with 'essential' itself having different meanings in different contexts. In perfumery, the essential oils are the fraction of oils that contain the characteristic fragrance of the plant from which they were extracted. In metabolism, essential oils are those that contain the fatty acids an organism can't synthesize itself but needs to take in from external sources.

But never mind the semantics. We all agree it is not helping our hobby and is not going to be very effective to fight terrorism.

blogfast25 - 5-6-2015 at 06:05

Quote: Originally posted by turd

The poison part is the UK government going over board. They have this talent of implementing by far the strictest rule in the whole EU and then blaming the EU for it.

I fully second the last sentence: EUphobia reaches absurd heights on our green pastures.

But I do believe this new legislation originates in the EU. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. I for one would be very interested in that evidence.

Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston

Worse, the meaning of ‘fixed oils’ appears ambiguous. If you look at the use of the term in different contexts, some take it to be non-volatile oils, others define it as non-essential, with 'essential' itself having different meanings in different contexts. In perfumery, the essential oils are the fraction of oils that contain the characteristic fragrance of the plant from which they were extracted. In metabolism, essential oils are those that contain the fatty acids an organism can't synthesize itself but needs to take in from external sources.

You're correct but the ambiguity is often caused by linguistic erosion, conflation of terms and sloppy expression on the part of amateurs (we see this also on this forum) and consumers. But it's the Law maker's job to provide the 'best possible' definition, not use terms that are far from clear.

[Edited on 5-6-2015 by blogfast25]

turd - 5-6-2015 at 06:52

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

But I do believe this new legislation originates in the EU. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. I for one would be very interested in that evidence.

Well, this: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX... does not say anything about lead salts, etc. Of course it's possible that the law is implementing two ore more EU directives in one strike... I remember faintly that there was something about unifying access to poisons, pesticides, etc.?

Unification of such matters is of course sensible in a unified market. Unfortunately you can be certain that they will adopt in every case the most strict rules. With full support of the population.

blogfast25 - 5-6-2015 at 07:03

@Turd:

On this occasion it isn't entirely clear. But past experience as a trader in lab chemicals was that restrictions on materials was ALWAYS the direct result of UK implementation of EU directives. That is also true of most modern environmental legislation, as well as Health and Safety legislation.

Sadly the population will indeed support all this, insofar as they're aware of it, of course. UK 'Euro-sceptics' often have their priorities up-side-down.

[Edited on 5-6-2015 by blogfast25]

DFliyerz - 5-6-2015 at 09:47

This was kind of a clickbait title.

veganalchemist - 5-6-2015 at 11:29

Hi, sorry if I got the title wrong.

Thinking about mercury again. As I was at 4 am today.

How about people (I did have one of these) with door chimes with a mercury tilt switch.

Mercury can be found in compact florescent light bulbs.

And last of all, with people over a certain age, mercury fillings!! Are they going to make our heads illegal?

unionised - 6-6-2015 at 07:28

As far as I can tell this law is home-grown stupidity, rather than the implementation of an EU regulation.
While the EU regs get a lot of stick for being long, they are usually clear and show evidence of having been thought through properly.
Thislaw, and the full version is here,
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/966/pdfs/uksi_201509...
is plainly silly for a number of reasons- the banning of the mercury present in so many of our teeth being one example.
The full rules also include "Compressed hydrogen cyanide may only be supplied in a container that is labelled with
the words: “Warning. This container holds poisonous gas and should only be opened and used by
persons having expert knowledge of the precautions to be taken in its use”.
"
Well HCN boils at 25C, so, if it's compressed it contains a lot more liquid than gas.
That sort of thing just shows that this law has been rushed through and my best guess is that they did it so they can say "We have done something about terrorism".

As long as we can grow flowers in the garden, the lack of oxalic acid in the local chemist's isn't going to deprive me or anyone else of the ability to poison someone, so it utterly fails to do the job.
All it does is breed fear and anxiety. Why a government who just had their plans to continue with "austerity" in order to finance tax-cuts for the rich read out by a woman on a gold throne would want the populous worrying about non-existent terror threats is another matter.
it's probably not quite as stupid as this one.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2015-20...

which bans enjoying yourself.

[Edited on 6-6-15 by unionised]

macckone - 15-6-2015 at 21:06

Why would anyone use oxalic acid to poison someone. It tastes horrible. Ethylene glycol on the other hand is very sweet and is converted to oxalic acid in the victims body. Achieving the same effect while being much easier to get the victim to consume. Every year thousands of animals are poisoned by ethylene glycol leaking from cars. I haven't heard of one poisoned by someone's rhubarb garden.

Zombie - 15-6-2015 at 21:26

What did I tell you all in that other thread when I first joined. It was a thread where I said you will have NOTHING left.
it was argued that the "list" was just a proposal, and I said NO IT IS A LIST!

Freedom huh?

Schizophrenic - 30-6-2015 at 13:12

Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1

I think the only thing that is allowable is helium.

I think the only thing that is allowable is... roasted air

According to the graphs cigarettes have to be outlawed, alcohol,...
Where does it end ?

I mean money counts and if the government need money then this is what they do, easy money and you are a terrorism so you have to pay for that. sick

aga - 30-6-2015 at 13:20

I'd ban all Organics and make it a public duty to seize anything Organic on sight, and not let go until the cops turn up.

Then you'd have to seize them as well, and not let go of the tree.

Zombie - 30-6-2015 at 13:34

We don't need chemistry. Nothing important ever came out of it anyway.
Now trees we need, and rocks. The real hard ones.

jtate - 4-10-2015 at 10:21

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

Gotta love that bit:

Quote:

Certain chemicals can be used in the illicit manufacture of explosives or to cause harm.

Make that ALL chemicals. Ergo, ban ALL chemicals, except for use/misuse/marketing by Neoliberal Companies, of course...

Cars with airbags have a few kgs of explosives in them...maybe the British government should ban airbags and recall all the cars?

Let's not get into the subject of FAEs: sugar/flour/organic dust explosions or flammable organic vapor (petrol...) explosions, or the poor Brits won't be able to have sugar with their tea anymore!

Little_Ghost_again - 8-10-2015 at 02:48

You can apply for a license but you are unlikely to get one, go one the what do they know site, this is a site where people put in freedom of information requests. There was one asking how many license applications had been received and how many granted. So far its way overdue for reply even though its a legal requirement for them to reply.
I am told but obviously its just hear say this way, that so far 6,500 have been applied for. most of these are small business users who are not LTD companies, I am told 0 licenses have been granted so far

Detonationology - 8-10-2015 at 07:57

Quote:

Cars with airbags have a few kgs of explosives in them

LMAO, is that what was up with those Takata airbags a few months back?

It's probably more like a few milligrams per air bag, but I've never had one open, and I'm too damn scared to.

missmendeleev - 22-10-2015 at 14:20

Quote: Originally posted by jtate

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

Gotta love that bit:

Quote:

Certain chemicals can be used in the illicit manufacture of explosives or to cause harm.

Make that ALL chemicals. Ergo, ban ALL chemicals, except for use/misuse/marketing by Neoliberal Companies, of course...

Cars with airbags have a few kgs of explosives in them...maybe the British
government should ban airbags and recall all the cars?

Let's not get into the subject of FAEs: sugar/flour/organic dust explosions or flammable organic vapor (petrol...) explosions, or the poor Brits won't be able to have sugar with their tea anymore!

Definitely. They do need their tea.