Sciencemadness Discussion Board - The Stupidity of Certain Chemical Bans

The Stupidity of Certain Chemical Bans

Sauron - 20-1-2007 at 05:54

In another thread we touched on thionyl chloride which is a useful chlorinating reagent, now politically incorrect. Why?

Because the leaders of two nations who were at war with each other in the 1980s decided to make sulfur mustard and hurl it at each other. More specifically their technocrats decided to use the old "German metod" and make sulfur mustard (bis(2-chloroethyl sulfide) from thiodiglycol (bis(2-hydroxyethyl)sulfide) and thionyl chloride.

This is a great way to make this stuff on a lab scale but a vastly unnecessarily expensive way to do so on industrial scale. If one insists on using the German method, concentrated HCl works just fine and costs a LOT less than SOCl2.

Furthermore, the process the US and UK developed to counter the Germans was much cheaper still and much more efficient, it is called the Levinstein (or sometimes Lewistein) method, and is simply the bubbling of ethylene gas through sulfur chloride. The result is a complex mixture of mostly sulfur mustard itself but also containing more complex compounds many of which are even more powerful vessicants than the main component.

Given that both Iraq and Iran were and are in the oil business one would have thought that ethylene gas would hardly have been a problem for them to obtain. Whereas they had to purchase vast quantities of thiodiglycol from Europe, USA and Japan. Go figure!

SCl2 and S2Cl2 are readily obtained from the elements and also are produced in large quantities as byproduct of the manufacure of carbon tetrachloride. (Chlorination of CS2.)

So it remains a mystery to me why the "German method" was insisted upon.

Had it been otherwise one supposes that the authors of the CWC would have diligently tried to ban sulfur, or perhaps seatater (which chlorine is made from by electrolysis) or table salt (likewise) or maybe natural gas (source of ethylene) or ethanol (likewise.)?

So from the CWC standpoint is iit not fortunate that Saddam and the mullahs employed two tractible compounds?

Thiodiglycol is a component of inks and a solvent for printing processes and is also used in the textile industry.

We chemists did not have a sufficient lobby to stop the ban of thionyl chloride, unfortunately.

I suppose we should be grateful they left us with hydrochloric acid.

And we have a few tricks up our sleeves still.

It was the Hill & Bill SHow that hurriedly signed off on the stupid CWC in the last gasp of their presidency. Bush would never have signed it.

Does anyone REALLY believe that a piece of peper will prevent any national effort to manufacture a simple compound?

garage chemist - 20-1-2007 at 06:09

Thionyl chloride can be used for far more dangerous CWs than only mustard gas.
Specifically in one of the steps of Sarin synthesis (Chlorination of methylphosphonic acid to the dichloride). But in this synthesis it can also be replaced by oxalyl chloride...

Of course it is stupid to ban it.

[Edited on 20-1-2007 by garage chemist]

GAMESH - 20-1-2007 at 06:39

Divulged syntesis are Unreliable, when dangerous stuff is involved.This explain it.

Sauron - 20-1-2007 at 06:56

@GC, thechlorination of methylphosphonyl diesters is usually done with phosgene.

Rather than trying to replace only one alkoxy group is it better to replace them both, affording THE key intermediate for all the G-series except GA, that intermediate being Dichlor or methylphosphonic dichloride.

Of course you can also make Dichlor by other routes, often much more easily.

If you are curious I'd rather explain in a PM as I'm not wanting to write a How To manual here.

Dichlor is generally converted to Difluor. At this point one has 1 of the 2 components of a binary agent. You can probably fill in the blanks for the other half, it is trivial and depends on which specific G-agent is desired.

In thirty years of study on this subject this is first time I have ever seen the proposition advanced that SOCl2 has any specific utility in the preparation of any G-agent. That is not to say it is not true. However, it is hardly the only potential chlorinating reagent and it isn't the reagent of choice.

Furthermore I am not aware anyone makes Sarin, Dichlor or anything else in this family from methylphosphonic acid. That is to me a nonstarter. A prep sketched by someone who does not know practical phoisphorus chemistry well, or at all. Looks fine on paper to the non-specialist. But. The devil is in the details.

The main bedeviling detail is: where do you get the methylphosphonic acid? The usual prep is hydrolysis of a methylphosphonyl diester, but if you have the ester you can go directly to the Dichlor and skip the acid.

The acid is notoriously difficult to esterify. It's a rather placid compound.

[You can pretty well figure the practical routes to GB etc from the CWC schedules of controlled chemicals. And the lists of additional items proposed by the Australia Group. Methylphosphonic acid is on none of those.

The impractical routes are those that require too many steps for no good reason, or require reagents/precursors difficult to make or procure. In short they are without advantage. Sometimes the road less travelled just leads to nowhere.

Always remember: the Aum nutballs in Japan spent $11 Millions of USD on their lab, and for all that how many people did they kill with their high priced GB?

Hell they could have paid as many people to commit suicide and daved a lot of money, time and trouble. If they are the paradigm for supposed "chemical terror" then it is not as my friends who wrote the book "The Poor Man's Atom Bomb" thought. It is rich lunatic's ineffectual pretense. $11 Million! what a joke.

[Edited on 20-1-2007 by Sauron]

GAMESH - 20-1-2007 at 07:04

New glasses needed,methink.
Divulged Syntesis are unreliable.Sawron.
Are you talking teory?

Sauron - 20-1-2007 at 07:16

@GAMESH I am not talking "teory" or even theory.

Published procedures may or may not be reliable, depending on who published them and when and where.

What unreliable preparations are you talking about?

I would say, many of the so called preparations I have seen on certain web sites are bogus. Many I have seen in certain black books for masturbatory wannabe's a la The Anarchist's Cookbook are bogus.

Published articles in long established peer reviewed journals like JACS, JOC, JCS, not to mention the 19th century literature like Ann. and Ber., are not bogus. Books like men like Saunders and Schrader are not bogus, Org.Syn. procedures are not bogus.

Chemical science does not advance by publication of non-reproducible experimental results. That is what peer review is all about. Only scorn and derision are in store for those whose results are not reproducible. Remember COLD FUSION?

The patent literature, well, is sometimes reliable and sometimes less so.

But I am not talking "teory" and if you want to dance with me you'd best know the steps before the band begins to play.

[Edited on 20-1-2007 by Sauron]

roamingnome - 20-1-2007 at 09:57

i cant help to say that Sauron must have ate some spicy tie food because your not taking any slack from the band this session
tune up that oboe section, it sounds as if a seagull swallowed an I-pod playing 50 cent.

But in seriousness, it seems you have the interest in some type of protein research and indeed epitope prediction and folding methods are of great intrigue to me. Im more of a grunt in the operations, but over lapping TOCSY and COSY nmr scans, one can begin to assign chemical shift values and ascertain structure in a given ionic strength, solvent, and temperature. There are a lot of nasty chemicals to work with like TFA in cleaving peptides, but the point im trying to make is…
Any government or business would be silly not to give you a key to a full lab, a fellow of your credentials and experience.

I mean I can see a chap from NewJesey or California complaining that they cant get chucky peanut butter anymore but is this just a peeve that you have to voice….

Resources it all about the restriction and distribution of limited resources…

Sauron - 20-1-2007 at 10:13

It is indeed a pet peeve of mine. It seems the proscribed lists are multiplying. Can't have these things because of the WOD, can't have those things because of the WOT (category A Mad Bombers and category B imaginary chemical terrorism.) Then throw in what we can't have because it might harm wildebeasts in Rwanda and pretty soon we have no solvents, no reagents, and so on. It's already at the stage where one can hardly pick a prep at random from Org.Syn. without finding something that is required that is now proscribed.

May be I am a typical old has-been pining for the Good Old Days, but, god damn it, they WERE the Goold Old Days. And deserve to be pined for.

Ozone - 20-1-2007 at 10:23

I honestly think that the legislators are confused (and their scientific advisory committee should be shot in the face repeatedly (in an allegorical way)--they should know better). It seems to me that they choose to ban a chemical which can be used (but is not ideal) so as to avoid the banning of a commodity level chemical, like HCl (whatever would they do without HCl?). The addition of the mustard reference only serves to scare the votes out of the legislative assembly (it's used to make war gas, we must ban it).

A recent and interesting experience:

In two separate *legitimate* purchases from a well known chemical supplier (of which I am a legitimate client, registered, licensed, all that) I purchased 1L SOCl2 and 100mL of ultradry, ultrapure benzaldehyde (not cheap). I was not questioned about the SOCl2, but had to fill out forms declairing that I was not making drugs or chemical weapons (which the dept. director also had to review and sign).

Odd that, no chemical weapons from benzaldehyde (cherry bombs? bad joke, I know).

Go figure :/,

O3

Sauron - 20-1-2007 at 10:47

Full marks, @O3. Re the benzaldehyde remember that tear gases (non lethal, police type, riot control agents) are covered by the same bullshit as full bore lethal agents. And that the standard prep of CS (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile) tear gas is from 2-chlorobenzaldehyde and malononitrile.

As to the "ban this/don't ban this" rigamarole, CWC has several dozen countries as signatories and they started with a list of 200 or so, and by the time all the chemical sacred cows had been excluded they banned what, less than 30 or 40?

Should we be grateful for such hypocrisy?

In effect they threw some chemicals to the wolves, but only if they were insufficiently economically important. Great example: pinacolyl alcohol. Does it have any use? None I can think of. Terribly east to make by a series of preps from acetone that used to be standard undergrad instructional lab fare, prep of pinacol and rearrangement to pinacolone. So given that they haven't banned acetone (yet) and to do so they'd have to ban 2-propanol, which appears unlikely, why are we to believe that CWC would prevent the production of pinacolyl alcohol?

Furthermore if this alcohol is banned why is 2-propanol (used to build GB) not banned? Reason: it's too useful, and pinacolyl alcohol is EXPENDIBLE.

Well what's expendibe now may be of some importance later, you never know.

Ozone - 20-1-2007 at 11:03

Thanks,

That is precisely where I was going. It'a all a horse-trade and it follows the golden rule: He/She who has the gold makes the rules.

To make it worse, we do not get to vote on anything that directly effects us (in the U.S.)! Anything that the hairbrained gophers think up that they suppose will be shot down in public vote is made an act of legislature. We are informed of the date when it will go into effect. Democracy? No.

Say it's not so,

O3

@roamingnome--off topic, but is COSY cool, or what?!

[Edited on 20-1-2007 by Ozone]

Sauron - 20-1-2007 at 11:07

But @O3, the green check suckers will always provide for a 60-90 day period for public comment before they cut our balls off.

I think the rationale is, let them squeal before, maybe they will make less noise after.

Vox populi and all that.

[Edited on 20-1-2007 by Sauron]

Ozone - 20-1-2007 at 11:15

Yes, but it is posted in the news rag in very small font, embedded in 45 (arbitrary) other notices, and written in legalese that is difficult (even for me) to understand. The average person has no idea or care. Frequently, these go unnoticed until you go to a restaurant and find that smoking has been banned everywhere (an example).

Legislation on chemicals is far more intentionally obfuscate. It seems to require ACS and a herd of lawyers to translate these, and by the time the legislative action network is notified, it is frequently too late.

They are obligated to notify us, but they are not obligated to be intelligible; doing that would minimize their chances of success.

One nut left

,

O3

[Edited on 20-1-2007 by Ozone]

Sauron - 20-1-2007 at 11:32

Let me assure you, if you think US legalese is undecipherable, you haven't seen EU legalese upclose yet.

With all due respect to our European members, EU lawyers appear to be specialists in blue smoke and mirrors. I tried to make sense out of some EU liquor laws a few years ago, I still have a serious headache from the effort. And never did get to the bottom of it.

A good friend is an Ozzie govt type who is embroiled in trying to harmonize food and beverage and pharmaceutical regs between Australia and New Zealand and he reports that even this bilateral matter is a frigging minefield.

roamingnome - 20-1-2007 at 12:03

well if you could walk into Chem-Mart and grab every conceiveable chemical at will, maybye chemistry wouldnt be as film noir. the rabbit and the hat.... i wish i was blowing my own glass and making jupiters net, Those were the good ole days!

at the end of this thread .. where are you left,,, still without your Thionyl

well maybye Sauron isnt working with protiens
i was lucky to be working with hyperintelligent pre-med students who handled all the FTIR stuff, and after a few Dr. Peppers you could get into it like a game of tetris. gather data then interpret later.... you can really milk HPLC method development for all your career goals.

yes the under rated secondary structure the beta hairpin..... the alpha helix and beta sheet gets all the prestige... but take away a hair pin and your protien no worky

Polverone - 20-1-2007 at 12:07

I don't understand how the CWC has had such an impact on organic synthesis workhorses like phosphorus trichloride and thionyl chloride. These are Schedule 3 under the CWC, which means "Plants which manufacture of more than 30 tonnes per year must be declared and can be inspected as per Part VIII of the 'Verification Annex', and there are restrictions on export to countries which are not CWC signatories." The occasional verification tour and export restrictions to non-signatories don't sound that onerous. Thailand's a signatory, too, so I don't see how it's harder to get CWC-listed chemicals there than in other signatory nations. How did these reasonable measures mutate into "end users have to fill out paperwork for every gram of PCl3, and thionyl chloride will simply vanish from Thailand"?

I know I can buy triethanolamine from half a dozen suppliers of cosmetic/personal care raw materials, who aren't even general chemical suppliers, with no trouble at all. That's supposed to be CWC Schedule 3 just like POCl3 and SCl2. Such discrepancies make me suspect that there's a lot of controls implemented by additional legislation that's more restrictive than the CWC, or even by no legislation at all, just cover-your-ass instincts on behalf of middleman suppliers (who may pretend that the law requires such of them, since then they can deflect their customers' anger with "the <strike>devil</strike> government made me do it!")

For an example of extreme ass covering, the Photographer's Formulary declared on their website a few years ago that they required a "DEA form" (statement of use plus copy of photo ID) to sell hydrochloric acid and several other chemicals, only a handful of which the DEA actually cares about. That's leaps and bounds beyond the requirements of the law; I don't know if it was intended as a giant ass-covering move, a way to encourage clandestine chemists to shop elsewhere, or a combination of the two. If you just glanced at their order page and saw "DEA form", you might wrongly think that the government has imposed this ridiculous requirement -- not that it hasn't imposed plenty of its own ridiculous requirements.

Sauron - 20-1-2007 at 13:20

How CWC is implemented on a national level is left to the discretion of the signatory nations. In the case of Thailand, not only the CWC scheduled chemicals but a much broader list compiled by the Thai Defense Ministry require a license from the Permanent Secretary's office in the MOD to import, or manufacture. PCl3, POCl3, elemental P (red and white) and PCl5 are all on the list. SOCl2, SO2Cl2, SCl2, and S2Cl2 ditto. Bromine and chlorine, too, as well as fluorine. Chlorosulfonic acid (probably because it was a component of a military smoke agent.) SO2. It's a long list and some items make little sense.

Triethanolamine despite being on CWC and the Thai MOD list seems to be readily available.

Bromine also, as long as you don't buy too much. Maybe 1-2 Kg a month is okay.

HF gas is restricted as is SO3. (But oleum is not.)

There's a lot of obscure arsenicals on the list.

The net effect of this is to bring things to a screeching halt.

I am quite sure the same is true in many newly industrialized nations or in the remnants of the Third World.

Worse, bureaucracies in these countries are often corrupt. I am not saying that is true of Thailand in this instance but in many places I bet the bottom line is "Want a license? Pay up."

Which makes the entire enterprise obstructive and dysfunctional, as well as arbitrary and capricious.

Sergei_Eisenstein - 21-1-2007 at 01:29

How is the law enforced in Thailand? Is the paperwork important, or is there nobody who really cares? I can imagine the South Thailand insurgency at least can create a few difficulties. And the situation in bordering Combodia and Laos?

Sauron - 21-1-2007 at 03:44

What situation in Laos and Cambodia? We have a bridge across the Maekhong River linking Nong Khai and Vientiene. People cross freely in both directions. Peace and quiet. Cambodia is also at peace, all along the frontier there are casinos where Thais go to gamble on weekends. The major ones at Hat Lek, Pailin, Poipet. There is no "situation" and hasn't been for about 15 years since the UN sponsored elections.

The southern problem is confined to three border provinces that used to be the single Sultanate of Pattani, and the ousted and exiled former aristocracy of that sultanate were the original instigators of unrest a century ago. Moslems in all the other 71 provinces, have zero common cause with those people. The King names a Chularajamontri to be leader of Thai Moslems and the Thai Moslems are loyal to the King and to the Chula. No Chula has ever been named from Pattani, Narathivat or Yala, and the people there do not respect the Chula.

Anyway things were quiet 1975-2000 due to the policies of Field Marshall Prem. Upon the election of Thaksin in 2000, he dismantled Prem's CPM43 apparatus and the trouble started immediately. Escalated for 6 years. Now Thaksin is ousted at behest of the Queen, precisely over the southern issue, and we expect that the three provinces will quieten back down once again.

Thailand has a strong security apparatus but it is not antithetical to the populace not oppressive, the people love the King and Queen and the security agencies and the military serve the Monarchy. Thakin came from the Police and there, alas, things are not always so straightforward. He was corrupt and very disloyal. But very rich and succesful as a result of his corruption. (A US$ billionaire.) He set himself in direct conflict with the Palace and once he did that his money could not save him. He is in exile.

Sergei_Eisenstein - 21-1-2007 at 06:46

Sorry, I now realize that my question wasn't formulated clearly. I am curious about the situation in Cambodia and/or Laos when it comes down to running your own private lab, whether this is an enterprise or your garage.

Sauron - 21-1-2007 at 07:09

Well, the government of Laos is still communist, and deeply involved in the heroin traffic (aminly, the army.) So, if you were allowed to set up a lab, the main risk would be that they would at some point ask you to do them some favors. If you take my meaning. Given that you could hardly say no, this is unacceptable to me and I would advise against siting a lab of any sort in Laos.

Very similar situation in Cambodia where reportedly there are quite a few labs cranking out viagra/cialis etc. and god knows what else. You would be assumed to be just another drug lab and as such would be squeezed for protection by Hun Sen and his merry band of ex-Khmer Rouge gangsters. Look sideways at them and you are dead.

You want a report on Burma maybe? Worse.

In Thailand, if you have the right connections, and are a known person, and are NOT in the drug trade, and NOT making explosives or weapons, and you dot your Is and cross your Ts and so on you will be ignored, and tolerated. I've been here for damned near twenty years, am very connected to the Thai military and police, am not doing anything naughty as listed above. I have been buying lab equipment and chemicals for 7-8 years now locally as well as importing and I have never been visited, questioned, interviewed, audited, and certainly not harassed. I do have a registered business and am considering the formation of a non profit research and educational foundation. This is for real and is not a front or cover for something else. At some point I expect to apply for permanent residency and perhaps Thai citizenship some day if I live that long.

Bear in mind that the Thai prisons are full of unhappy white guys who came here and thought the Thais would tolerate their dabbling in drugs. Not so. Very long sentences are handed down. Very long. Just a word to the wise. The DEA, Interpol, the UNDC are all very active here and their Thai counterparts are kept busy. There's a huge amphetamine problem here and amphetamine dealers are often summarily executed by the Thai police. Anyone who has that in mind, should just go somewhere else.

Ozone - 21-1-2007 at 07:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
I do have a registered business and am considering the formation of a non profit research and educational foundation.

That is an excellent idea. The concept of coupling real research with outreach is always win-win. People learn something, employees are grown, and the granting institutions and industrial partners suddenly find you quite attractive for collaboration.

Here, there are some new initiatives set fourth by several Universities; these are referred to as Research and Business incubators. Here, private researchers (or groups) can incorporate, and in return for a (surprisingly small) piece of the intellectual property and local economic growth (outreach is key to this too) they are provided with laboratory space, seed money, and patent protection (defending an infringment is usually where the private citizen goes four-legs-up; they simply do not have the resources to fight a large company). And...Blue-Sky is actually encouraged!

Good stuff, but an attorney is absolutely required (to remain half-way sane) to negotiate the bureaucracy that is required to set it up.

Cheers,

O3

[Edited on 21-1-2007 by Ozone]

[Edited on 21-1-2007 by Ozone]

Sauron - 21-1-2007 at 08:19

That is positive news.

Ban DHMO

Levi - 24-1-2007 at 05:23

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen monoxide:
- is the major component of acid rain
- contributes to the "greenhouse effect"
- it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state
- contributes to erosion
- accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals
- may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes
- has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients

Despite the dangers, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
- as an industrial solvent and coolant.
- in nuclear power plants.
- in the production of styrofoam.
- as a fire retardant.
- in many forms of cruel animal research.
- as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal.

http://www.petitiononline.com/h2o/petition.html

[Edited on 24-1-2007 by Levi]

Boomer - 24-1-2007 at 08:26

Old hat, but the sad thing is some politicians believed it. Maybe in 20 years - shit five - the hysteria will reach THAT level. Some thoughts:

All train station are made non-smoking here one by one. I have no problem to refrain from smoking in a public building where others are forced to inhale the shit too.
But 4 out of 5 'stations' they converted lately *have no buildings*. There is just some pavement under open skies next to where the train sometimes stops (if it's not delayed or cancelled)!

I tried for weeks to buy 100g sodium nitrite, nobody sold it to me. Most said it was forbidden because of children making black-powder-and-such from it. I say "that's nitrate not nitrite" but in vain. Others refused becaus it is *toxic*. It is in every f*cking salami! Did I mention they had OTC rat poison and weed killer on the shelves?

I cannot buy more than 250ml of 96% alcohol, it is illegal to sell more to an individual within a month. For health reasons of course. I can however buy gallons if it contains methanol. Plus, ever heard the work liquor store?

No chem supplier sells petrol ether to individuals without lots of paperwork. Becaus it is 'highly flammable' (F+). Have these people ever seen a gas station?

Recently had to sign an *end-user-agreement* to get H3PO4 because it is a strong acid and 'might cause severe burns'. I assume the 96% sulfuric and the solid NaOH from the drug store don't hurt me then?

to be continued...

bio2 - 24-1-2007 at 11:01

Would you mind telling us from what region of Draconia
you are from, Boomer?

Sauron - 24-1-2007 at 12:12

Obviously Lower Draconia where the county Mountie is Buford T.Justice.

itsafreecountry? - 24-1-2007 at 14:28

The way I see it, in the EU, the restrictions are geared more towrds toxic materials (don't you need goverment permission to purchase HgCl2 in the UK?). This is to be expected due to their more leftist/environmental leanings. But with the control of toxics, you more or less know what to expect. Chemists know what materials tend to show high toxicity and/or instability.

However, here in the US, the control is geared so much towards the farce of the "War on Drugs" (plus the recent additional focus toxics and explosives due to "terrorist" concerns), that one never knows what will be illegal or watched next, due to the huge variety of drugs.

What chemist, a couple decades ago, could have predicted that one could hardly buy sassafras oil within just a few years? Go look in the 1970's and older chemistry/toxicology literature and observe the warnings about white phophorus. Red phosphorus was hardly mentioned unless in a synthetic context.

Magpie - 24-1-2007 at 16:43

As you say, in the US prior to the last 2 decades red phosphorus was just another reagent, although care was needed in storage and handling. In my 1962 lab manual is a procedure for the preparation of acetyl chloride using red P. This preparation has been deleted in the 1977 edition of same manual.

I have a relative who lives in a city where phosphorus was until just lately manufactured by the ton. He said that the plant had a problem with employees walking out with it in their lunch boxes.

Fleaker - 24-1-2007 at 21:13

Makes sense. The stuff is big bucks on the street unfortunately :\

Sauron - 24-1-2007 at 23:49

Now of course not only do at least some govts not want you to have red P but they also want you not to have acetyl chloride! because you *might* make that terrible weapon of mass destruction, CHLOROACETOPHENONE with it.

The inclusion of the nonlethal lachrymators and their precursors is one of the most utterly ridiculous aspects of CWC. Tear gas, what the hell.

Of course every police force in the world still uses it and CS so I suppose by that logic every chief of police is the moral equivalent of a "Chemical Ali" (who I suspect, they'll be hanging before long.)

I do remember when the Swedes wanted to have LBJ indicted in the World Court for "war crmes" because we used to pump CS into vietcong tunnels. So I guess the CWC stance on riot agents is just a survival of that sort of selfrighteous asininity. I suppose the Swedes would have felt better had we pumped the tunnels full of Dihydrogen Monoxide resulting in acute DHMO intoxication known to produce respiratory failure. Logistically trickier I suppose.

chemrox - 27-1-2007 at 21:59

Quote: "In another thread we touched on thionyl chloride which is a useful chlorinating reagent, now politically incorrect. Why?"

I've apparently been out of touch. I bought a bottle last year. When was it banned? PCl4 still being sold to non-licensed folks? Or is chlorinating banned altogether? Now there's a plan!

Since chloroephedrine can be reduced to make the Evil One better not allow anybody to chlorinate anything. While we're at it, just make chemsitry illegal except at schools and government certified labs.

Sounds a little like China in the '50's doesn't it?

(how does one make a quote box?)

[Edited on 28-1-2007 by chemrox]

Magpie - 27-1-2007 at 22:45

What we seem to be heading for is a system much like that of the Hapsburgs of olden times where alchemy was illegal unless you worked in the king's laboratory. There it was promoted and funded. :mad:

Sauron - 28-1-2007 at 03:28

And that is what is called the Nanny State. A society in which national government regards its adut citizens as small children who must be herded, coddles, fenced, monitored and supervised.

It sucks.

Ozone - 29-1-2007 at 19:35

"Pickle 4" (PCl4)?

I only know of PCl3 and PCl5 (and POCl3).

The "nanny state" thing has got to stop.

All of this shit results from political horse-trading in the name of "the children", when it really amounts to protecting the functionally retarded because they both vote as they are told and reproduce indiscriminantly (which means more undereducated, indoctrinated voters).

It kills me,

O3

How long will it be until forks are sold with corks?

(Dirty rotten scoundrels was, as they say, "the shit").

[Edited on 30-1-2007 by Ozone]

Sauron - 29-1-2007 at 22:16

The P(IV) oxidation state is little known but highly interesting...

Thionyl chloride is a CWC listed chemical. As a result some member states of the Convention have simply banned it outright. CWC does not require that. Where I live it is totally unavailable.

While it is not the most convenient compound to prepare it is far from impossible.

And there are alternatives to it that are not on CWC at all and not banned here.

[Edited on 30-1-2007 by Sauron]

itsafreecountry? - 30-1-2007 at 15:49

I like the point ozone made about the "functionally retarded".
Fuck the slow, stupid, incompetent, socially smart, football smart, etc. They bog down classrooms, wheras the gifted are often unnoticed... well they do get attention in the form of harrassment and bullying.

These problems, however, can be specifically addressed. But it's the general protection of the bottom-feeders that is hurting us all in that it is treated with more or less of a shotgun approach. Chemicals are notably attacked from a multitude of angles. Hence, the plight of us "unsanctioned scientists".

Case in point for trending back to more of a natural selection/Darwin Awards mentallity, the video of the kid with the chlorine and alcohol bottle:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4292898733372477540...

I see it is this way. If one ventures into an unknown procedure and is harmed, that is by definition ignorance. When a known dangerous activity is done with an error, an outcome of injury is due to stupidity and/or carelessness.
But when the explicit goal of a k3wl's experiment is to generate an explosion, and you carry out the procedure in your hand (note the vigorous shaking), it is completely inexcusable! This kid does not deserve the hand he probably lost.

Sauron - 30-1-2007 at 21:37

Ray Bradbury envisioned a dystopia in which the firemen didn't put out fires, they burned books. Books were banned and possession of books was a crime.

The Luddites were an antitechnological movement, Heinlein envisioned a future anti-science/antitechnology reaction and neo-Luddite society.

Today not in science fiction but in society we are experiencing the leading odge of pretty much what Bradbury and Heinlein dreamed of. Armed authorities with draconian powers acting against presumed "clandestine laboratories".

The war on drugs is bogus and the war on terror, insofar as the largely fictitious threat of chemical terror, is also unjustified. The motivation behind this phenomenon seems to me to be fear of science, and is therefore essentially Luddite.

Ozone - 30-1-2007 at 22:05

Please don't forget that of the top 5 best selling drugs last year (C&E NEws) ~3/5 of them were antidepressants (2) or antipsychotics (1). The rest were statins, IIRC.

SOMA is on its way! Advertise on television, "are you having a bad day" and the average person would say, "yes"; well then, ask your Dr. about _______. It may take 6 weeks before taking effect. By then, if the unwitting misses meds, they have a *really* bad day! See addiction. With the exception of a few clinical cases, the majority are medicated with little cause, likely because the doc knows that the patient will likely go somewhere else unless a presciption is written (nevermind the pharmie sales reps with the Ahem, *technique*).

It's really too bad that the doc would be sued for saving someone's sanity with a new and improved drug, placebo (or a good old fashioned bottle of booze).

What ever did we do when we had to solve our problems (frequently improving the self)?

Character does not come in pill form, at any price.

Cheers?

O3

[Edited on 31-1-2007 by Ozone]

Sauron - 31-1-2007 at 03:52

Full marks, O3. But soma is not on it's way, soma is here already, it's just concealed under a score of other names.

(Is there anyone reading this who does not know what soma refers to? The ubiquitous happy pill of Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" another dystopic future vision.)

When Bayer was preparing to market diacetyl morphine (heroin) as a cold remedy (alongside Aspirin analgesic) they screened it for addctiveness, on their own chemists and technicians. They concluded that heroin was nonaddictive. The character of their German scientific types was such that even heroin, now regarded as a hard body drug, had no particular allure. No siren song.

There is such a thing as an addiciton-prone personality and the presence or lack of it plays a serious role in determining the outcome of encounters with "addictive" drugs. Some people become dependent on opiates after encountering them only in a clinical setting. Most people do not.

It is fashionable to blame the drugs and not the people.

The Harrison Narcotics Act was passed mostly as a sop to the newly unemployed federal agents who had been trying to enforce the Volstead Act (prohibition of alcohol). Which was only passed because male voters were overseas fighting WW I while the newly enfranchised female voters were at home to cause such mischief.

[Edited on 31-1-2007 by Sauron]

chemrox - 4-2-2007 at 00:05

POCl3 .. I'm sloppy sometimes

Omniquist - 10-2-2018 at 21:04

I spent the past half hour reading this entire thread. This makes me sad, because it's all very real, what you are saying. That was a very good reference, the one to Fahrenheit 451. I have not read Huxley yet. Although given what I've heard of it, and looking at the way things are, and again referencing 451, we have to be brave in this world now. There's a "movement" on YouTube calling it self FE and those that believe it, "flat earthers". Smh..... ....... I made a few vain attempts to speak to the young ones that seemed possibly intelligent but impressionable with references to the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn and why they are the same circumference and thus the North Pole is not the center of the fucking planet. "I'm reminded of the great Socrates who said, 'I drank what?'"..... :mad:

LearnedAmateur - 11-2-2018 at 04:11

You guys should feel lucky, here in the UK, the government is gearing up to ban sulphuric acid and other strong acids without a license due to the few acid attacks that have occurred over the past several years. Not even drain cleaner, which is hard enough to obtain as it is, will be spared. I wouldn’t even be surprised if other chemicals like sodium hydroxide are banned within the next few years either..

WangleSpong5000 - 16-2-2018 at 17:47

I despise authoritarian garbage such as this. It's about Liberty plain and simple. Now I don't believe civilians should be able to own automatic firearms as MY Liberty decreases when your supposed Liberty to to pack an M4 comes into play. A MAC 10 sub machine gun costs upwards of 30K AUD in Oz and I only know that as some bloke got caught making them on the news and they said they cost as much... how much are they are the states? A couple grand?

The same goes with explosives but here's where it gets iffy... the IRA did OK with ammonium nitrate but should it be banned? Fuck no!

It's all about the 'War on Drugs' which I honestly believe we as a society are begging to abandon. Even in the US. Meth is so evil but Adderak is a ok? Lol yeah it's fine! Let's pump all the 5 years olds with the stuff... God forbid they don't become productive citizens. It's all about control. Wel guess what... No-one is going to tell me what I can and can't do to my own body. However that doesn't mean I am prepared to lose my freedom for many many years by manufacturing controlled substances...

Maybe Voltaire would be ashamed of me but hey... I'm not him. But should I be able to indulge in the dark arts? Yes I should... the authorities of this world have been happy to peddle me huge doses of amphetamines since day dot... parents, teachers, cops, bosses, doctors, therapists and headshrinkers...

Don't get the wrong idea... I'm an ex hedonist trashbag conneser of all things breakbeat... now I just whine about being old lol

Melgar - 20-2-2018 at 00:01

Don't even get me started on the fact that 2 out of 12 of the reactive nonmetals on the periodic table are banned for being useful for a reaction that could reduce pseudoephedrine into methamphetamine. When banning phosphorus didn't work, did the DEA consider that perhaps banning one of the 6 elements that are essential for all life, an element that exists in every base of every genome of every organism in the world, might be a bit overkill? Hell no. The figured they just hadn't banned quite enough chemicals, and this time took aim at iodine. Potassium iodide was okay, even though converting it to elemental iodine is trivial.

The ones who actually solved the problem were the pharmaceutical companies, who put so many hydrophilic polymers and emulsifiers in their pill formulations that trying to extract pseudoephedrine from them would leave most meth cooks staring in bewilderment at a mason jar of pink goo. And methamphetamine production promptly moved to Mexico.

This is what winning looks like.

LearnedAmateur - 20-2-2018 at 00:31

Quote: Originally posted by Melgar

The ones who actually solved the problem were the pharmaceutical companies, who put so many hydrophilic polymers and emulsifiers in their pill formulations that trying to extract pseudoephedrine from them would leave most meth cooks staring in bewilderment at a mason jar of pink goo. And methamphetamine production promptly moved to Mexico.

This is what winning looks like.

Winning over here was removing pseudoephedrine completely from OTC formulations and it’s now prescription only. It was replaced by phenylephrine, which has been clinically proven to be no more effective than placebo yet every ‘homebrand’ cold and flu remedy has been pumped full of the stuff as a complete replacement, making them pretty much useless for what they’re supposed to treat. Companies use the emulsion tactic for other drugs though, codeine likely being the largest target that I know of since it can’t really be replaced by anything else and it’s prescription only anyway.

Melgar - 21-2-2018 at 09:27

Quote: Originally posted by LearnedAmateur

The main reason that wouldn't work in the US is the whole "clusterfuck healthcare system" going on here. See, we developed our social welfare system during the 1950s, when companies were fighting each other for workers for their factories, and there were more jobs than people. (Incidentally, most single mothers at the time were war widows, and laws were written to be especially generous to them. This created a sort of perverse incentive system later on.)

Anyway, companies were giving away huge benefits packages to lure in workers, including healthcare, pensions, etc. This system works great when you're the only large economy that has enough manufacturing capacity to rebuild the bombed-out cities of Europe and Asia, but once those continents get their own factories online, it doesn't work quite as well.

But here in the US, people have confused cause and effect, and determined that "we were doing everything right" in the fifties, and the reason we're doing less good now is because we've lost our way somehow. The answer certainly can't be to change laws that were written during the 1950s, because in the fifties everything was so much better! It must be the welfare system (that we didn't put into place until, you know, we actually needed one) that's responsible for all those unemployed people who can't find work.

So yeah, rather than fix our shitty broken system, we start banning elements. IIRC, the levo form of pseudoephedrine works just fine as a decongestant, and would reduce into non-psychoactive levomethamphetamine. But because levo-pseudoephedrine doesn't occur naturally, (pseudoephedrine does, alongside ephedrine, in ephedra sinica) they'd have to have all sorts of clinical trials to establish its efficacy, and nobody wants to pay for that.

Panache - 1-3-2018 at 06:21

Quote: Originally posted by WangleSpong5000

It's all about the 'War on Drugs' which I honestly believe we as a society are begging to abandon. Even in the US. Meth is so evil but Adderak is a ok? Lol yeah it's fine! Let's pump all the 5 years olds with the stuff... God forbid they don't become productive citizens. It's all about control.

I do believe one is a 'release agent' and the later is a reuptake inhibitor. The distinction is significant, no agency requiring 'alertness enhancement' uses the amphetamines anymore. Modafanil and its hyped enantomerically pure new variant ('nuvigil') being the go to upper of choice currently. My shrink dumped ten boxes of nuvigil on me earlier this year. Apparently the drug rep has been told to 'get the word out' that 'alertness enhancers' are the new off label fad treatment for depression.

All that said, we make mistakes (god look at the Zanax debacle), we recognise them, we try to shift course, make less of a mistake next time.

Everything will be fine, we just have to wait another 20years for the bulk of the dogmatic boomers to die. Then public policy can actually be formulated with consideration to all possible solutions.