The Chemical-Free Chemistry Kit

eldavojohn writes "It's known that home chemistry sets are in danger of going extinct, which has spurred set makers to add the label 'Chemical Free!' on modern chemistry sets (NSFW warning — JAYFK stands for Journal of Are You *expletive* Kidding). The kit for ages 10+ provides 60 chemistry activities that are mind-bogglingly chemical free. The pedantic blog entry points out the many questions that arise when the set promises 'fun activities' like growing plants and crystals — sans chemicals! That would be quite the feat to accomplish without the evilest of chemicals: dihydrogen monoxide. While this rebuttal is done in jest, this set's intentions do highlight the chilling growth of a new mentality: Chemicals are bad. Despite their omnipresence from the beginning of time, they are no longer safe. Even real researchers are starting to notice the possible voluntary stunting of science education that is occurring in the name of overreaching safety."

Comments

Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[elrous0]

Laugh all you want, but that stuff is a powerful solvent that's highly reactive. It can promote corrosion in metals and bacterial growth, is used in making many deadly compounds, and even becomes explosive when mixed with common chemicals like sodium. I hear they're even spraying it on houses and cars now to strip away dirt and grease. It's THAT powerful a solvent. All that and yet our kids are exposed to the stuff every single day, and no one seems to care. These our OUR KIDS we're talking about, for christ's sake!

Sure, the EPA and numerous state agencies *say* they're monitoring the stuff, but do we REALLY know?

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[ColdWetDog]

Indeed, it's the universal solvent. Pretty dangerous stuff.

Think of the Children!

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[elrous0]

Most people have no idea how many people die each year from just getting this crap into their lungs.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[JS_RIDDLER]

I Still Like the taste. Its best a little chilled.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Dr.Bob,DC]

I looked for that chemical on NaturalNews.com and Mercola.com and found nothing. Did you spell it right?
Will have to check after work or between patients.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[idontgno]

Here's an example of Dihydrogen Monoxide's MSDS, courtesy of Fischer Scientific.

I find the thing to distressingly underestimate the hazards. "No special equipment required. No special handling indicated. No hazard expected."

There are hints of the truth in there, like an explicit LD50 given, so obviously toxicity is a problem.

I'd say that overall, regulatory agencies are falling down on this job.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[oliverthered]

all you need is a lead acid battery, some urine and some old vegetable oil.

Half empty first, dehydrate second.
mix,
do something (carefully... ohh stings)
collect red fuming
buffer with other half
render third
skim
mix with buffer
warm
titrare
add cellulose base product to help with stability.
set up Nobel prize fund.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[treeves]

I guess that means lead, radon and fluorine are very safe. Fewer syllables than oxygen or nitrogen (or in the case of lead, even water).
OTOH, deoxyribonucleic acid, at ten syllables, must be awful stuff.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[goltzc]

Did you know that it is also the main ingredient in acid rain!

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[oliverthered]

I hear sodium chloride makes it able to electrocute people too and give off dangerous noxious fumes.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[idontgno]

Not so much chilled, but instead blended with select compounds of ethanol and malt-barley-based cogeners.

This is one of my preferred reagents.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[ivan_w]

Maybe look for hexane, or hydroxilic acid or Oxygen dihydride or something as such

--Ivan

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[drooling-dog]

Alright, I can't take it anymore. Even in the absence of a "common" name, I doubt that any chemist would refer to H20 as "dihydrogen monoxide", any more than aluminum oxide (Al2O3) would be "dialuminum trioxide". It's redundant, people. We call H2O2 "hydrogen peroxide" -- not dihydrogen dioxide -- and "hydrogen oxide" is all you need to distinguish H2O from that. If we're being pedantic, that is.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[AliasMarlowe]

I'm almost as worried about the "chromatograohy" mentioned on the box. If the morons can't even spell relevant technical words correctly on the box, there is little hope for clarity in the instructions within.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Haedrian]

Proteins must be amazingly scary in that case.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[mcmonkey]

Indeed, it's the universal solvent. Pretty dangerous stuff.

Wow. That is wrong. So wrong, I tempted to think it is a joke. Water is not a universal solvent.

No, I will not edit the page.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[bmo]

>like an explicit LD50 given

Water toxicity is an actual threat. People have died because they thought water is completely harmless when ingested in huge amounts, that you'll simply pee away the excess. You do pee away excess water, but the kidneys act only just so fast - 1 litre per hour for healthy kidneys.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16614865/ns/us_news-life/

--
BMO

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[adonoman]

hexane, or hydroxilic acid or Oxygen dihydride

Two of these thing belong together...

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[ivan_w]

I stand corrected (might because of reading something wrong - or a mispelling)..

Thanks

--Ivan

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[SnarfQuest]

and yet our kids are exposed to the stuff every single day, and no one seems to care.

Did you know that some parents actually sneak this stuff into the foods they give their kids! I've seen them dump large quantities of it into rice they are cooking! They'll even sneak it into breakfast omlettes and oatmeal! Farmers actually feed it to their cows, and it shows up in the milk! It's actually hard to find milk without this contamination, but the concentrated milk seems to be less affected!

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[wjousts]

Thank you. As a chemist, I often have to fight the urge to punch somebody in the face when they say "dihydrogen monoxide" or similar nonsense names for water. Don't use your own ignorance to try and illustrate somebody else's.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[thousandinone]

You think Dihydrogen Monoxide is bad? Hydrogen Hydroxide has all these dangers and more, and is JUST as common as Dihydrogen Monoxide!

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[wjousts]

Case in point, no, just no.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[ivan_w]

Not really..

In it's gaseous phase, it's fairly harmless, and can be found in minute quantities in the air you breathe

Furthermore, even if one is to inhale and fill it's lung with the foul substance, one may eventually be saved by allowing one to breathe again normally - assuming it is within a reasonable amount of time, then it is not fatal.

So no : Not 100% lethal !

(I must be new here!)

--Ivan

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[LunaticTippy]

There is no such thing as a solvent that can dissolve anything. That isn't what is meant by the term. Water dissolves more substances than any other liquid. That is all that is meant by the term Universal Solvent. Any intro to Chemistry course should mention this.

Thank you for not editing the page, btw.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Cillian]

That's not really the point. The point is that you can either make stuff up or be very misleading and lots of people will loudly go along with it (I believe a bunch of people went out and got a lot of signatures on a petition to ban DHMO). I'm sure if you made up something entirely nonexistent or found some other very obscure but pretty safe chemical you could get the same effect, but the fact that it's water makes it all the more amusing (And makes the fact that it's not actually evil more readily apparent to the informed reader).
"Oh well, I lost my moderations but I felt like saying this anyway. And don't blame me if some 'c's are missing, my key is a bit broken." -Cill

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[StikyPad]

It might not be the point, but it's still only slightly less asinine than referring to processor speed in gigabytes, confusing downloads with uploads, or any of the other inane mistakes that make most of us shake our heads and die a little inside.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[dgatwood]

I think they might have confused water (aqua) with royal water (aqua regia).

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[mcmonkey]

There is no such thing as a solvent that can dissolve anything. That isn't what is meant by the term. Water dissolves more substances than any other liquid. That is all that is meant by the term Universal Solvent. Any intro to Chemistry course should mention this.

Really? When I hear "universal solvent" I think DMSO, which dissolves polar and nonpolar compounds. There are just so many everyday materials which do not dissolve in water.

Whatever. Not the first time I've been wrong.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Libertarian001]

Right. Besides, everyone knows that it's proper name is Hydro-oxidic acid. Sheesh.

Lighten up, Francis.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[bziman]

To be even more pedantic, it's Hydrogen Hydroxide, since the way it bonds is actually H-OH. This seems to make particularly sense when viewed from an acid-base reaction perspective where you neutralize an H-something acid with a something-Hydroxide base, you get a something-something salt in a Hydrogen Hydroxide solution.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[snowgirl]

If we're being pedantic, that is.

Oh we are... and of all things, chemicals weren't around since the beginning of time either. It took a non-zero amount of time for the energy in the universe to expand and cool enough for molecules to form. (I believe it's non-zero amount of time for even atoms to form.)

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[snowgirl]

It might not be the point, but it's still only slightly less asinine than referring to processor speed in gigabytes, confusing downloads with uploads, or any of the other inane mistakes that make most of us shake our heads and die a little inside.

But it did the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs!

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Tanktalus]

So says you. I bet all those people die later, and there's no conclusive proof that it wasn't caused by your allegedly "harmless" chemical that they were breathing through their lives.

This has got to be a bigger concern than even HVDC power lines to the paranoid and delusional!

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Jesus_666]

Of course radon is safe. In the 30s you could find that stuff in mouthwash and what not. They stopped using it since, probably because they found cheaper alternatives.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Anonymous Coward]

What name would you give to the chemical WO2Sh?

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, I know that lead is safe for my children, because it's NATURAL.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[blueg3]

It's even a non-zero amount of time for subatomic particles to form.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is why, if we are being pedantic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

It follows the rules of nomenclature. Aluminum Oxide and Hydrogen Peroxide are common names but not the formal ones if you follow the rules.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[wjousts]

As the GP said, hydrogen oxide would be the most correct term (other than water). Any chemist knows the oxidation state of oxygen and knows how many hydrogen ions you'd need to make a stable molecule from it. You should use the simplest unambiguous name.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[nwf]

Indeed, I agree. That's what I was taught in chemistry class. Hydrogen Hydroxide all the way.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[SleazyRidr]

It depends upon the nature of the bonding in the compound. For ionic compounds (such as your aluminium oxide example) numerical prefixes aren't used, as the charge of the two ions determines the ratio of them.

Covalent bonds don't work the same way. For instance you could have either Carbon Monoxide (CO) or Carbon Dioxide (CO2), so the information of how many oxygen atoms present is required to correctly identify the compound. In these cases, because carbon comes first, we don't need to specify monocarbon- as that is assumed by convention. In the case of dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) the di- prefix is used for the first word.

Water does of course present a little more of an interesting challenge, as it can be seen as many types of compounds. It can be seen as an ionic compound (where you'd call it hydrogen hydroxide), or as an acid (which would be hydroxilic acid), or as a covalently bonded compound. Oxygen dihydride may be the /more/ correct way to refer to it as a covalently bonded compound, but as the convention is to write the formula as H2O rather than OH2, I'd stand behind dihydrogen monoxide as the correct name.

Yes, IAAC.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[scribblej]

Also, this joke was already old and stupid 20 years ago when I was in high school.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Halifax Samuels]

Little Susie was a girl
but now she is no more
for what she thought was dihydrogen monoxide
was dihydrogen sulfuric tetroxide.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[nschubach]

Thank you for not editing the page, btw.

Someone else did.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[FoolishOwl]

You're obviously a paid shill for the DHMO industry. How much are they paying you, huh?

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"If you look at fecal matter, what is it? It's carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and minerals -it's a great source of stuff for doing this."

-- Ian Gates, associate professor in chemical engineering at the University of Calgary.

  He's working on a method to turn human poop into a source of renewable energy.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Turning+waste+into+energy/4695390/story.html

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[DriedClexler]

Believe it or not, the issue of possible systematic names gets a decent discussion in Wikipeda.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[The Great Pretender]

You also forget that it is used extensively in naval warfare and can kill you if you are exposed to too much at one time.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[DarkOx]

An other issue with the over consumption of water that is a bit less extreme is the simple fact that your kidneys assume that in most cases they will be working against the concentration gradient. That is the will need to create a higher ration of chemicals that need to be removed from your body in your urine than already exist in the body, b/c there will not be enough water otherwise. If modern running tap water is used to turn this on its head well there is little mechanism to keep things from moving with the concentration gradient and water will dissolve and strip chemicals from the body in greater amounts than are desirable.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Kazymyr]

I disagree. Hydroxyl hydride is more appropriate. See formula: HO-H.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[AK Marc]

Someone calling it DHMO is making fun of people who are afraid of big words and the unknown. That you just don't get it indicates a lack of a sense of humour, lack of a sense of irony, or suffering from asininitis of which you complain about in others. The only reason you die a little inside each time you hear it is because you just don't get it. I bet you think Steven Colbert is a conservative talk show host.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't called "dialuminum trioxide" because Al2O3 is the ONLY way aluminum and oxygen can bond together. Other molecules (covalently-bonded ones, like WATER), can bond together in different ratios, and thus require a more descriptive name (using prefixes to denote how many of each atom are in the molecule). And yes, I am a chemistry teacher. :-)

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[SuricouRaven]

Hexane? Also, I gather the most 'correct' name would be hydrogen hydroxide.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[SuricouRaven]

Even those who originated the name dihydrogen hydroxide know it's wrong. It was picked out for the 'monoxide' part, and it's simularity to scareygas carbon monoxide. It just sounds more worrying then hydroxide.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[stephathome]

Going down the rapids.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[mcgrew]

There was an SNL skit with Gilda Radner and Al Franken concerning that same substance. Franken played a chemical industry shill talking about dihydrogen monoxide. "H2O", he says.

"Try this," says Radner.

"SO2O4", she says as Frankin takes a drink. Hilarity, of course, ensued.

I'm old enough to have actually had a chemistry set. My dad took it away when I almost blew up the house -- I'd discovered the magic of KNO3. I had lots of fun with that stuff (I burned a hole in the scholo's incinerator with it and sugar).

Come to think of it, science was always getting me in trouble. It ain't easy bein' a nerd!

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[StikyPad]

You're an idiot.

And that's Doctor Colbert to you.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[mcgrew]

Dude, WTF are you doing at slashdot? You don't even know how to use Google? Dihydrogen monoxode

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[mcgrew]

More people are killed by deoxyribonucleic acid than any other substance. In fact, without it, there would be no death at all!

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[mcgrew]

Are you trolling or joking? Radon is radioactive, but I wouldn't doubt that they put it in mouthwash in the 30s -- they had unshielded X-ray machines in shoe stores then.

Since Radon occurs naturally and collects in basements, it's probably causing more nerd cancers than anything else.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[FoolishOwl]

Oops. I assumed DHMO was an abbreviation for dihydrogen monoxide, i.e., H2O. That rather spoils the joke, unfortunately.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[treeves]

He's joking, but people did used to drink "radium-infused" water for their health. Google "Revigator". Some crazy stuff.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[mcgrew]

They are, especially when they make up big things with sharp fangs.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[camperslo]

That sounds like a horrible chemical!

Well... it could be from the Columbia river?

If modern science isn't enough fun, go old tech. What could one cook up at home in 1959???

http://www.science-project.com/_members/science-projects/1959/01/1959-01-fs.html

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[desdinova 216]

WOOOOOOSH!!!!

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[treeves]

Hexane is C6H14, an alkane, and a component of gasoline and related petroleum distillates. Quite different from water. I'd not recommend drinking it.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[sdguero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[kubernet3s]

these are the rules for IUPAC systematic names of inorganic compounds. However, no one ever uses those exactly, especially when talking about smaller compounds and lower oxides, and indeed "dihydrogen monoxide" is a terrible term, especially since oxygen can only ever have a single oxidation state when in a compound with oxygen. Carbon is probably the only element (with multiple oxidation states) whose lower oxides are differentiated on the basis of "di-" and "mono-" (cf. nitrous/ic oxide, silica) The fact that the highest oxide of hydrogen is called "hydrogen peroxide" it makes sense that the next lowest should simply be "hydrogen oxide," and since the lowest oxide after THAT is called "hydroxide," (which albeit exists only as a radical or ion) there is no danger of confusion if we call it "hydrogen oxide." (though it properly should be called "hydrogen hypoxide but since it's not a neutral species oh well)

Oxygen dihydride would be incorrect as it implies that hydrogen exists in a higher oxidation state, i.e., as a hydride. Deuterium, when in the analogous compound with oxygen, is referred to as "deuterium oxide" rather than "dideuterium monoxide." And many other hydrogen compounds follow a similar convention.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[LordLimecat]

Id imagine Oxygen kills more people than lead, each year.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[rhook]

H2O and DHMO are the same thing.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[geekoid]

well done sir, well done. I got your joke and chuckled a bit, but it seems like you caught several others.

Again, well done. Your promotion is in the mail.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Stormy Dragon]

If turning food directly into energy (e.g. ethanol), isn't working very well, why would food that's had a bunch of the energy stripped out by our digestive tract prove a better idea?

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Shit, I don't know...

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[S.O.B.]

Hey, Dr Bob

I was at a witch doctor's^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Chiropractic conference and I heard that excessive internet spamming can cause vertebral subluxations.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Jesus_666]

What the sibling said. I combined the "few syllables means safe" joke with the 1930s-era belief that radioactivity is perfectly safe and wholesome under all circumstances. They pretty much put the stuff in everything from the Revigators the sibling mentioned to ready-made radium-enriched water sold as a health tonic (and discontinued after someone got radiation sickness form it). Toothpaste, suppositories... there was a whole bunch of products made so you could contaminate yourself in the comfort of your own home.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[TapeCutter]

As a chemist, I often have to fight the urge to punch somebody in the face when they say "dihydrogen monoxide" or similar nonsense names for water.

Humourless and violent - nice combo.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[couchslug]

Solid Dihydrogen Monoxide sank the Titanic and suffocated many of the passengers. It clearly merits regulation.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Mindcontrolled]

No one calls them by their long names, though - it's always stuff like PrP(C), tau, LRP...

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Mindcontrolled]

The only humorous aspect of that crappy meme is that the people who try to look smart and spew their condescending shit are using a made up nomenclature that no real chemist would ever use and that does not adhere to IUPAC standards. If you want to do it right - water is considered a hydride of oxygen, therefor the name is Oxidane (as BH3, for example is Borane, SiH4 is Silane).

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Mindcontrolled]

IAA(bio)C - and I read the IUPAC nomenclature. You are correct that it is to be viewed as hydride by IUPAC standards. Therefor - Oxidane, as in Borane, Silane, and so on.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Walt Dismal]

My wife has made me universally insolvent, you insensitive bastards!

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Obfiscator]

CH4 is called methane, though. CH3-H, like a methyl hydride. And ethane (ethyl hydride), etc.

So maybe a hydroxyl hydride should be called hydroxane?

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Mindcontrolled]

Yes, like the IUPAC name for CH4 is carbane. Oh, crap, it isn't.

Oh, Mr. Anonymous Chemist?

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Mad-Bassist]

When did water get into this? I can't recommend drinking the stuff straight myself! :-ß

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Mad-Bassist]

Uh oh... so I was practicing recreational solvent use on all those camping trips...

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[Maritz]

Indeed. I'm not a mathematician but I imagine in zero time you can't get much to happen at all...

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[mcgrew]

Actually I think I was the one who was mistaken, there's a chemical with a very similar name (which I can't remember off the top of my head) that can soak into your skin, taking other substances with it. People use it to rapidly get drugs into their system; mostly used by arthritis sufferers. The stuff I was thinking of is a dangerous substance.

But I just googled DHMO and it is water, not the substance I was thinking of.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[SleazyRidr]

That's a good point about the hydride, my mind wasn't on that track. Thanks for catching that.

Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide *is* a serious threat

[badkarmadayaccount]

Oh, OK - from now on, I plan to use the term Oxidane to screw with people. Thanks.

what is a chemical anyway?

[andcal]

Will someone please define the word "chemical" for us?

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[PlusFiveTroll]

Noun: Chemical: A substance with a distinct molecular composition that is produced by or used in a chemical process.

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[treeves]

For the purposes of people who are afraid, maybe "anything that you could find a MSDS for". That leaves out vinegar, but includes acetic acid, for example.

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[nu1x]

So Mother Gaias Spunk is ok, but Dihydrogen Monoxide is industrial evil ?

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[bmo]

Water has a MSDS.

http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/w0600.htm

MSDSes are fun.

Learn something. Learn what to do when you get superglue in your eye:

http://www.rockler.com/tech/RTD20000394AA.pdf

In other words "nothing, put a patch over it and it will come off the eyeball on its own in a few days."

--
BMO

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[nu1x]

> protect the children!

NEWSFLASH !!!

Children are made of chemicals.

Also, children are known to cause hair loss to the state of California.

It is only a matter of time until THEY (whoever they may be) figure out that human spirit is made of chemicals and shit really hits the fan.

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[treeves]

True, but it's waste of time, as it says N/A for everything, basically.
  It's for people who'd think, "Gosh I have this bottle of DI water with a J.T.Baker label on it I paid a bunch of money for. Hey, they make chemicals! I'd better have an MSDS!"

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[hypergreatthing]

Will someone please define the word "chemical" for us?

Everything.

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[cpu6502]

Well that was useful. The dictionary might as well say: "Chemical: everything"

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[wjousts]

Not really a waste of time, the MSDS has more than just safety data, it also has physical data (e.g. boiling point, melting point). Of course, if you don't know the boiling point of water, you should probably step away from the chemistry bench. So really, it's only next to useless.

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[Ephemeriis]

Will someone please define the word "chemical" for us?

My college chemistry professor defined a "chemical" as everything .

Literally.

The dictionary definition I remember seeing was ridiculously all-encompassing like "made of molecules".

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[blueg3]

Hardly. Concrete, for example, isn't a chemical. (The individual constituents may be. Ultimately, the constituents of concrete are all composed of chemicals, but that could be a ways down.) A bridge isn't a chemical. Humans, potatoes, bacon, hope, money -- none of those are chemicals.

"Everything" is perhaps a more inclusive word than you were going for.

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[geekmux]

Will someone please define the word "chemical" for us?

Everything.

"Everything" depends on what side of the courtroom you're standing on, since we have a lawyer to thank for the "Everything" answer anyway.

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[maxwell demon]

Well that was useful. The dictionary might as well say: "Chemical: everything"

No. "Everything" would include e.g. the following non-chemicals:
* Electrons
* Neutrons
* Neutrinos
* Light
* Vacuum
* Energy
* Momentum
* Information
* Ideas
* Mind
* History
* Slashdot
* HTML
* HTTP
* Computers
* Houses
* Planets
* Stars
* Movies

Note that some of the above are composed of chemicals, while others are contained in chemicals, and yet others are completely unrelated to chemicals. But none of them are chemicals.

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[cusco]

Well, I don't have any human spirits, but I have some wormwood spirits that are full of chemicals.

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[cusco]

You mean like this? "https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/00199.htm"

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[Megane]

Hazardous Polymerization: Will not occur.

But what about Ice Nine?

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[treeves]

I got a chuckle out of the fact that a chemical company could not "find" the melting point, pH , or evaporation rate (usually expressed relative to butyl acetate which evaporates pretty fast) for water, probably the most widely and carefully studied substance in existence.

pH: Not available.
Vapor Pressure: 17.5 mm Hg @ 20 deg C.
Vapor Density: Not available.
Evaporation Rate:Not available.
Viscosity: 1 cP @ 20C
Boiling Point: 100 deg C
Freezing/Melting Point:Not available.
Decomposition Temperature:Not available.

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Better yet, will someone please explain why there is an expletive warning? What are we, children?

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[geekoid]

Did you ask him what the molecular chain of an electron is?

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[Mindcontrolled]

That's in line with my anorganics prof, who defined chemistry as "everything a chemist is interested in".

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[TheRaven64]

The impressive point is that they are using a temperature scale that is defined using the freezing point of water as one of its fixed values.

Re:what is a chemical anyway?

[Omestes]

It annoys the hell out of me too, as does the term "organic"... How, my corn chips have carbon atoms?! Wow! Actually, my bag of cheetos is made with "natural oils"... which could mean crude, or mineral oil.

Sadly this is how language works though. When someone rails against "chemicals" my brain fills in "man-made chemicals and stabilizers. The happiness I gain from this translation is much better than sitting around getting pissy every-time someone doesn't use language with the exactitude I expect. We all know what they mean when they rant about chemicals, and it hasn't degraded the actual, technical, meaning of the word one bit.

That said, I do get angsty when people use the word "philosophy" in the colloquial sense, but that might be because I'm still paying off vast amounts of college debt because of that word.

Clever

[OECD]

It's really an end-around the ridiculously litigious society we live in. The kit isn't quite chemical free. It doesn't ship with any, but the experiments utilize common household chemicals.

Re:Clever

[bmo]

>It doesn't ship with any, but the experiments utilize common household chemicals.

So does the Anarchists' Cookbook.

BRB, I'm going to market the Anarchists' Cookbook as a "chemistry set" and make millions selling it to kids.

Completely legal, but this would troll so many people. To troll Nancy Grace with this shit would be hilarious.

--
BMO

Re:Clever

[denis-The-menace]

It should be banned anyhow.
It it is every revealed that chemicals exists in homes the government will have to be called in to clean them out.

Just because they are useful doesn't mean they are safe.

Re:Clever

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

To troll Nancy Grace with this shit would be hilarious.

I thought Nancy Grace was a troll. You don't mean she is serious do you!!?!?!???

From the: To be dumb Is to be cool Dept.

[SuperTechnoNerd]

"in the name of overreaching safety" You mean overreaching litigation? Right?

Re:From the: To be dumb Is to be cool Dept.

[0123456]

"in the name of overreaching safety"
You mean overreaching litigation? Right?

Both, really. Not just a demand for personal safety leading to litigation when anything goes wrong, but also the idea that anyone who's indulging their curiosity about chemistry must be either making drugs or bombs that threaten homeland security.

And, needless to say, if you want more people to invent new stuff in your society then making curiosity a crime is a bad idea.

Re:From the: To be dumb Is to be cool Dept.

[geekoid]

litigation isn't nearly as based as the media and insurance companies would have you think.

In fact a vast majority of the examples of 'bogus lawsuits' are made up. The rest have details that get left out and get boiled down worse then a /. headline.

Re:From the: To be dumb Is to be cool Dept.

[SuperTechnoNerd]

I could not have said it better. It's a sad state of affairs.
As my subject says, your not considered cool if your a kid and into science especially chemistry. But the whole town will reward you if your a star quarterback.
I remember once a while back their was a 20/20 episode it was about "The American Family" and the interviewer asked a 14 year old boy "What is your greatest fear growing up?"
the kid said "Becoming a Geek" --- where you read Geek - read "smart"
o well

do it yourself chemistry set

[IceNinjaNine]

I wonder how difficult it is to get all of the chemicals needed by the Golden Book...

Re:do it yourself chemistry set

[dustymugs]

Quite easily. Just buy everything from Sigma-Aldrich (http://www.sigmaaldrich.com) as they've got almost everything a home chemist could want :-).

Re:do it yourself chemistry set

[h4rr4r]

You can still get those batteries at the dollar store, the pharmacy still sells saltpeter, lye is easy enough to get online. Now I will wait patiently for the authorities to arrest me.

Re:do it yourself chemistry set

[Rei]

I find ebay to be a great source of non-restricted chemicals. I got 1-2 dozen salts for hydroponics use from there, as well as other things for different projects (silver nitrate for plating, graphite and hematite for microwave absorption, aluminum sulfate for flocculation, food-grade citric and tartaric acid for cooking, etc.). And even as someone who grew up with chemistry sets, I've still learned new stuff in the process. For example, I was unaware of deliquescence until I left a measured sample of one of my salts out for a few hours and returned to find a salty puddle ;)

Re:do it yourself chemistry set

[Anonymous Coward]

The first trick is to get hold of a copy of the book.

You might have to do your own printing, but you could start at that Wikipedia article. It links to the only about dot com site that was ever worth a damn.

Re:do it yourself chemistry set

[bckrispi]

If you want liquid chlorine, just go to a Pool Supply store.

Re:do it yourself chemistry set

[Mindcontrolled]

That would not be liquid chlorine, that would be a solution of sodium hypochlorite, which dissociates and has a few % of dissolved elemental chlorine in it. Liquid chlorine is nothing you want to have around, trust me.

Safety?

[0xdeadbeef]

I don't think they're particularly worried about safety. What they are worried about is the perception that science kits can be used for making poisons and explosives. Today's political climate does not distinguish between having uncommon knowledge and having the intent to use it to do harm.

Re:Safety?

[hypergreatthing]

I don't think they're particularly worried about safety. What they are worried about is the perception that science kits can be used for making poisons and explosives. Today's political climate does not distinguish between having uncommon knowledge and having the intent to use it to do harm.

Today's political climate? This garbage being spewed out of your fingers... i don't know where to begin. Poisons and explosives? Who cares? Yeah, i'm worried about someone using a chemistry kit to make a poison when they can just use bleach or hundreds of poisonous substances which are widely available at almost every store out there.
This squarely falls into the category of too much hyperbole and no danger involved.

Re:Safety?

[DCFusor]

Further, I do have a decent chemistry set, and it was once seen through a window by a police person. Due to the magic of profiling, I soon had a full dynamic entry from the DEA to add to my list of interesting experiences. That alone makes a real chemistry set dangerous as hell -- those guys were within a twitch of shooting us! They looked and acted a lot more like the meth heads they thought they were there to "Take down" than any real meth head I've actually met. Maybe they were hoping for a free fix. Dunno, but that was scary, expensive, and uncalled for.

What was really fun is that what I was using it for at the time *was* making explosives, legally, for a patent I was working on for microexplosive welding of flat cables in flip top things (like laptops and cel phones). They were fine with that once they sent the BATF out to check. And weirdly enough, it was the BATF who were nice and polite, no drawn guns, we had a fun talk and all. Maybe, unlike the FBI/DEA/DHS, they bothered to actually look up my dossier and find out I was an ex-spook with a long record of exemplary government service -- for the "good guys", so they treated me with respect instead of disdain.

No one not caught red-handed in the act of a violent crime should EVER be treated like the DEA treated us. No one.

This is a very paranoid country

[Anonymous Coward]

When is doesn't have an external enemy, it begins searching for one.

This didn't start with 9/11, it goes back way before then.

If it can't find an external enemy, it looks within.

That's why we have >1% of our population in jail -- more than any other industrialized country.

That's why there's a camera on your street corner, and your cel phone tells the cops where you are, etc.

What do you call a government that does not trust its own citizens?

Re:This is a very paranoid country

[Tanktalus]

What do you call a government that does not trust its own citizens?

British?

Re:This is a very paranoid country

[Attila Dimedici]

The problem is not that the government does not trust its own citizens. The problem is that the government does not fear its own citizens.

Re:This is a very paranoid country

[smelch]

The UK.

Re:This is a very paranoid country

[scot4875]

No, the problem is that *citizens* don't trust *anyone,* and ask the government to step in and protect them from the evil terrorists/pedophiles/drug addicts.

--Jeremy

kitchen chemistry

[cygnwolf]

This is me, wishing I still had mod points..... That being said, following the links back to the mfr's website here seems to indicate that it's a kitchen chemistry kit. So, it's a Mr. Wizard book with come cheap "glassware" and safety equipment. Saves the company the problem of properly packaging and labeling the reagents, they can leave the warning labels to other manufacturers. Still, a bit of a cop out.

I think it uses household chemicals

[hawguy]

In looking at the picture, it's possible that the kit really doesn't come with chemicals (except maybe for some litmus strips or something like that).

The experiments sound like something you'd do with household chemicals like water, salt, soap, baking soda, etc.

So it's fair to bash the kit on the lack of interesting chemical experiments, but not fair to bash it only for the "Chemical free" label.

Though to be honest, even my old-school chemistry set with real chemicals with hundreds of "experiments" wasn't all that exciting for me and didn't do anything to give me good lab habits. Plus the powdered chemicals often congealed into a solid chunk and you had to scrape them off of the chunk. It was fun playing with the alcohol burner, though.

Re:I think it uses household chemicals

[nu1x]

> it's possible that the kit really doesn't come with chemicals

I rather think it is very impossible, as it cannot avoid coming with a staple chemicals of complex carbon chains that are usually not very fit for human digestion (cows would do ok tho, except for maybe mild poisoning).

Also, if seems to contain some silicium dioxide. It is known (in very small doses) to cause extreme irritation, it can also cause death by making you bleed internally (potentially).

ALSO, if I cause said chemistry set to enter the state of rapid oxidation, the fumes that result may or may not contain trace amounts of potentially hazardous chemicals, that are now floating free in your neighbourhood atmosphere (if it has plastic coverings of any kind).

Re:I think it uses household chemicals

[Anonymous Coward]

Uses gousehold chemicals eh? Like chlorine bleach and ammonia? Safe!

The real reason behind this

[stopacop]

Everyone knows you can cook up military grade high explosives and/or crystal meth with those chemistry kits.

"Chemical" now a synonym for "toxin"

[ewg]

"Chemical" has become a synonym for "toxin" in modern vernacular. Regrettably.

Re:"Chemical" now a synonym for "toxin"

[Rotten]

When insecticides and agrochemicals in general got labeled as BIOCIDES, it was the first warning signal that our society was dumbing down at extreme pace.

When the sole mention of uranium or arsenic (in natural state) started to sound alarms for some guys who started to "look for the culprit for that dangerous chemicals to be present in the water...must be the mining industry!!!" [of a remote hydrothermal area and the water in question was surging just meters of a volcanic system]...that day i lost all my hope. Society is stupid...or science has a comunicational problem w/society...or it's just the whole human race is doomed to be stupid forever.

Fear....always fear....do you know a better control tool than fear?

Re:"Chemical" now a synonym for "toxin"

[tsa]

Exactly. I often have a hard time getting people to realize that the citric acid found in citrus fruits is the same chemical they make in factories. Most people think the molecules made in the factory are poisonous because they are 'chemical' while the ones from the fruit are 'biological.' I then point out that many 'bio' substances are extremely poisones. That often makes them see the light.

Re:"Chemical" now a synonym for "toxin"

[deadhammer]

You can get one man to submit through pain, but you can get millions to submit through fear of pain. Or imprisonment. Or death. Or "evil outsiders". Or anything, really.

Re:"Chemical" now a synonym for "toxin"

[stephathome]

That's why when someone says to me "God made dirt and dirt don't hurt," I reply with "God also made arsenic." I could give a list of natural poisons, but the one is generally quite enough.

Re:"Chemical" now a synonym for "toxin"

[tjonnyc999]

To paraphrase...

"He who controls the language, controls thought. He who controls thought, controls behavior"

"Chemicals" become "toxins", "acts of terrorism" become "man-caused disasters" (hey, that's sexist!), and "illegal aliens" become "undocumented guests". And the beat goes on...

Allow me to be the first to say.... (and a story!)

[Anonymous Coward]

Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

The terrorists have won.

When I was a kid I spent months playing with my chemistry set and microscope.

It was a huge learning experience for me. I almost feel like I should try to buy up a few kits now before they're outlawed completely in case I have kids in the future.

Even after I had used up most of the reagents, I dumped all the remaining chemicals into a plastic pencil box and set it on fire. Then as a loving older brother, I convinced my little brother to stomp out the colorful flames with his foot in sandals and he got major burns as the molten plastic/chemical concoction combo. I then learned how pissed off parents get when you do stuff like that. The learning never stops.

lazy parents to blame?

[shop S Mart]

Maybe it's just me but my first thought was this sounds like some parents didn't want to have to supervise their kids while the kids used the chem set. Rather than suck it up and supervise them or not buy it in the first place they complain until it gets changed.

Hot and cold running poison:

[Hartree]

Of course it's toxic. It's a CNS inhibitor. Lowers the ionic concentrations that nerves depend on to work.

So, you better tell that kid drinking at the water fountain that he's gulping down neurotoxin. ;)

Another dangerous chemical

[sensei moreh]

Once upon a time, I mixed equal parts (by weight) hydronium hydroxide and dihydrogen monoxide. Poured the resulting product into a paper cup and drank it.

Wow ...

[gstoddart]

So, in 10 or 15 years, when everyone has grown up being kept away from anything remotely dangerous, not allowed outside, and being pandered to to be sure we don't hurt their feelings as we try to teach them to spell ... why do I foresee an entire generation of children who are too stupid and sheltered to do anything, and too spoiled and coddled to understand why they're not magically having the world care for them and give them everything they want?

I mean, OK, sure ... when we were kids, you could get cut, or break something, or maybe even really poke someone's eye out. Surprisingly few people actually did, though. Only the really psychotic kids, or the ones who really did need the helmet and the short bus were ever actually kept away from this kind of thing.

We already know that kids don't really understand basic science well enough to go into university and not be completely wrong about how things work. Chemical free chemistry sets? Wow ... let's wait for the generation that is raised entirely with safety scissors, glitter, and nothing but comforting reassurance that it's OK to spell words any way you please, and who cares what 2+2 is?

"Doomed as a species" comes to mind. At the very least ... the places that aren't intentionally educating their children to be simpletons will have an advantage.

How much of this is fear of litigation, and how much is fear of children becoming terrorists as they learn how to make pipe bombs?

Re:Wow ...

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

As a society, be have become to over protective of kids, (Wont' someone think of the children.) that when they finally get out on their own they will simply not be equipped to survive. I expect we are only a few years away from a massive increase in the number of deaths due to stupidity.
I am so glad I do not have kids.

Re:Wow ...

[Rude Turnip]

Let's be specific and honest here. It's going to result in generations of dumber American kids, whose economic overlords will originate from other countries.

Re:Wow ...

[dgatwood]

So, in 10 or 15 years, when everyone has grown up being kept away from anything remotely dangerous, not allowed outside, and being pandered to to be sure we don't hurt their feelings as we try to teach them to spell ... why do I foresee an entire generation of children who are too stupid and sheltered to do anything, and too spoiled and coddled to understand why they're not magically having the world care for them and give them everything they want?

And eventually, the Morlocks will rise up and eat those Eloi. I've heard this story before>.

Re:Wow ...

[b4upoo]

Worse yet how do you teach kids how not to accidentally make bombs without teaching them how to make bombs? In other words if you tell a youngster not to store propane tanks that leak a bit in a room that is not highly ventilated you've just also taught them how to make one heck of a bomb.

Re:Wow ...

[Tailhook]

So, 10 or 15 years ago, when everyone began being raised isolated from anything remotely dangerous, not allowed outside, and were pandered to to be sure they didn't have their feelings hurt when we tried to teach them to spell ... we foresaw an entire generation of children that would be too stupid to do anything, and so spoiled and coddled to that they would expect the world to care for them and give them everything they want.

Some knew then we would end up with kids that would never really understand basic science well enough to go into university and not be completely wrong about how things work. Chemical free chemistry sets? No surprise there. We now have a generation that has been raised entirely with safety scissors, glitter, and nothing but comforting reassurance that it's OK to spell words any way you please, and have never cared about the sum of 2+2.

"Doomed as a species" was brought to mind. The places that didn't intentionally educate their children to be simpletons now have the advantage.

How much of this was fear of litigation, and how much was fallout from anti-chemical hysteria?

Re:Wow ...

[careysub]

I don't think it is a fear of chemicals that is the issue, I think it is the fear of lawsuits. We have parents who see every kid's boo-boo as a chance to win the courtroom lottery. ...

The funny thing about this fear is that no lawsuits of this kind appear to have ever been filed. It is fear of a non-existent threat.

The nearly complete disappearance of access to common chemicals seems to have occurred after 9/11, but not just due to terrorism fears. The DEA has become increasingly aggressive at prohibiting the sale of chemicals that have application to drug manufacturing - which means almost all chemicals. They started decades ago with exotic organic chemicals that are specialized precursors of popular intoxicating drugs, and has been working its way down the chain of synthesis and is now banning - err "controlling" - once common inorganics and solvents. It is now impossible to buy iodine in the U.S. for example, even in small quantities for medical use.

Re:Wow ...

[physicsdot]

why do I foresee an entire generation of children who are too stupid and sheltered to do anything

why do I foresee an entire generation of North Americian children who are too stupid and sheltered to do anything

Re:Wow ...

[scot4875]

There are (and always will be) plenty economic overlords right here in the US. It's not just that China's buying us; someone else has to be doing the selling.

--Jeremy

Re:Wow ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe George Orwell knew more than people realized when he wrote "1984". Dumb down the population, and get everyone hooked on texting using a shortened version of the english language...oh, and by the way, that device you carry around(iPhone), yeah, it has a camera and a microphone that is constantly tied to a global network that the government is heavily tapped into....food for thought.

Re:Wow ...

[livingboy]

It is now impossible to buy iodine in the U.S. for example, even in small quantities for medical use.

So you don't have Betadine(local antiseptic for humans) in the U.S. or Speedway Leg Paint (blister for horses) ?

Seems that there is huge difference then between U.S. and Europe,

Actually, I'm not sure it is impossible to buy, however seems that you must have a * A DEA Registration Number is required to buy and sell this product.* , I wonder how many horsemen buying iodine based leg paints have that.
http://theharnessshoponline.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=71_83&products_id=2377

Re:Wow ...

[Shotgun]

I don't. They will still be able to vote.

Statistics Show

[Haedrian]

That 100% of people who ever died on the earth were at some point in contact with this substance.

This should be more than enough proof.

Really guys

[JamesP]

If you buy a "chemistry set" "without chemicals" to your kid you are:

1 - A Moron. EVERYTHING is a chemical.
2 - A darn overprotecting parent.
3 - Someone without the slightest idea of how the world works

Really, enough with the BS

They're ruining the childhood of kids!

Re:Really guys

[AK Marc]

Or D - You get the discount chemistry set with no chemicals knowing that your house is filled with chemicals.

Oh, didn't think of that one? Could it be that you are worse than those you complain about because of your focus on the negative and inability to think critically?

Re:Really guys

[JamesP]

yes, you can do that, but then skip the box (unless you're going for the test tubes that come with it)

Re:Really guys

[AK Marc]

It's a box with chemistry tools inside and no chemicals. It's not completely useless. You just apply some basic household chemicals and you have a "full" chemistry set.

Nope. No chemicals:

[Hartree]

It just contains all natural arrangements of protons, electrons and neutrons. Not a nasty chemical in sight.

Oops. Wait. Those are subatomic and nuclear particles. Nuclear is an even worse word. Can't have that.

Short=Safe

[Sooner Boomer]

I was at a Chiropractic seminar a few months ago where one of the presenters had an interesting point: the more syllables in a chemical name, the more dangerous they are.

 

So farts are perfectly safe?

Teach your children

[Tokolosh]

I bought a gallon of hydrochloric acid (muriatic) at Lowes last week and had loads of fun with the kids, seeing what reactions occur with common household objects (ammonia, sodium bicarbonate, pennies, eggs, etc.). The Lowes guy asked what I wanted the acid for, and I said we were going to make hydrogen (react with metal). He asked again, because he obviously thought his ears were malfunctioning, but dropped the subject when he got the same answer.

What!?!

[wjousts]

But that box? It's made of......chemicals!!!! Argghhhghghgh!!!!

Yellow goggles

[The Grim Reefer2]

Did anyone else notice the silly looking 1975 looking swimming goggles that this kit comes with? I guess they'll keep you from getting a soap bubble in your eye or something, but why bother. Or the Pink plastic test tube rack?

Solution: The Golden Book of Chemistry Experiments

[WillAdams]

Here:

http://www.chrisbrunner.com/2006/09/21/banned-the-golden-book-of-chemistry-experiments/

Also be sure to get your kids a copy of:

http://www.amazon.com/Do---Yourself-Gunpowder-Cookbook/dp/0873646754/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304105028&sr=8-1

and perhaps a book on glass-blowing or get the good / original Pyrex from yardsales:

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/04/28/did-the-sale-of-pyrex-hurt-the-crack-cocaine-industry/

William

That is what people said about you

[SmallFurryCreature]

Seriously, do you think is new? Did you hunt? Help a cow deliver a calf? Helping build the house? Make bread? Fix your own car and fully understand it, not clip in a new chip? Build your own radio?

I will tell you something very simple. My mother knew vi (no, not vim) better then I. To me it is the editor of choice in the shell, for her it was the latest tech. Used it NOT to edit some config files but to do office work in. Mail.

You are the pandered child to the generation before you.

And yet, it still works out.

Re:That is what people said about you

[networkBoy]

Did you hunt?

yes

Help a cow deliver a calf?

can we count several goats (seriously) instead? The cow really didn't need any help.

Helping build the house?

yup

Make bread

yeppers

Fix your own car and fully understand it, not clip in a new chip?

chip? (ok, yeah, my truck has chips in it) My merc doesn't even have an ignition coil :-)

Build your own radio?

several, why do you ask?
I'm only 34, but your point does stand, as I think I am in the vast minority of those my age.
The part that doesn't really stand is the last one. I really am not sure if it will work out. The teachers at my children's school are even complaining that they are being stripped of the ability to teach properly by new age (for lack of a better term) teaching methods that are being required by the district because it is easier for the children to feel a sense of accomplishment.
-nB

Re:That is what people said about you

[Anonymous Coward]

One is on a full ride scholarship studying Theology and the other wants to be in digital art

Man that was close. It almost sounded like they were going to be useful. Better luck next time

Re:That is what people said about you

[zThumperz]

I've done those things... although it was a goat and not a cow. I also had a chemistry set that probably could have maimed me in some fashion. I'm glad I had those opportunities and that I have the knowledge of how to do those things. Pandering works out until those skills or similar are actually needed.

Re:That is what people said about you

[thegarbz]

Not quite. You're missing the point of the profession. I have never hunted, nor killed a calf. Nor do I expect to.

I have built my own radio. I am an electrical engineer not a farmer, and I've been dismantling and tinkering with electronics since I was about 3 years before old enough to pick up a soldering iron (got some fancy burns as a child due to this).

Now imagine someone who genuinely wants to take an interest in chemistry. I had a Chemistry set as a kid, played with it for about an hour then moved on. It wasn't my thing. But now will kids know these days. A generation of people will grow up thinking that all there is to chemistry is growing salt crystals and completely piss that career off without ever seeing its potential as they don't get exposed to it before uni.

The Parent was a bit alarmist. We're not doomed as a species in the next generation. But there sure as hell won't be as many chemists if people are told all their lives they are not allowed to play with chemicals.

Re:That is what people said about you

[Fnord666]

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

Re:That is what people said about you

[wierd_w]

1) Did you hunt?
A) Yes. Found it boring. Know how to do it though if pressed. (Found making and laying snares more profitable.) Also know how to identify wild edible plants, and how to process them. Found the latter more enjoyable than hunting anyway. Plants are awesome. Also understand the importance of avoiding over harvesting.

2) Help a cow deliver a calf?
A) Having been raised in an agricultural environment, and having been exposed to animal husbandry-- YES. Yes I have, and yes, yes I do know how to pull a calf. Thank you. I have done it several times, and could still do it if needed.

3) Help building the house?
A), No, but I have helped rebuild roofs. (No, not tarpaper and shingles. I mean support timbers) I have also helped build barns. Very similar to your houses in no less respect. Same principles apply. Also well practiced in making survival structures. Lots of fun for young and old.

4) Make bread?
A) From powdered yeast, or from cultured sponge? In either case-- YES, and YES. The latter is much more challenging, and is actually quite fun. Hard to get people to not throw out your sponge when they find it in the fridge though. Gives you a good lesson in keeping your kitchen clean so you get the right kind of culture when working from sponge too. Good for historical lessons on why breweries and bakeries were not normally in close proximity to each other as well. I would highly recommend it as a home lession in microbiology and home economics.

5) Fix your own car and fully understand it?
I do fix my own car, but I dont fully understand it. The automatic transmission alone is absurdly complicated in the nitty gritty of how it operates-- Something to do with over a thousand moving parts and complicated fluid dynamics involved in how it shifts gears. The basic understanding is there, but not complete understanding. So "Sort-of". I have seriously considered building an electric vehicle as well. Really want to get my hands on some tritium based beta-voltaic cells. I dont mind painting the big radioactive sticker on my car, if it means I dont have to recharge it for 25 years. ;) As far as useful radio isotopes go, Tritium is pretty harmless. Sadly, the prevaling ignorance, fear mongering, and paranoia from government, industry, and other citizens makes sourcing such batteries nearly impossible unless you are a military contractor. Still looking for a private sector distributor... I really dont want to use dirty heavy-isotope pacemaker batteries. Nasty isotopes in those.

6) Build your own radio?
A) Actually, YEAH! I DID build my own AM radio once-- Course, I had instructions and it was part of a kit, but yes-- I DID create my own crystal set AM radio. Really neat. Further, now that I am older I understand how the crystal set radio works well enough to build one without a kit. I might do that some time when I am bored.

So... I guess I score a 5.5 out of 6 on your quiz.

No. I am not "Old". I am not even 30 yet. Oh yeah, I can also spin, weave, crochet, know how to produce vegetable textile dyes, and can synthesize simple pharmecuticals (like aspirin), and a whole host of other neat stuff. (Like make rope, fishing nets, ceramics, glazes, glass, ... ... You get the idea. This *IS* slashdot. Geeks come in a wide variety of flavors.)

I realize I am abnormal in that respect--- I am an information and skill junkie; LOVE learning new things rather than say, A porn junky, or sex addict like most people are these days-- but that does not invalidate the GP. I am this way BECAUSE my parents encouraged "Dangerous learning activities."
If they had kept me in a plastic bubble like most people do with their kids these days, (OMG! They might come into contact with GERMS! Quick, get the hand sanitizer!) I would not be anywhere NEAR as capable and skilled as I am today. I wouldnt even be the same person!

I am apalled at the state of education of other people around me. No concept at all of how the rea

Re:That is what people said about you

[pokerdad]

Seriously, do you think is new? Did you hunt? Help a cow deliver a calf? Helping build the house? Make bread? Fix your own car and fully understand it, not clip in a new chip? Build your own radio?

The difference is that our parents didn't purposefully not teach these things; we just didn't learn them because we didn't have too.

Re:That is what people said about you

[hankwang]

Well said overall, but this statement:

in fact we use more energy each year than is delivered by sunlight!

is not correct. From World energy consumption at Wikipedia: total energy consumption (oil, coal, etc.) is 1.5e13 W, while solar irradiation is 1.7e17 W. That's about a factor 10,000.

Chemistry as a kid

[Hoi Polloi]

Unless you've played with potassium permanganate and glycerin in your parent's basement you haven't experienced the joys of (non-narcotic) chemistry based juvenile delinquency.

Re:Chemistry as a kid

[callmebill]

Pomegranate and glucose? What's wrong with those?

Drug Free Pharmacy

[wintercolby]

Coming soon, to a street corner near you!

a good chemistry set

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, it is still possible to get a real chemisty set:

http://www.amazon.com/Thames-Kosmos-645014-C3000-Chemistry/dp/B000BPL4Z4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=toys-and-games&qid=1304105600&sr=8-2

This one is sufficiently advanced that adults seeking a refresher will enjoy. Why, it even has you deal with sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, and silver nitrate (although you have to buy these separately).

For a younger audience, there is the C2000 and C1000 sets, which also have an instruction book aimed at younger readers.

A lot of homeschool families use these sets. They're quite a bit more advanced that what most kids get in high school these days.

The Idiot Trend

[b4upoo]

It is quite a problem to fist identify a trend towards idiocy and then figure out how to change society into something healthier.
                      Right now parents worry about their kids having any kind of future as excessive population and technology continuously devalue human labor. The pressure will accelerate as technology displaces more and more fields of endeavor. In some ways basic values will be assaulted and the danger of social chaos collapsing all progress is very real. If we no longer need labor and even jobs requiring thinking in depth then we must arrange pay checks for all people and they best not be token pay checks. Right now we see the issue modeled in land line telephones. With less and less homes having a land line it becomes ever more pressing for the phone companies to run wire and maintain poles with less and less people using the system in an area. Soon we are likely to see the same issue with power delivery. Power companies will raise rates severely as less and less homes are on the grid.
                      Likewise, conventional society will fail when less and less people are employable due to technology and excessive labor availability. As we bring the incomes of those who no longer work who will soon be the majority, closer and closer to the income of those that do work or invest for a living conventional ideas of right and wrong will have to be changed. The majority, who do not work, should easily be able to vote in laws and regulations to have the system work for them and against the former barons of wealth. Some southern towns fought this issue in the 1950 era. The situation was that in some towns the black population was the majority and jobs simply did not exist for them. The great fear was the vote could enable the poor, black majority to tilt the system on its ear and apply massive taxation to those that owned property or businesses. Every force the whites could muster was used to prevent the black population from voting. The whites lost with those tactics. Their grip eroded. Now we are seeing another form of the same type of behavior. The right wing pushes absurd doctrines designed to mislead all voters. By crippling education a dumbed down population can not sort the lies from reality and more conservatives can grasp control of the system. In the end violence will be the tool used to equalize the system. Suffering produces anger and anger produces violence.

Possible Johnny Carson quote

[snspdaarf]

"Remember when a dangerous toy was one that could poke out more than one eye at a time?"

Re:The war on drugs also killed chemistry sets

[snspdaarf]

True. In Texas you have to have a permit to buy/possess laboratory glass.

Sheltered kids - Adults unable to function

[ThunderBird89]

My father is a professional photographer. He studied in a time when photography started in the brain, not in the camera, and you had to develop the film and images yourself. When I was five or so, he gave me a bunch of lab-grade equipment to use as I please: beakers, Petri dishes, test tubes, a rack for them, cleaning equipment, graduated cylinders, glass pipettes (the kind they use in a real lab, with precise markings), the works.

It wasn't before long that the carpet in my bedroom had several stains and outright holes around the part where I played with the stuff. I mixed up all sorts of crazy stuff: glue from vegetable oil, some green acid that ate right through the carpet, and some sort of caustic foam from god knows what components comes to mind. My parents didn't mind it that much, because was learning. My father didn't even bat an eye when I took a mouthful of that green acid because I couldn't see it creep up in the pipette, he just told me that I should do that facing the light so I can see it. The caustic foam got all over my hand, yet my parents weren't suing anyone.

I was barely ten when I helped him develop film in the lab. If anyone did that before, they know that the stuff used is not kid-friendly, and can kill you in a heartbeat. Why didn't I die? Because I didn't fuck around with them. I did what my father told me to do, and didn't do what he told me not to do. I also had the common sense to approach stuff cautiously. I don't try stuff that looks dangerous just to see what happens.

There's probably a lesson in here for what appears to be the majority of American parents: kids need their freedom. Why not let him endanger himself a bit, just enough to teach him that it's not good. The more sheltered a child is, the less likely to be able to cope in the outside world. If the kid is allowed to explore and learn on its own, it'll become that much stronger and adaptable. Thus, removing 'dangerous chemicals' from a chem set is not the answer, nor is absurd supervision. The answer is to teach him properly.

Re:Sheltered kids - Adults unable to function

[YttriumOxide]

Recently, I've been having this same "discussion" with my wife. We have a newborn daughter and while I'm firmly in the camp of "watch to make sure she doesn't kill or seriously injure herself, but otherwise give her free reign", my wife is more in the "shield her from the world" camp.

At least I won one small victory recently. A friend of my wife told her that a particular medicine must be okay for kids since it's "from plants"... my wife recalled a conversation I'd had with her a little before that and responded sarcastically, "oh yeah totally safe, like deadly nightshade!".

Re:Geezus f*ing Christmas

[sensei moreh]

I must have received mine when I was 7 or 8, so it hasn't quite been 50 years - let's call it 45+. Made by Gilbert. Mine came in a white cardboard box, not the fancy case that enclosed some of the earlier sets. Like the parent, I'm still alive, with all extremities intact. (In all likelihood unlike) the parent, thanks to that chemistry set, among other influences, I can claim to be a geochemist.

Not all hope is gone

[Sprouticus]

My wife bought a Chem set for my then 3 (now 4) year old son several weeks ago. After doing the relatively simple experiments he went around saying he wanted to do chemistry when he grew up for almost 2 weeks. Monday they did a second set of exeriments (creaitng a hydorscopic crystal from the results of the 1st experiment) and he got JUST as excited.

And now that he gets to see the 'mushy' crystals after they have absorbsed water in the air is is almost giddy.

There are still ways to teach our kids. Really we can only do it one parent at a time, some are beyond hope, but if you have nieces or nephews, if you have resonable relatives, convinvce them. Its a start. If you need to justify it beyond the idea of learning, tell them that Chemical Engineers will be in high demand because no one is teaching their kids. Money is always a good carrot for some parents.

It's not the chemicals that are unsafe.

[rickb928]

It's us.

Darwinian Science

[RY]

Half the fun of the old science kits was learning not to becoming a Darwin award winner. With all the coddling and protectiveness in the world today what kid is going to learn not to mix calcium carbide and water in a balloon and let it float over a kitchen table with lit candles? That is outside play!

Obligatory

[raymansean]

• 1) Invent chemical free chemistry set
• 2) Market said set to Morons
• 3)....
• 4)profit

and I though selling 16oz bottles full of water was never going to catch

TSP..

[Paracelcus]

1. Tri Sodium Phosphate (cleans driveways)

2. Caustic soda (opens drains)

3. "Muriatic Acid" (dilute hydrochloric acid) (diluted even more) removes mineral deposits, rust, tarnish

4. Bleach (sodium hypochlorite) Clothes, junky needles, algae

All are dangerous, I've been using them all my life!

Yeah but...

[denzacar]

I expect we are only a few years away from a massive increase in the number of deaths due to stupidity.

Just think of the ratings for a show about all those death by stupidity incidents?

Won't someone please think of the ratings?

Regulators:: Cursed for thousands of years

[Gallomimia]

But what about our post-apocalyptic ancestors who break into an abandoned house's play room, rifle through the shelves of board games to find the chemistry set, unopened due to video games, in order to go all MacGuyver on those zombie's asses, only to find: no chemicals. What the hell is a chemistry set with no chemicals? Is it like "batteries sold separately"?
We need to think of the future.

Re:Regulators:: Cursed for thousands of years

[couchslug]

"post-apocalyptic ancestors"

That's an impressive Apocalypse!

Re:EVERYTHING is a chemical?

[JamesP]

Yes, and you're really brave posting as AC

Unless you have a box with light (in a vacuum) and sound waves, and Linux (without a media), take a hike.

Except if you have a box, you have chemicals.

Re:Allow me to be the first to say.... (and a stor

[idontgno]

Yeah, I got that same lesson at the tender age of 12 when I demonstrated home-made gunpowder to Dad. Not "Neat, good work", but "YOU'RE GONNA BLOW UP THE HOUSE!"

Good point, I suppose, but you'd think he'd be a little more encouraging.

I suppose that's the moment I switched from chemical engineering to computers. In 1976 it would have been nearly impossible to do anything damaging with a computer, unless you were working with banks or military command and control.

Re:The war on drugs also killed chemistry sets

[Zan Lynx]

Which is idiotic. It isn't like meth labs are picky about what kind of glass they use or picky about much of anything.

Is Texas somehow worried the meth will be too high quality or too safe to produce that they had to try to control laboratory quality glass???

Do they have glass inspectors at the local Ren Faires making sure the glass blowers aren't selling laboratory quality glass to random people without permits?

Crazy.

Dihydrogen Monoxide caused Fukushima disaster

[Kyusaku Natsume]

and killed the 92% of people that died after Japan's March 11th earthquake. Is a key component of tsunami waves. I rest my case against this dangerous substance, and request more mines to keep all of us away from their pernicious effects.

Uncle Tunsgten

[91degrees]

Neurologist/Author Oliver Sacks autobiographical work Uncle Tungsten goes into some detail about his playing with chemicals as he was growing up. He learned a lot about chemistry just through personal experimentation. He had access to a lot of chemicals that could easily kill him, but people were willing to trust that he was going to be reasonably sensible about things.

Kids these days aren't trusted that much, and as a result they don't have the urge to learn. Those of us who like computers or electronics are fine. Nobody thinks those are inherently dangerous at the moment, but the poor kids who have exactly the same eagerness about chemistry just don't get the chance.

This is seriously harming the science of chemistry.

Re:Thanks

[bmo]

Sodium metal and water most certainly will react.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY7mTCMvpEM

About 4 years ago there was a fad on Youtube of people having "sodium parties."

--
BMO

Everyone knows...

[billybob_jcv]

... Brawndo's got electrolytes!

Re:Thanks

[treeves]

Water does react violently or dangerously with several substances, but of course, *those* substances are the ones needing the warnings, since they are not naturally occurring, ubiquitous and potable like water.
Alkali metals, alkaline earths, calcium carbide (reacts with water to form acetylene which is highly flammable/explosive - remember 'bangsite' at the fireworks stand? haven't seen that for years either :-( ), many hydrides, phosphorus pentoxide are examples.

Lame posts

[crossmr]

Instead of making fun of the box, why don't they open one up and see how the experiments are done and then comment? I guess that's what I get for RTFA.

Chemistry Sets

[glatiak]

One of the happiest moments of my ill-spent childhood was when my cousin gave me her very lightly used chemistry set. She was a tad older than me and this one was produced in the mid-1940's, well before safe and sane (obviously oxymoronic) became the watchword of the day. I had a lot of fun with it and was cheerfully able to do fun experiments that were already unavailable in the late 1950's (at least for kids). Still have all fingers, toes and other functioning body parts, except for numerous little scars from woodworking (as an adult). Life is not safe, and nobody gets out alive -- a small detail which is much more on my mind in retirement that it was as a kid. But here we are in a forming nanny state -- chemical free chemistry sets, dated child seats for cars so we dont use an old seat... seizure of child lunches to suppress unfashionable food choices, and so forth...ad nausea. Heck, when I wanted to blow something up I could -- and being still here means that I survived the Darwinian test. If we prevent those of us who really should not survive from removing themselves from the gene pool are we really better off? Idiots...

Re:Chemistry Sets

[Mindcontrolled]

Well, true - after going through 2 or 3 chemistry sets, I found a supplier for good lab glassware and chemicals and build quite a serious home lab as a kid. Ended up studying biochemistry after that. On the other hand, after getting serious experience in labwork and safety procedures, I shudder when I think back at some stuff I did as a kid. In some cases, I have just been plain lucky....

What am I missing?

[Kennita]

The MSDS for water (http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/w0600.htm) says the freezing/melting point and pH are "not available". I think I know those numbers -- doesn't everybody?

Re:What am I missing?

[bledri]

The MSDS for water (http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/w0600.htm) says the freezing/melting point and pH are "not available". I think I know those numbers -- doesn't everybody?

IIRC, the melting point is at 10.1859*pi degrees Fahrenheit.

Re:What am I missing?

[RockDoctor]

The MSDS for water (http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/w0600.htm) says the freezing/melting point and pH are "not available". I think I know those numbers -- doesn't everybody?

Freezing and melting points are dependent on pressure. pH (negative log of the concentration of hydrogen ions) is also going to vary with temperature.

Oh, and let's not even get started on the dozens of different allotropes of ice.

Re:What am I missing?

[Kennita]

Isn't the difference in freezing/melting point based on pressure true of many, if not most or all, chemicals? In my chemistry class we learned that measurements were generally taken at STP (standard temperature and pressure). I have looked at ten or so web pages, and I found "The term allotropy is usually only used for elements. In the case of compounds, the analogous term would be isomers." So water doesn't have allotropes. Also, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice#Phases), "Ice may be any one of the 15 known crystalline phases of water.". If that's what you were referring to, there are 15, not dozens. I could find no reference to pH -- point me, please? Thanks.

Re:EVERYTHING is a chemical?

[JockTroll]

No, but electromagnetic waves are radiation. As in NUCLEAR RADIATION! AAAAARGH! HELP! PUT OUT THE SUN. People, and all living things, are based on DNA. Manipulating DNA without precautions will cause you a lot of nasty things, including cancer. DNA IS CARCINOGENIC! AAAARGH! BAN IT! BAN IT! Gravity causes stuff to fall towards the center of the Earth. Falling from a high enough place will severely harm or kill people, including little children. BAN GRAVITY! WAAH WAAH MAKE ME SAFE! Ah, the center of the Earth is a sphere of iron and nickel way above melting point. Touching it could severy burn little children! MOVE TEH CHILDREN OFF EARTH! THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW! You see, it doesn't stop with chemicals.

Mono-oxy Di-Hydride pwns all !

[Taco Cowboy]

ogen Monoxide is nothing if compared to the most dreadful Mono-Oxy Di-Hydride !

This extremely deadly chemical is responsibled for 92% of the total death toll of the recent Japanese Earthquake cum Tsunami !

Err...

[BrokenHalo]

Tungsten sulfonyl hydride?