| Pages:
1
2
3 |
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Chemicals to Stock Up On (US)
I know there are various lists on this forum of listed chemicals but I decided to try and make a comprehensive list of chemicals that might be banned
or heavily regulated in the future.
The following list is nowhere near complete and applies mostly to the US. I think we should make seperate threads for different countries since
chemical regulations can vary so much from country to country.
I would also like to organize this list from most likely to be banned or regulated to least likely. This is so we can make better decisions on
chemicals we need to buy NOW as opposed to ones that can wait.
Most of these will be OTC but I will list some that can (mostly) only be purchased online or through a chemical supplier.
**Acetone (OTC)
Methanol (slightly impure OTC)
35% H2O2 (OTC)
Ethyl ether (slightly impure OTC)
Potassium nitrate (technical grade OTC)
Trichloroisocyanuric acid TCCA (impure OTC)
Sodium hydroxide (OTC)
Potassium hydroxide (rarely avail as OTC)
Sulfuric acid
Hydrochloric acid
**Toluene
Methylene chloride based solvents (OTC)
Methylene chloride stand alone (chemical supplier)
**Ammonium nitrate cold packs (OTC)
Propylene oxide (rarely OTC, mostly chem supplier)
Isopropanol 99% (impure OTC)
Hexane (usually in ether starting fluids)
Heptane ('' '')
Iodides (supplier)
**I2 Tincture (OTC)
Maybe, after some discussion, we can finish the list and post it as a PDF or something similar.
If there is already a post exactly like this, I'm sorry, I did "UTFSE".
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
roamingnome
Hazard to Others
Posts: 363
Registered: 9-9-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
why dont you just send this letter to the ATF/DEA and say you want to help them out because your in the know
dont take that the wrong way but jeesh
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Not sure how to take that because I don't know what you're talking about.
The ** means I have noticed efforts by private companies to reduce the sale of these items to individuals.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
Nick F
Hazard to Others
Posts: 439
Registered: 7-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
If you think some of those things are about to be banned then you are way TOO PARANOID. Acetone? Nitrates? TCCA? NaOH? Sulphuric? Surely not. Or is
the USA that much worse than Europe?
|
|
|
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
I am wondering what is your rationale for singling out these chemicals as
opposed to others. Is there specific legislation pending or discussion
about tightening controls on these chemicals like what happened a few
months ago when iodine was restricted to one bottle of 2% tincture per
year per customer? If so, could you provide a reference to the relevant
legislation, DEA publication, or whatever.
Sure, given the U.S. political climate, it would not be too shocking if any
chemical got pulled off the shelves --- see the baking soda thread ---
but are any politicians talking about the specific chemicals on your list
and if so, who.? Yes, many of these chemicals are on the rather lengthy
list of chemicals whose purchases are watched in large quantities,
but is there any talk of moving any of them to the shorter list of
chemicals banned in all amounts?
In addition, I have some specific questions about your list.
You list TCCA but not Ca(OCl)2 or, for that matter NaOCl. Is there
a specific reason for singling out this chlorinating agent?
NaOH, KOH, and H2SO4 are all sold as drain cleaners (typically
mixed with bleaches, indicators, and what not). I would be
surprised (but only mildly) to see them all pulled for that reason,
although I could see the pure forms become increasingly
harder to get and perhaps see H2SO4 drain cleaner pulled on
account of it being so generally useful in chemistry.
Why do you think isopropanol is in particular danger of disappearing
soon, given that is quite well established as a rubbing alcohol? While
I haven't run into 99% OTC yet, the 91% azeotrope is quite common
and it is quite easy to salt out isopropanol.
HCl is well-established as a cement cleaner and pH adjuster for pools,
so I would not expect it to vanish unless there were a specific outcry
about its illegitimate use.
With most of the chemicals you list, I suspect that OTC availability is going
to depend a lot more on market vicissitudes and environmental concerns
than bans. For instance, methanol is sold as a gasline antifreeze, but is
nothing too special in this regard --- I have also seen isopropanol sold for
the same purpose and suspect many other compounds would work as well.
Should it turn out that an alternative becomes cheaper, I would expect the
MeOH to disappear from the shelves. While it is on nobody's list of
watched chemicals, I hoard up Na3PO4 whenever I can find it. Because
phosphate based cleaning agents are being phased out for environmental
reasons. it is increasingly harder to find --- instead, one sees the
oxymoronically named "phosphate-free TSP" which is actually a silicate. Of
course, I buy that too for what it is --- I used it to make alcogel the other
month, for instance.
[Edited on 7-1-2008 by microcosmicus]
[Edited on 7-1-2008 by microcosmicus]
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Ok, 15 years ago, would ANYONE have suspected phosphorus or psuedafed to be as regulated as it is now? NaOH (pure) is already being pulled from the
shelves. I don't know why I put TCCA on there. Isopropanal 99% (isoHEET, no I didn't say 91% rubbing alcohol) is considered "a chemical used in the
manufacture of methamphetamine" according to a local newspaper. Although it is unlikely that it will become regulated, there is always a chance.
That is why the list needs to be given priority which I mentioned earlier.
KOH is hardly ever sold by itself as a drain cleaner.
H2SO4 has already disappeared off of the big chain store's shelves.
Since when has something that is a "well established chemical for X legitimate use" not been at risk of being regulated in the US? That is not a
valid argument.
MeOH (100% OTC) is already on the verge of disappearing from store shelves in the name of the war on methamphetamine.
This is not about paranoia. This is about realism. Nitrates are already disappearing and being replaced by "safer" alternatives. In fact, the
reason I made this post is because I saw an article the other day that said some stores were going to start pulling their cold packs from shelves
because the NH4NO3 could be used by "terrorists".
Besides the WORST thing to do would be to stand back and say "you are paranoid" and do nothing. Then what do you have? Certainly not any newly
restricted chemicals.
You call me paranoid, I say I'm cautious.
PS. I'm not sure you read any of my post but the list. I stated repeatedly that it is not comprehensive nor perfect, merely a subject that needs to
be discussed and expanded upon.
Also, FYI, Wal-Mart now has signs up prohibiting the sale of more than 4 packages of lithium batteries at a time. We're talking about one of the most
common household items here. Believe me now?
[Edited on 7-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
evil_lurker
National Hazard
Posts: 767
Registered: 12-3-2005
Location: United States of Elbonia
Member Is Offline
Mood: On the wagon again.
|
|
Personally I don't see too much along the lines of gov't regulations as long as the chemicals in question are not used in the direct production of
meth and have significant OTC uses.
That said, the biggest threat comes from the industry itself. Most OTC stores are pulling their more reactive chems off the shelves due to liability
concerns. The fear of getting sued by some idiot who has absolutely no idea how to handle such mundane laboratory staples as sulfuric acid and lye,
nor what personal protective equipment consists of is quite real.
Associations such as the NACD (burn in hell fuckers) aka National Association of Chemical Distributors have instituted some bullshit "Responsible
Distribution" guidelines that dictate how they can distribute their chemicals. If a business wants an NACD certification, they have to stick by the
agreed guidelines and be audited by a third party every so often.
Specialty laboratory suppliers lower down on the food chain have pretty much instituted blanket policies of only selling to established
businesses or research institutions/schools to avoid liability. It seems that every government agency that exists that has anything to do with
chemicals including the DEA, DHS, CPSC, EPA, DOT, is out to get them.
What is really scary, is that there are only a precious few laboratory supply companies out there that will sell chemicals to individuals. What
happens if those few company's distributors begin to institute policies wherein essentially they are forced to only sell to businesses or research
institutions?
We'd all be screwed... amateur chemistry as we know it would be reduced to back to the stone age. Such a scenario is entirely possible since nearly
all of the higher ups on the chemical distribution food chain are NACD members who are required to stick together.
However, the good news is that most of the "commodity chemicals" MagicJigPipe has listed will probably continue to be readily available as there are
significant numbers of uses and end users.
Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in
beer.
|
|
|
MadHatter
International Hazard
Posts: 1346
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Maine
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enjoying retirement
|
|
Paranoid
I would say that environmental concerns are one of the reasons that chemicals get
pulled. Some chemicals(not List I or List 2) used in the manufacture of drugs may
not be carried by major chains because of fear of attracting the methmakers, unwanted
attention from the LEOs , or potential lawsuits(think class action suits).
As for sodium phosphate, I found a box, 75% Na3Po4 / 25 % Na2CO3 last year. There are
other, not as well known, sources but the yields for the money paid would make it
very expensive.
From opening of NCIS New Orleans - It goes a BOOM ! BOOM ! BOOM ! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
|
|
|
smuv
National Hazard
Posts: 842
Registered: 2-5-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Jingoistic
|
|
Why propylene oxide? I can't remember any time where I have read anything about propylene oxide on this forum. I suppose it could become regulated
as a precursor to various phenyl-2-propanols but I've never heard any mention of that route to controlled substances.
I am surprised you have overlooked chlorinated solvents. In the past few years it has become damn near impossible to find trichloroethylene. In
addition tetrachloroethylene is slowly becoming harder to find (although still pretty available).
[Edited on 7-1-2008 by smuv]
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
FWIIW, any store selling acrylic plastic sheets, rods, tubes etc. also sells solvent adhesive for acrylic (plexiglass). Sheets like this are used to
make display cases, etc.
The standard solvent for acrylic is methylene chloride. AFAIK, it is methylene chloride (dichloromethane) and nothing else.
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
len1
National Hazard
Posts: 595
Registered: 1-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: NZ 1 (goal) - Italy 1 (dive)
|
|
That is why there needs to be a list of how amateur chemist can make things themselves. We can look at this not as an evil, but as a challange.
Ultimately the authorities cant win this game - we and the world around us are chemicals!
[Edited on 8-1-2008 by len1]
|
|
|
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
Ok, 15 years ago, would ANYONE have suspected phosphorus or psuedafed to be as
regulated as it is now? NaOH (pure) is already being pulled from the shelves.
I don't know why I put TCCA on there. Isopropanol 99% (isoHEET, no I didn't
say 91% rubbing alcohol) is considered "a chemical used in the manufacture of
methamphetamine" according to a local newspaper. Although it is unlikely that
it will become regulated, there is always a chance. That is why the list needs
to be given priority which I mentioned earlier.
|
I agree with you --- I did not expect the prohibition of ephedrine either or,
for that matter, the PATRIOT act to which this was an amendment. However,
this does not really answer my question of why this list. I mean, since any
chemical could potentially be pulled, why not just list the whole freaking
Merck index or I_am_a_fish's list of commonly available chemicals. I
presume the reason for listing this handful of chemicals was they they were
in particular danger of being pulled in the immediate future, so one might
want to focus on obtaining them rather than other chemicals which are likely
to remain available. "there is always a chance" is to broad a criterion
to be of practical use.
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
KOH is hardly ever sold by itself as a drain cleaner.
|
In my part of the U.S.. an aqueous solution of KOH with, AFAIK,
no NaOH deliberately added is a quite common as a drain cleaner.
As for why NaOH is more common in some places, certainly more
common as a solid drain cleaner, I suspect that this may be the
case because it arises as a byproduct of industrial processes
which start with NaCl.
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
H2SO4 has already disappeared off of the big chain store's shelves.
|
Disappointing. However, this might have nothing to do with the war
on drugs, but with storage issues. Some people have pointed out
elsewhere that some hardware stores stopped carrying HCl because
it messed up their shelves. Perhaps the management of the big chain
store decided it was not worth the trouble carrying such nasty stuff
when the comparatively tamer alkali would do. Maybe some
dummkopf managed to do a condensation reaction on the organic
molecules which make up his hand and sued the chain. While, either
way, it may not matter because the chemical became unavailable,
at least it would be good to know why so one could bark up
the right tree. BTW, H2SO4 drain cleaner is quite available in my
part of the U.S.A. so this can't be a national issue.
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
Since when has something that is a "well established chemical for X
legitimate use" not been at risk of being regulated in the US? That is not
a valid argument.
|
While it by no means a guarantee, it at least does lower the chances
for two reasons. First, the big businesses who make and sell the
commonly used chemical are going to lobby against having it banned.
Secondly, the substance is not likely to be pulled overnight, but there
will be some sort of deliberative process with studies made to assess
the economic impact of the ban and, should the ban take place, there will
likely be some sort of grace period before the ban goes into
effect. All this affords plenty of time should it looks like
a ban is in the works.
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
This is not about paranoia. This is about realism.
You call me paranoid, I say I'm cautious.
|
For me, the best bullwark against paranoia is rational, scientific,
critical thinking. While I have no doubt that chemicals are getting
pulled off store shelves because of the war on drugs, I am not going
to jump to conclusions every time I no longer see an item either.
Rather, I try to keep an open mind and only believe my suspicions to
the extent that they are confirmed by observed facts and make it a
point to exercise caution when drawing conclusions.
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
Besides the WORST thing to do would be to stand back and say "you are
paranoid" and do nothing. Then what do you have? Certainly not any
newly restricted chemicals.
|
To me, the opposite extreme of rushing about to stockpile any and
all chemicals because who knows what will be restricted next is
equally irrational. Rather, I suggest steering a middle course
of keeping eyes and ears open as to what is going on, and only
making a point of stocking up on something for which one has no
immediate use only if one has good reason to believe that particular
item will become unavailable.
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
Isopropanol 99% (isoHEET, no I didn't say 91% rubbing alcohol) is
considered "a chemical used in the manufacture of
methamphetamine" according to a local newspaper.
Also, FYI, Wal-Mart now has signs up prohibiting the sale of more than
4 packages of lithium batteries at a time. We're talking about one of
the most common household items here. Believe me now?
|
These are exactly the sort of hard facts which I referred to above.
I agree that these things are rational ground for suspicion. Certainly,
I will keep an eye out for further developments. As a first step, I
had a look at the web. While I did find isopropanol listed in connection
with meth cooks, even in newspaper articles, it appeared in the context of
lists of solvents which even included things like water. In what
context did your newspaper talk about isopropanol and did it single
it out or list other solvents (e.g. methanol and ethanol) as well?
By the way, is only isoHEET unavailable in you neck of the woods or
is the rubbing alcohol also vanishing? Given how trivially easy it
is to dehydrate isopropanol using even table salt, this doesn't seem
like that much of a loss to me.
As for the batteries, I have encountered no such thing where I live.
Maybe there was a run on batteries so the store limited amounts so
everybody could get a battery? If this or the bit about isopropanol
has anything to do with drug wars, it must be strictly local policy
(but nevertheless worthy of note).
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
PS. I'm not sure you read any of my post but the list. I stated repeatedly
that it is not comprehensive nor perfect, merely a subject that needs to be
discussed and expanded upon.
|
Rest assured that I did read your whole post. My criticism was meant
in a constructive rather an a destructive manner; my apologies to you
if it seemed otherwise. My purpose is not to pooh-pooh your efforts
but exactly to discuss and expand what you are doing. Before going
further, I wanted to first understand how you came up with your list
because some of the items on it looked out of place.
One way in which I would like to see such a list expanded is to
add some pointers to why a particular item is likely to become
unavailable soon. Not only is this the only way I see of making
informed decisions as to what is most likely to become unavailable,
but it opens the door to more proactive steps. For instance, if
there is legislation pending or hearings going on, individuals
could contact politicians and bureaucrats. Given the collective
chemical wisdom of this group, I'm sure it would be possible to
do a bang-up job of writing sample letters or briefs on why banning
all these chemicals does more harm than good. Even though the
chances of reversing the policy are rather slim, at least this
would show that citizen scientists are not just clueless bumblers.
I have more hope of persuading a good segment of the general public.
When I have talked to friends who do not do chemistry at home, they
have agreed that the current policy of banning anything which could
be used to synthesize drugs or bombs has gone too far and that it
is a bad policy to be squashing the basement chemists and garage
inventors who were the driving force behind Yankee ingenuity. To
me, a lot of current policy about precursors is on a par with banning
screwdrivers because they could be use to assemble bombs. As anyone
who reads the first chapter of an organic chemistry book will
realize, reagents like H2SO4, I2, and P are angstrom-sized tools
which can be used to build all sorts of molecules, not just illegal
drugs. I believe there are a good number of technically-minded
people out there who would agree with this position if it were
presented well. While it might not make an immediate difference,
I could see positive effects down the road when the current
atmosphere of hysteria subsides --- in particular I wonder what
effect the upcoming presidential election will have.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
I think some people aren't getting my intention of this post. My intention was to make a (possibly short) list that may disappear in the future,
whether it's due to government regulations, liability concerns or environmental concerns.
How could it hurt to buy a little extra toluene or acetone just in case it becomes even a little harder to get in the future? We all know it's
likely. It's happened before. In my opinion, I'd give toluene a few years before it disappears from OTC sources completely because of
methamphetamine.
Am I the only one that sees these restrictions on even some of the more mundane chemicals increasing? Why is it unreasonable to think that any
chemical that could possibly be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine could be regulated in the near future? I think I might be noticing these
things before some people in the rest of the country because I live in "meth country". My prediction is, it's coming your way.
I think you are forgetting the MASSIVE amount of chemicals that could POSSIBLY be used in methamphetamine manufacture. Not to mention "harmful"
chemicals.
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/caucus/rep/membernews/2003...
http://www.methwatch.com/FAQ/FAQ_index.aspx#5.__Are_cold_med...
"Small clandestine meth labs use a variety of common, widely available household products to manufacture meth, including: acetone, rubbing and
isopropyl alcohol, iodine, starter fluid (ether), gas additives (methanol), drain cleaner (sulfuric acid), lithium batteries, rock salt, matchbooks
(red phosphorus), lye, paint thinner, aluminum foil, glassware, coffee filters, and propane tanks."
http://roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?p=90120
I would look up some more but my computer is messing up. You guys are smart, I trust you can find your own sources 
BTW, toluene is pretty much a commodity chemical but is becoming harder and harder to find.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
YT2095
International Hazard
Posts: 1091
Registered: 31-5-2003
Location: Just left of Europe and down a bit.
Member Is Offline
Mood: within Nominal Parameters
|
|
Rock salt, propane tanks, alu foil....
ROFLOL, Too funny! 
\"In a world full of wonders mankind has managed to invent boredom\" - Death
Twinkies don\'t have a shelf life. They have a half-life! -Caine (a friend of mine)
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Yes, I find it hilarious as well. And somewhat scary.
Anyway, I forgot to read mircocosmicus' post so....
I pretty much agree with you, except I am more pessimistic.
I just don't want to argue anymore. I'm sorry, I just don't want to. I was just trying to help people decide which, if any chemicals they should
give priority to buying. Like if you had a choice between X and Y but Y was on the list that us members think could possibly be regulated in the NEAR
future for various reasons, then you would buy Y.
And maybe, just maybe, you could even "stock up" on a few things whose regulation is imminent.
Is that completely unreasonable? I mean, don't people already do that? "I decided to pick up a few extra bags of chemical X just in case". I know
they do because I've read about it on this forum. I was just trying to make the "list" more comprehensive than just heresay.
Goodnight. Tired. Bed.
EDIT
By the way. There's only one store in my immediate area that still sells toluene. So, I bought a few extra cans just in case. Is that paranoia? If
so, then call me crazy.
And the lithium battery thing had everything to do with meth. I saw it on a replay of the news tonight. Apparently Wal-Mart was asked to limit the
sale of lithium batteries because of the Li being used in Birch reductions of (pseudo)ephedrine.
Sorry for the incoherncy of this but I'm tired.
I thought of propylene oxide because of a post I made a long time ago. It seems to be almost gone from the market because it's "dangerous". In fact,
when I searched for it a long time ago I only found one place online that still sold it. It was used as a racing fuel. It can be used (just like
ethylene oxide) to make the corresponding amino alcohol, amongst other things.
[Edited on 8-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
It is quite likely that I am not seeing the same things happen because I am
not in "meth country", but will keep an eye out. I just read the references
you provided. While they do mention all manner of reagents as possible
precursors, they also state that small time meth labs are not the real problem
anymore and are more keen on further restricting ephedrine than other
chemicals. This sounds like a good sign to me so there seems to be hope
that the federal government will no longer be interested in banning more
chemicals but consider the existing list adequate and focus its efforts elsewhere.
Therefore, I don't see it as inevitable that what is happen in your neck of the woods
will become national policy but, nonetheless, it is good to know that this is happening and be prepared just in case.
This also explains to me where you are coming from with your list. Even if
these materials are not banned, it is worth knowing what is going on
so one doesn't get into trouble being mistaken for a meth cook.
[Edited on 8-1-2008 by microcosmicus]
|
|
|
Phosphor-ing
Hazard to Others
Posts: 247
Registered: 31-5-2006
Location: Deep South, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inquisitive
|
|
I have a question @MagicJigPipe. Where can you find 35% H2O2 otc?!?
|
|
|
Nick F
Hazard to Others
Posts: 439
Registered: 7-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hydroponics stores carry hydrogen peroxide of 17.5%, and I believe that 35% can be found in pool/spa supply stores.
I still can't believe that things like hydroxides will become unavailable. Some of those things might become harder to find literally OTC, but there
will always be specialist shops selling them online, eg solvents from craft shops for cleaning brushes with paint/varnish/resin on them.
Although you might as well stock up, because buying in bulk is more economical! I for example have never bought nitrate fertilisers in anything other
than 55lb sacks...
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
I get 35% H2O2 from my local hardware store as "wood bleach". Sometimes it's in a box, you just have to open it and see what's inside before you buy
it.
And, Nick F, that's the whole point. If it becomes unavailable OTC then that makes it harder to get. But if you already have some OTC (that's
usually cheaper) then you won't have to buy any on the internet and pay for shipping and all those HAZMAT fees (do they charge those for xOH?). Also,
if materials become unavail. in your area and you have to drive further to get more, the price just went up. If you already have some of the cheap
stuff then you save money.
I suppose almost ANYTHING can be had in this country with the appropriate amount of money, so that's what this mostly comes down to. Saving money.
[Edited on 8-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
MagicJigPipe although I don't think I live in "meth country" I know that my state is likely in the top 5 for consumption. I have the same feelings
about the likelyhood of future bans and have done some knee-jerk stocking up, especially during my early days on this forum.
I think what most states have done in making psuedoephedrine non-OTC is a good step for LE, the environment, and the home chemist. The amount of
clandestine lab busts has fallen way off in my state since this law was enacted. However, once LE gets on a crusade they find it hard to let go - you
know, programs, departments, jobs, etc, are at risk. A prime example is the taking of iodine to list 1 just when the clandestine drug lab busts are
falling way off. I chock this up to mostly bureaucratic time-lag, however.
Evil lurker said:
| Quote: |
What is really scary, is that there are only a precious few laboratory supply companies out there that will sell chemicals to individuals. What
happens if those few company's distributors begin to institute policies wherein essentially they are forced to only sell to businesses or research
institutions?
|
I fully agree.
I was really shocked when I saw 35% H2O2 OTC. I have never bought any but its nice to know its readily available. I feel that all its going to take
to get it removed from the shelves is a high publicity AP blast anywhere in the US. It seems that the last time there was an AP blast the news media
was going on about the dangers of beauty shop bleach, which is a maximum of 12% I believe. BTW, that doesn't seem to be on the grocery store shelves
anymore.
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
You know, I was actually surprised to find 10% bleach at Home Depot the other day. It's the first time I've ever seen it at a non pool store around
here. And I've looked actively.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
dwarferdude
Harmless
Posts: 1
Registered: 9-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
toluene, and acetone, too
Might not be bad to have a couple gallons around just because it's so useful: and acetone, too. Mixed, it enables
me to remove my nail polish, readily.
...............
As far as "surprises" goes, I was filled with wonderment to find HF acid for sale (concentration unk) in a "(discount)" store.
My recollection of this in the silicon fab industry was that no concentration was safe..
[Edited on 9-1-2008 by dwarferdude]
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Yes, even a 1% concentration can cause serious damage under the right circumstances. I don't know from personal experience as I try to avoid HF but
I've done much reading on the subject.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
I have been looking for OTC chemicals since I revived my home chemistry hobby some 4 years ago now. I'm always shocked when I find a new one at this
late date. Especially when it is right under my nose at Safeway or Wally Mart.
If you are wondering about the concentration of that HF I recommend you check its MSDS. I'm guessing that it is 2% and that the word whink is
relevant. This is one I just recently found also. There was a clue dropped on this forum by Elawr but I missed it at the time of his post. This OTC
has apparently been around a long time - let's hope that this continues and that the nannies of this world keep their filthy mitts off.
[Edited on by Magpie]
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Yes, I mentioned that one up thread. I just recently found it as well and I can't believe I missed it. I honestly think they just started
(re)stocking it in stores because I always look in the detergent section when I go. Actually, what drew me towards it were the huge warning letters
that say it can cause death on the front.
I just learned from this thread that KOH is avail. by itself OTC. I always wondered why the would do that as it should be more expensive than NaOH.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
