Safety Commission To Rule On Safety of Rulers In Science Kits

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has been trying decide for weeks if science kits designed to teach children are safe enough for children to use without vigorous testing. It's not just the chemicals or sharp items in the kits that they are troubled with however. They are also concerned about the dangers of paper clips, magnets, and rulers. From the article: "Science kit makers asked for a testing exemption for the paper clips and other materials. The commission declined to grant them a blanket waiver as part of the guidance the agency approved Wednesday on a 3-2 vote." To be fair, paper clips can cause a lot of damage — just look at what Clippy did to Microsoft Office.

Comments

Re:50's chemistry kit

[symes]

This is an important point - and I wonder if anyone has every bothered to investigate whether a bit of risky fun early in life is more likely to interest kids in science than teaching them from a rather dull text book. When I was a kid a bunch of us went on a school trip to a nuclear power reactor. When we visited the control room the senior engineer took us to a panel, turned a dial and made us watch as a temperature guage moved upwards - he had moved the control rod up out of the stack. He explained what was going on, we were all facinated, and then said he ought to put it back or the alarms might go off and he might get in trouble. Ok, not a chemistry set, but it highlights how engaging a bit of real world experimentation can be. I can't imagine kids these days could even get close to insides of a reactor, let alone play with control rods. Those were the days...

Re:Can't you simulate a chemistry set with softwar

[AkiraRoberts]

I agree. Real explosions are fun. Real fire is fun. I still remember the day in 7th grade when we were finally allowed to use bunsen burners. It is in my top 10, despite losing an eyebrow. I think the danger of getting hurt or, in rare cases that probably involve doing something deeply stupid that might well disqualify you from the gene pool, killed are outweighed by just how a) fun and b) useful learning science can be.

And rulers? Rulers? Are you fucking kidding me?

Comparison...

[Space cowboy]

Hmm. Thinking about banning *rulers* ... In science-class:

• When I was 9, we did a survey of the people walking past the school. We stopped people and asked them questions. No teachers were present.
• When I was 10, we all melted glass test-tubes in bunsen-burner flames, did some elementary glass-blowing.
• When I was 11, we used the lathe in woodwork, the drills and saws in metalwork, the wheel in pottery etc. I recall making a mangonel that could throw a ball-bearing about 50' in metalwork. That was an end-of-year project though, you had to do all the other stuff first.
• When I was 12, we were all using mercury-based manometers in physics class. Performed our own blood-type identification in Biology (stabbing your finger with a lancet wasn't fun though)
• When I was 13, we dissected a bull's eye, everyone had their own bull's eye, scalpel, etc.
• When I was 14, we took turns getting zapped and zapping others with Van de Graaff generators in Physics.More dissection (frogs) in biology.
• When I was 15, we detonated a thermite bomb in chemistry class, played with Lithium/Sodium and water
• When I was 16, life became boring because it was all about exams
• When I was 17, I took the explosives Chemistry specialisation (nothing too extreme, nitrocellulose and the like, but still)
• When I was 18, exams took priority again...

They didn't treat us with kid gloves, we were supposed to be midget scientists, not young hooligans. They kept us in order by making anyone who screwed up too much sit out the year (no more practicals, they could just observe). We took liberties, but not *too* many[*].

Of course, this was in the UK, not the USA. I can't vouch for how they treated kids over here - there's probably a whole bunch of stuff we did that's more dangerous than *rulers* too, but that was just off-the-top-of-my-head...

[*] Gun-cotton (basically cotton soaked in Nitric acid to form nitrocellulose) is pretty stable when it's wet, but when it dries out, small amounts of friction can set it off. We took a whole load of it to the pavilion on the yearly school sports-day, and forgot about it (we were playing Runequest in-between competing, I had shot-putt that day :). Eventually it dries, falls off the table, goes 'BANG!' and throws fragments of itself all over the place. Of course, those bits dried faster, and they were all over the floor. Pretty soon, walking anywhere in the pavilion would set off more bangs as the stuff exploded underfoot. Then the headmaster walked in. We made ourselves scarce just in time. He wasn't amused :)

Simon

Re:Can't you simulate a chemistry set with softwar

[digitalunity]

As someone with a lot of knowledge about regulatory requirements and conformity testing, I can say without a doubt the CPSC is on the right track here.

The industry's response is all posturing. Testing the metal edges in a ruler for harmful chemicals such as lead is very easy to do, and really not very expensive. Traceability of the raw materials to a source heat lot is essentially free. A single heat lot could produce tens of thousands of rulers, so a single metallurgical test may add a penny or two for a whole lot. There exist many standards for the plastic itself with regards to flame resistance and plastics testing but there is no national standard that I'm aware of regarding plastics toxicity and what is an acceptable level of lead and mercury.

If indeed the companies discontinue the kits because of the safety testing requirements, then that is basically an admission that they were never doing the safety testing of their own volition to begin with. I'm not even going to make up some bullshit "it's for the kids" argument. Fact is, citizens expect that the products companies sell are safe, whether they be for kids, adults or even pets. Kids may be the first to draw attention where a lack of safety testing exists, but we should all be demanding safer products for ourselves.

Instead of resisting this, they should be taking the opportunity to give themselves market differentiation by voluntarily starting safety testing.