Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Baking soda no longer OTC? Laugh? Cry? You decide

Baking soda no longer OTC? Laugh? Cry? You decide

The_Davster - 29-4-2007 at 17:33

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-4-14/54115.html
:mad:

Morons...

Twospoons - 29-4-2007 at 17:45

Looks like they've forgotten to ban the water, the other key ingredient.

evil_lurker - 29-4-2007 at 19:13

I'm all for it.

Make everyone who buys baking soda give up their personal information and spend thousands of dollars and man hours (not just LE's money, sellers included) to create a database of everyone in the state who has a deoderized refrigerator.

I guarantee no judge out there in his infinite wisdom will issue a search warrant because someone bought up a bunch of baking soda...

I wonder if the idiot realizes that any person can go to the local ag supply place and buy it by the 50 pound bag for a small fraction of store prices.

Magpie - 29-4-2007 at 19:43

Baking soda is a virtually harmless chemical that is well known and widely used by nearly every household in the US. It is not only used to deodorize refrigerators and clean drains but is also widely used in household baking.

In some ways I hope that the bill passes as I would like to see a "grass roots" protest arise against such ridiculous regulation. At least that is what I hope would happen. Now if the masses just accept this as another necessary govt restriction for "our own good" then I'm afraid that there will be no end to it. :mad:

Sauron - 29-4-2007 at 21:02

Well of course the whole thing is ridiculous on its face but bear in mind this is only a single state (Missouri), and it's presently merely a legislative initiative by a single state representative at that, it may well not pass because it really is laughable.

Any members from Missouri, write your state reps and protest this absurdity.

I have a close friend in Missouri who is a noted religious leader and I will contact him and ask him to speak out against this affront to Mom and apple pie because without baking soda, Mom won't be baking any apple pies and Mom would druther cook her children than have to front over her photo ID at the checkout counter.

[Edited on 30-4-2007 by Sauron]

S.C. Wack - 29-4-2007 at 22:34

Representatives write silly bills that have no chance of going anywhere all the time. It's what they do, really. That and anything that bloats gov't or prisons. This is like his best chance of doing something about crack short of trying to get executions for drug dealers, which probably isn't far off at this rate. The vast majority of much less silly bills are never considered, much less signed into law. Watch the status of this not change:

http://www.house.mo.gov/bills071/bills/HB1189.htm

Sauron - 29-4-2007 at 23:57

Just a small redirect:

It's his best chance to appear to "do something about crack"

Not to actually do something effective (difficult if not impossible).

The appearance of action is what matters in politics. Not the reality.

If this penny-ante leglator thinks his initiative will have any real impact against crack, then he is a lot stupider than his bill.

Perception over reality, reception IS reality, or more real than reality. The world Marshall McLuhan understood and predicted. The global village and the idiot box. The internet, God help us, is an extension of the idiot box for most people anyway - present company excepted of course.

[Edited on 30-4-2007 by Sauron]

[Edited on 30-4-2007 by Sauron]

not_important - 30-4-2007 at 06:02

Sorry not_important, but this comment seems like it could easily touch off another round of argumentation of exactly the sort we've tried to avoid lately. --Polverone

[Edited on 4-30-2007 by Polverone]

chemkid - 30-4-2007 at 17:38

I hope this is a joke! If they want to ban baking soda why not just ban cleaning and cooking because half the stuff could be used to make bombs or drugs!

THIS IS RIDICULOUS

Elawr - 30-4-2007 at 19:16

Now they will also have to control carbon dioxide (including all carbonated beverages and dry ice) and soda ash because these are precursors. Then they have to outlaw wood ash (and therefore all wood unless treated as fire resistant) because its a precursor to potash, from which baking soda can be synthesized using salt, which will also have to be controlled. All forms of lime must be regulated, since Ca(OH)2 can be used to capture atmospheric CO2 for use in baking soda manufacture. In fact, all alkali metal and alkaline earth salts are of potential use by the clandestine maker of NaHCO3, and would be worthy of control to further the war on drugs!

[Edited on 30-4-2007 by Elawr]

guy - 30-4-2007 at 19:30

Don't you just love ignorance?

I dont think this ridiculous law will ever pass.

Blazing Saddles

MadHatter - 30-4-2007 at 23:14

"We've gotta protect our phoney baloney jobs !" That classic line from Mel Brooks as
the corrupt governor describes that Missouri legislator pretty well, don't you think ?
As Sauron, said, he wants to appear to be doing something about the crack
problem in the "Show Me" state. Same shit as gun control. Pass useless regulations and
hope the voters are stupid enough to believe he did something about the problem.

vulture - 1-5-2007 at 01:50

Somebody please mail this guy the DHMO website and the accompanying Penn and Teller video.

I am a fish - 1-5-2007 at 04:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Twospoons
Looks like they've forgotten to ban the water, the other key ingredient.

Don't forget the all important third ingredient: cocaine.

If they can't control the sale of cocaine, they're not going to have much luck with baking soda.

As others have pointed out, it's nothing to do with restricting drugs, and everything to do with appearances.

Pyrovus - 1-5-2007 at 05:49

They should also ban that insidious chemical, chlorinated natrium. Not only can it be used by drug dealers to make baking soda (via sodium hydroxide), it can also be used by Evil Terrorists (TM) to make chlorates which can be used to make bombs.

woelen - 1-5-2007 at 13:44

Pyrovus, you forgot one other very important reason, why NaCl should be regulated. You can make HCl from this, when it is combined with battery acid, and as you all know, HCl is one of those evil chemicals, used by the drugs-cooks to make their stuff.

A good suggestion for the USA-govt. would be to regulate all chemicals, except Ephedrine & Co. That would be a real good step against drugs-making

.
Over here we do things the other way around. Ephedrine, saffrole, cocaine and a few others are highly regulated or even forbidden, all other chemicals can be purchased (at least as far as drugs-making is concerned, other reasons, such as liability issues still may make purchase of some chemicals hard).

jimmyboy - 1-5-2007 at 19:37

the yokels that run our government must be stupid -- you can get potassium carbonate by leaching hardwood ashes.... what use is this really... (will oak trees be banned next!??! NEWS AT 11)

obsessed_chemist - 4-5-2007 at 13:57

A good portion of freebase cocaine is smuggled into the 'States' as such already. The process required to convert this into the hydrochloride is time-consuming, costly, and adds increased risk, etc. Not only that, but the hydrochloride is hyroscopic, and more heavy, thus further complicating the smuggling process.

The drug lords already know this, and are aware that smokable-cocaine has become immensly popular in the 'States', and so one could rightly assume that they've already been using these facts to their advantage for some time now.

Also, if they're going to take baking soda off the shelves, they had better start keeping tabs on everyone who purchases clear ammonia, especially the janitorial or blueprint grade varieties, and also ether-based starting fluid. I think Richard Prior would've agreed

.

[Edited on 5/4/2007 by obsessed_chemist]

alancj - 16-5-2007 at 21:37

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyboy
the yokels that run our government must be stupid -- you can get potassium carbonate by leaching hardwood ashes.... what use is this really... (will oak trees be banned next!??! NEWS AT 11)

I think I read somewhere on the caveman chemistry website that you could expect about a pound of K2CO3 from a couple thousand pounds of wood burnt to ashes. If you got a lot of wood and a lot of time and want the challenge...

not_important - 17-5-2007 at 02:00

Quote:

Originally posted by alancj

Quote:

Given that the ash from burning wood at a fairly low temperature, 900 C or less, runs 5 to 15 percent K2O, that sounds a bit off. Now the ash content of wood is a half to two percent, so burning a tonne of wood would give very roughly 10 Kg of ash, which would give you a Kg of K2CO3 plus some Na2CO3.

Some of the potassium in plant ash is in the form of K2SO4 and KCl, useful from the standpoint of fertilizer but not for making alkali.

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1993/misra93a.pdf

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1991/baker91a.pdf

alancj - 17-5-2007 at 23:24

ok, a couple pounds per ton of wood.

DerAlte - 22-5-2007 at 12:00

In view of the danger of letting any possible drug precursor getting into the hands of the public, I am proposing the following to my senator;

In view of the dangers of urea as a well known precursor of barbiturates;

In view of the fact that dihydrogen oxide is neccesary for all drug preparations;

That both urea and dihydrogen oxide be listed as controlled substances under the act of 1970;

That it shall be illegal to make water.

For the terminally moronic there is no cure. But please, folks, don't (re)elect them! No, I'm not a democrat, nor a republican; I am a conservative libertarian. By definition, such a person cannot belong to anything as foolish as a political party.

DerAlte

quicksilver - 23-5-2007 at 06:11

Quote:

For the terminally moronic there is no cure. But please, folks, don't (re)elect them! No, I'm not a democrat, nor a republican; I am a conservative libertarian. By definition, such a person cannot belong to anything as foolish as a political party.
DerAlte

When one asks "WHY" they get re-elected the answer becomes obvious. Those who wed themselves to a party generally get what they deserve. "The Party" will generally never deliver what they promise as they attempt to be all things to all people. Personal & political maturity appear to be mutually exclusive: in that admitting that you were wrong will never get you elected.

Pyridinium - 23-5-2007 at 15:23

Quote:

Originally posted by DerAlte
In view of the danger of letting any possible drug precursor getting into the hands of the public, I am proposing the following to my senator;

In view of the dangers of urea as a well known precursor of barbiturates;

In view of the fact that dihydrogen oxide is neccesary for all drug preparations;

I wouldn't suggest urea to them. They might take you up on that idea.

Suggesting water is good, though, because it kind of just rubs their face in the stupidity of it all.

DerAlte - 24-5-2007 at 17:04

I have actually produced potassium carbonate from wood ashes - a whole winter's worth of logs, which isn't much as I live in subtropical realms. The idea appealed to my twisted sense of humor and my CRUD philosophy (Chemical Reagent from Utter Dross). From the ahes of several hundred pounds of wood (oak and assorted pine, mainly, whatever the plot gives) I got about 50 gms K2CO3. The energy consumpion to evaporate is quite uneconomic. The salt ( very soluble) was quite pure - no sodium, according to spectrum and flame tests. Apparently plants are adept at sorting out the two ions, which is more than I am!

As far as urea is concerned, I do hope you all got my pun - no, I'm not doubting your intelligence. The phrase

make water = pass water = urinate. So if you prohibit any one to "make water".....

Urine from heathy adults contains about 25 gm urea per diem.

Regards,

DerAlte

JohnWW - 5-6-2007 at 01:22

Along with K, plants also absorb Rb and Cs.

BTW I suppose that most other fertilizers besides urea will also have to be banned. Phosphates could be reduced to P for use as a reducing agent in drug-making, while any nitrogenous fertilizer could be used to either make N2O (used as a recreational drug) or nitro-explosives.

alancj - 7-6-2007 at 22:00

urea can be decomposed into ammonia and CO2... then the ammonia can of course be used to make nitric acid. So you'd have to outlaw that too (for the sake of national security!).

12AX7 - 8-6-2007 at 13:46

I'm supposing you can go directly.
CO(NH2)2 + 5/2 O2 --> NO + CO2 + 2 H2O
On a, say, copper catalyst, it probably dissociates to NH3 anyway -- especially if steam is around. Maybe urea + steam + oxygen would be a suitable feedstock for this reaction.

Some day I'm going to make a urea vaporizer and send fumes down a hot copper pipe with air and see if brown nasty gas comes out.

Tim

garage chemist - 8-6-2007 at 14:08

Another material worth banning: Bones. Everyone who reads up on phosphorus production will find out that animal bones once were the principal raw material for it.
No more chicken wings at burger king, only boneless steaks and chicken filet, no whole turkey, etc...
Possession of a dead animal containing bones is only legal for registered and licensed butchers, every other person will be charged with unlawful possession of a drug precursor.

MagicJigPipe - 6-1-2008 at 16:50

We should just ban existence and get it over with. I mean, if we just ban humanity we won't have to worry about drugs anymore. Time to put all those nukes to good use!

How to react?

chloric1 - 6-1-2008 at 17:26

Should I be mad :mad:

? Sad

? Or just gettout of this post? Ah forget it I knew I was going to end up being a criminal someday.

-jeffB - 6-1-2008 at 18:14

Quote:

Originally posted by garage chemist
Another material worth banning: Bones.

Well, they'd at least like us to give up our backbones...

microcosmicus - 6-1-2008 at 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by DerAlte
make water = pass water = urinate. So if you prohibit any one to "make water".....
DerAlte

And while we're at it, remember that Brandt and Boyle originally
prepared phosphorus from urine. All the more reason to control
this dangerous precursor!

Jor - 7-1-2008 at 12:56

Therefore we must make stockpiling urine forbidden!!!

UnintentionalChaos - 7-1-2008 at 13:44

Soon, Texas will require you to register specimen cups

[Edited on 1-7-08 by UnintentionalChaos]

Chance it all

chloric1 - 7-1-2008 at 15:01

Well, if for whatever reason, you find yourself in a bind and got nothing to lose...you could take about 10 1lb boxes of Arm&Hammer and some duct tape and strap these all around your torso. Put on a trench coat and walk into the state building and say" Everybody stay back or I swear I will bake something" while revealing your stash. LMAO! I don't want to think what the consequences would be or if I want to know

It is just a wild idea I came up with when I told my co-workers about this story.

[Edited on 1/7/2008 by chloric1]

MagicJigPipe - 7-1-2008 at 16:14

HAHAHA!! Everybody get back or I'll neutralize all the acids in this building! Muahahahaha!!!

Banning baking soda would almost be as bad as banning corn starch or flour.

The_Davster - 7-1-2008 at 16:40

Ban grain elevators!
They can explode, and what if some terrorists got ahold of a grain elevator and used it to target buildings!

When will the urine inspector make sure we flush it all, and not keep any for nefarious purposes? Here is a precursor to explosives everyone produces, can you believe there is no regulation on it!?

Zinc - 7-1-2008 at 16:49

Banning baking soda just shows the stupidity of American people. If they really accept that than they are truly fools!! People in USA live under covered dictatorship. And the government has brainwashed them that they become to stupid do see that. On the outside USA looks like haven but in reality it is hell. Yes maybe there people have food, houses, medical care, clothes, water and those essential things in life but they have no freedom. They say that they have freedom of speech. Yes they do. They can say anything that they want. But they cant DO anything? And how many millions of people suffer for the well being of American people?!?! USA is robbing the world. If USA would fall life in all other countries would be better, much better. And they smother the development of other countries. Everything that USA has was made on the cost of other non American people. USA had slavery until I think 1865!!! More than 100 MILLIONS of people were transported to USA as slaves. And how many millions has USA killed for the name of "freedom" and "democracy"?? I say too many. And they still do!! Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, the Balkan... Through history USA directly or indirectly killed more than 150 MILLION people and destroyed lives of at least also that many!!!!!! Much more than Hitler and Stalin together. And the American people is so stupid that they don't eve think about how can they live so good and yet don't do anything of use. And now the government that is killing the world for their well being started to kill them. And they are so stupid that they don't realize that. Well sooner or later USA WILL FALL as nothing lasts forever.

And to the USA members of the forum. Dont be insulted by this. There are smart people in the USA. And I think that members here are smart. It is pity that there are so few of them. But people like you must change America. And I wish you luck!! Do it for a better world!!

Now I have only 14 years but I believe that what I said is true. At least most of people that I know (kids and adults) say so. Now enough off topic ranting.

chloric1 - 7-1-2008 at 17:00

Zinc-I am glad you have the insight to see what is wrong with my country. What you fail to realize is that the USA Military campaigns are just fronts for a globalist agenda, a New World Order really. Who do you think financed Hitler and Stalin? Thats right some of the big shots where right here in the US of A. I am talking about Rothchilds, Rockefellers, Morgan etc. These are descendents of Europian Royalty. There is nowhere to hide and in fact if the USA colapses, then kiss your ass goodbye as the shit will hit the fan with America out of the way!

Magpie - 7-1-2008 at 17:17

Quote:

And to the USA members of the forum. Dont be insulted by this.

That's not possible.

Is it only members of this forum, our Nobel prize winners, and technology innovators that are smart and noble people? You can't pervert our history and insult our leaders and the masses of our people while not insulting the totality.

How did you get so wise within 14 years? Have you ever been to the USA? Or do you practice selective information gathering by just watching the TV that supports your biases?

Zinc - 7-1-2008 at 17:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Magpie
Is it only members of this forum, our Nobel prize winners, and technology innovators that are smart and noble people?

No. A lot of them probably stole the ideas.

Quote:

Originally posted by Magpie
How did you get so wise within 14 years? Have you ever been to the USA? Or do you practice selective information gathering by just watching the TV that supports your biases?

First I am not wise. I have never been to the USA. As I said it looks good there. But in the inside it isn't. So even if you now that you don't see it there. And about the TV, our media is very pro-American.

MagicJigPipe - 7-1-2008 at 17:46

Oh god, can we stop this shit? Zinc, you are a fool for having such prejudice views. You are no better than the Americans you insult.

At least we still have to means (firearms) to do something about our government if we wanted to, which is more than I can say for most countries in Europe, Asia and Australia.

Get back on topic shall we?

[Edited on 7-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

chloric1 - 7-1-2008 at 18:25

Back on topic. You know they sell sodium bicarbonate as pH up? Arm&Hammer also sells toothpaste with baking soda, and it AIN'T FROM CHINA so there is no lead!

Regulating this is going to be a WASTE of resources.

quicksilver - 10-1-2008 at 12:49

"In a bill introduced in late March, Rep. Talibdin El-Amin (D-St. Louis) says he wants to put baking soda, or sodium bicarbonate, behind the pharmaceutical counter." Well, it's not really a Liberal/Conservative thing as both sides have done similar inane horse shit but the fact remains that this is typical of the political bent of those who think that they can change behaviour by looking at an object. No, the gun did not jump off the counter and shoot someone....someone shot someone....No, the meth didn't jump into the dumb shit's arm by itself... the selfish drug user decided to get high and forget his responsibilities...etc, etc.

To be intellectually honest is to look at the totality of the issue. One cannot have a conceptualization of an OBJECT being inanimate and then say that either guns or drugs are somehow inherently evil. But that is EXACTLY what many people do when they "pick their object of choice". Either inanimate objects are things or they have somehow acquired a "good or evil" nature.

The good Democrat, Talibdin El-Amin wants you to believe that this chemical's mere existence is somehow going to be a "bad" thing for the public.
Hey, Talibdin, my refrigerator smells bad now.....but I'm a community oriented individual, huh? What a stupid vote-grabbing jack-ass!

Example of "political" Object oriented programming:
THANK GOD Hillery will stop that drug addled, cigarette smoking Obama and stop the War; SHE doesn't have any moralistic shortcomings.... Because she's a woman!

.....I have to smile at all this, else I'd be depressed.

chloric1 - 10-1-2008 at 14:44

Having a twat is Hillory's only selling point, and not much of a selling point I might add.

I can't imagine how they can rationallize pissing off 99% of the public while helping 1% that probably don't deserve the help to begin with. I tell people at work about this bill and not one has shown anything but contempt for the idea. I would, for a chuckle, like to find someone that truly supports this.

El-Amin

MadHatter - 10-1-2008 at 17:00

He's among the wackiest Democrats I've ever heard of. Truly representative of his party's
symbol - A JACKASS ! My friends and I at work laughed about his proposal. Like that'll
stop the crack dealers and their customers !

MagicJigPipe - 10-1-2008 at 23:24

I have a "friend" who has the stupidest philosophy IMO. The "if it doesn't affect me I don't care" mentality. He believes that all drug dealers should be executed in order to "cut down on drug use". Talk about the next Adolf. He said he doesn't care if baking soda is banned because he doesn't really use it that much anyway. He thinks that it really would cut down on crack and if the govt decided to ban it, it would probably be in our best interest because "the govt usually knows best". God I hate people like that. I wonder what he would think if the govt told him to go to a concentration camp because it was in the country's best interest. Fucking sheep. I hate arguing with him because there's no reasoning. Just your typical "kill everything that moves" redneck.

Rant over.

He voted for Bush by the way, and he agrees with the patriot act. If he is any indication of the average American, I will be very depressed.

[Edited on 11-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

quicksilver - 11-1-2008 at 11:47

House Bill 4128 is a very, very serious proposal. If passed into law it would mandate that internet discussions of the synthesis of energetic material would become a federal felony. More on this may be obtained at the Library of Congress website, if you have an interest. In encapsulation: if someone were to introduce a post on a discussion board describing any energetic material synth - that discussion board and you would have a problem. HR 4128 got off the ground in November of last year. It will have the support of those House members who need Homeland Security (political) capital. If it PASSES & gets to the Senate, it most surly be written into law. Remember it was people like Shumer (D-NY) who proposed the outright banning of ammonium nitrate until he was told that agriculture may actually collapse if that were the case.

[Edited on 11-1-2008 by quicksilver]

Attachment: House_bill-4128.pdf (92kB)
This file has been downloaded 599 times

Sandmeyer - 11-1-2008 at 12:20

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Davster
Baking soda no longer OTC? Laugh? Cry?

I will laugh about it so not to cry about it, laughing is healthy and feels good too.

microcosmicus - 11-1-2008 at 12:21

Just to be clear, the bill does not single out the internet ---
it says (611p2A) "distribute by any means information pertaining to, in
whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive,
destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction", so this
would pertain just as well to books as to internet discussions.
A chemistry or physics professor who explains how explosives
work or writes about them in a textbook or a librarian who helps
someone locate books on explosives could also be in hot water.
To be sure, it is limited by an intent clause, so I suspect the primary
reason for this is to slap extra charges on people, but intent is open
to interpretation, so I won't put too much weight in that clause should
the bill pass.

It goes without saying that this completely flies in the face of freedom
of speech and freedom of press, but freedoms are as often only honored
in the breach. When I get a chance, I will have a look to see what the
EFF has to say about this.

[Edited on 11-1-2008 by microcosmicus]

MagicJigPipe - 11-1-2008 at 17:11

`(p) DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO EXPLOSIVES,
DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION-
`(1) DEFINITIONS- In this subsection--
`(A) the term `destructive device' has the same meaning as in section 581;
`(B) the term `explosive' has the same meaning as in section 614; and
`(C) the term `weapon of mass destruction' has the same meaning as in section
271.
`(2) Prohibition- It shall be unlawful for any person--
`(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive
device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information
pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive
device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or
information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of
violence; or
`(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a
destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any
means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an
explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person
intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an
activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.

Oh my god. This will be the last straw for me. This is the biggest and most outright violation of the first amendment I have ever seen in my life.

Notice how they tried to hide it in the middle? They did that 21 years ago with the Firearms Owner's Protection Act.

We cannot allow this to pass.

EDIT
Also, from what I understand 'explosive' includes black powder and safety fuse according to the definitions at the beginning of the bill.

[Edited on 11-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

microcosmicus - 11-1-2008 at 17:53

Quote:

Also, from what I understand 'explosive' includes black powder and safety fuse
according to the definitions at the beginning of the bill.

It is made explicit in the middle of the bill (top of section 611):

Quote:

the term `explosives' means any chemical compound mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion; the term includes, but is not limited to, dynamite and other high explosives, black powder, pellet powder, initiating explosives, detonators, safety fuses, squibs, detonating cord, igniter cord, and igniters

The_Davster - 11-1-2008 at 18:47

Quote:

Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
It shall be unlawful for any person.... to teach or demonstrate to any person the making...of an explosive...or weapon of mass destruction...in whole or in part

There goes all chemistry books, if it is applied in the most naziesque manner.
Anyone ever read university texts from the 50s? Enough info(and in their own well noted sections!) there for mustard gas, lewisite RDX, TNT, etc

hello 1984

microcosmicus - 11-1-2008 at 22:57

I had a closer look at this bill and, sad to say, the part discussed
above is just the tip of the iceberg. Passing over the sections
which would put the Founding Fathers behind bars to get to the parts
that could impact the sort of activities which go on around this bulletin
board, I noted the following:

From the summary:

Provides for the punishment of attempts and conspiracies to commit a
crime on the same basis as the completed offense, as a general rule.

As noted here, people have gotten into trouble with the law simply because
they happened to have solvents and other chemicals which could have
been used to make drugs. This would open the door to doing likewise in
all sort of cases.

Section 408:

OFFENSE- Whoever knowingly--
. . .
possesses or distributes, a listed chemical knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the listed chemical will be used to manufacture a controlled substance except as authorized by the Controlled Substances Act
. .
shall be imprisoned not more than 20 years in the case of a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) involving a list I chemical or not more than 10 years in any other case
. . .
. . .
UNLAWFUL CONDUCT GENERALLY- It shall be unlawful for any person--
. . .
to distribute a laboratory supply to a person who uses, or attempts to use, that laboratory supply to manufacture a controlled substance or a listed chemical, in violation of the Controlled Substances Act or the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, with reckless disregard for the illegal uses to which such a laboratory supply will be put.

`(b) DEFINITION- As used in subsection (a)(11), the term `laboratory supply' means a listed chemical or any chemical, substance, or item on a special surveillance list published by the Attorney General, which contains chemicals, products, materials, or equipment used in the manufacture of controlled substances and listed chemicals.
. . .
GENERALLY- It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly--
. . .
to manufacture, distribute, export, or import any three-neck round-bottom flask, tableting machine, encapsulating machine, or gelatin capsule, or any equipment, chemical, product, or material which may be used to manufacture a controlled substance or listed chemical, knowing, intending, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it will be used to manufacture a controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this title, the Controlled Substances Act, or the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act or, in the case of an exportation, in violation of this title, the Controlled Substances Act, the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, or of the laws of the country to which it is exported;

Bye, bye chemical shop. Given that a store which offers
chemicals and scientific apparatus to the general public would
be at risk of being prosecuted should something they sell get used
in drug cooking, I would expect that the few such stores
which remain would consider this risk too great and stop selling
to private individuals (or be busted, but either way the result
would be the same).

From subchapter F

In general- The term `toxic chemical' means any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. The term includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
. . .
In general- The term `precursor' means any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a toxic chemical. The term includes any key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.
. . .
Chemical weapon- The term `chemical weapon' means the following, together or separately:

`(A) A toxic chemical and its precursors, except where intended for a purpose not prohibited under this chapter as long as the type and quantity is consistent with such a purpose.
. . .
The term `purposes not prohibited by this chapter' means the following:
. . .
Peaceful purposes- Any peaceful purpose related to an industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity or other activity.
. . .
. . .
Unlawful Conduct- Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly--

`(1) to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon; or

`(2) to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (1), or to attempt or conspire to violate paragraph (1).
. . .
`(1) In general- Any person who violates section 631 of this title shall be imprisoned for any term of years.

`(2) Death penalty- Any person who violates section 631 of this title and by whose action the death of another person is the result shall be punished by death or imprisoned for life.

Given the rather broad definition, this worries me --- most chemicals,
if not toxic themselves, could easily enough be used in the synthesis of
some poison, hence could qualify as chemical weapon. Stockpiling,
owning, and making sounds like what usually goes on in labs. To be sure,
there is the part about intended purpose, but then there is the issue
of how likely judges and juries are to accept what goes on in a home
lab as legitimate research or otherwise acceptable activity.

Again, there is this element of being held responsible for what others
do with information. Suppose that someone looked on this forum for
information on producing Cl2 and asked for clarification of the procedure,
then turned around and did something nasty like let loose a bottle full
of the stuff in a public place with grevious effect. Given "assist in any
way", that would make the person who answered the questions or
wrote up the synthesis equally guilty in the eyes of this law. To be sure,
I see that people around here are quite good about not answering
questions if it seems that someone is asking for reasons other than
scientific curiosity, but there is only so far one can go. Also, as a matter
of principle, I question this notion of restricting information and holding
information providers liable for misuse of information (yet another
instance of screwed-up notions of liability).

Just for completeness, they even threw in a section about ammonia!
(sect. 416)

(a) It is unlawful for any person--

`(1) to steal anhydrous ammonia, or

`(2) to transport stolen anhydrous ammonia across State lines,

knowing, intending, or having reasonable cause to believe that such anhydrous ammonia will be used to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of this part.

Even if things would not go as badly as I outlined above, there is plenty in
this bill to worry me. Given how precarious the situation of amateur
science already is, this could be the straw which breaks the camel's back.

I don't know enough about Washington to make a reasonable estimate of
how likely this bill is to pass. However, it definitely seems worth keeping
an eye on it. Also, given its scope --- it would affect all sorts of people, not
just amateur scientists --- and the cavalier way which it tramples over rights,
I cannot see how the ACLU, EFF, and similar groups are not going to raise a
big stink should there be any chance of passing. If that happens, we should
consider add our voices to theirs to point out how woefully misguided
this legislation is.

Fleaker - 12-1-2008 at 00:12

While some of the bill is necessary and makes sense (i.e. stolen anhydrous ammonia), the rest is disgusting, absolutely so.

I don't understand how one could be culpable for supplying information on how something is done or answering a question or even supplying lab equipment. If someone were prosecuted for that I would be outraged. It is analogous to arresting the store clerk that unknowingly sold the bullets used in a homicide. How is the purveyor of lab goods and chemicals to ensure that they are to be used responsibly? How is the gun store owner to be sure that the weapons he sells will be used responsibly?

This legislation isn't just misguided, it's downright treason.

chloric1 - 12-1-2008 at 06:34

Well Fleaker, the reason for the clause for persecuting lab suppliers as opposed to gun shop owners is simple. In the eyes of the establishment, a citizen with a well stocked home lab and the knowledge to operate it is far more dangerous than someone with a basement of guns and ammo. I think this is because with the right equipment, a home chemist can grab materials from virtually anywhere and make whatever they need.

But whatever the case, it is not only unconstistutional, but violates personal rights on the most basic level. How much more control can we give to these power lust thugs? What will it take for a revolution. Is there going to be a massive civilation upheavel with new countries and governments? Everyday I ask these questions hoping for change.

[Edited on 1/12/2008 by chloric1]

quicksilver - 12-1-2008 at 07:58

Quote:

Originally posted by chloric1
with a well stocked home lab and the knowledge to operate it is far more dangerous

My friend, it's the KNOWLEDGE.... not the lab, not the bullets; just the knowledge...

The Nazis burned books before people, the Soviets crushed men's minds before their bodies because the mind has the power to shape the action.*
I encourage all of you to visit the various sites that have posted laws pending review of Bills before committee or rulings. KNOW what the fuck is being debated, by who, & when it may be made law. LEARN who is doing what to whom.
The tragedy is that it is NOT the Democrats or Republicans, Whigs or Tory's doing. They ALL perpetrate this shit. You cannot say with a bit of confidence that Hillery will not crush your rights and Bush will put you in a camp. Or vice-versa. the moment you fall for voting party line, you loose. Their job is to keep their job.

The reason why America has some of the lowest functioning schools in the civilized world is the Teacher's Union has their own self interest as a primary footing. There really cannot be another explanation as any organizational group MUST put it's self preservation first. And when the essence of that group is SUPPOSEDLY to do some selfless thing like teach children (or help the public), you can see how that will NOT be it's primary concern! The same condition exists for elected officials. Term limits would have had some impact....and look where that went!

*(That's why I always laugh at the expression "muscle memory", as if muscles remember anything...)

microcosmicus - 12-1-2008 at 10:00

@chloric1

Careful, there is not really a scenario here in which scientific supplies
would be singled out. The bill also has a similar proviso for guns:

From section 296:

Whoever-- . . . teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm or explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder which is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce or the performance of any federally protected function;

shall be imprisoned not more than five years.

There is also a lengthy subchapter Ｂof chapter 21, which deals
with firearms and has a lot to say about gun shops.

As if to underscore how flawed this bill is, posting

Quote:

What will it take for a revolution. Is there going to be a massive civilation upheavel with new countries and governments? Everyday I ask these questions hoping for change.

on this bulletin board could land one in jail (section 265):

"IN GENERAL- Whoever-- . . . with intent to cause the overthrow or
destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues,
circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed
matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability,
or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United
States by force or violence . . . shall be imprisoned not more than 20
years

Do not come away with the wrong impression from the fact that the
excerpts I posted last night were the ones directly related to chemistry ---
the scope of this bill is quite broad, not just dealing with issues related to
terrorism, but also having sections about domestic violence, abortion,
flag burning, copyright, mail fraud, embezzling Native American tribes,
bankruptcy, and just about every other legal topic under the sun. In short.
what Sensenbrenner proposes to do here is nothing less than completely
overhauling the criminal justice system to reconstruct it on a very different
notion of culpability and liability, with all manner of curious provisions such
as victim impact statements in copyright cases.

Exactly because this is so far-reaching, I have the most hope that it will
never become law. Were the bill narrowly focussed on terrorism and drugs
and the only innocent bystanders citizen scientists and similar marginal
groups, I would consider enactment into law a foregone conclusion.
With the broad focus, however, this is going to upset feminists, gun lobby,
and just about anyone who at all cares about freedom so there is going to
be pretty broad opposition.

Even more to the point, this is not the first time this bill was introduced.
He proposed substantially the same act as H.R. 6253 in 2006, but nothing
came of that, so I suspect that this bill will not become law either. To me,
a more realistic possibility is that he might sneak some of the provisions of
his bill, such as the stuff about chemical weapons of lab supplies, into
some other law and get them enacted that way.

Alright, enough politics for now; back to figuring out what the heck that
yellow precipitate in my test tube might be --- when I make progress in
that investigation, I will post in the titania thread. For those who are
interested in the politics, here are a few links:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Sensenbrenn...

http://sensenbrennerwatch.blogspot.com/

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1070\

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/sensenbrenner-a...

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/07/30/773/87392

I hope the voters of Wisconsin relieve this menace to freedom
of his office ASAP.

[Edited on 12-1-2008 by microcosmicus]

chloric1 - 12-1-2008 at 10:33

Well it could land us in prison

Although I never implicated either you or I being involved in any violent overthrow or attempted overthrow. So this is worse than many would realize as even theorizing or trying to contemplate future events is a crime.

Oh man this sucks.

[Edited on 1/12/2008 by chloric1]

JohnWW - 12-1-2008 at 20:55

What an absolutely DISGU$TING Bill!! For a start, it violates the First, Second (the things they want to ban or prevent the sale of can be classed as "arms"), and Fourth Amendments. Such a Bill would be totallly unacceptable here in New Zealand. No wonder the U$ education system isgetting so "dumbed down" if amateur scientific experimenters, along with legitimate industrial chemists, cannot acquire and use such items.

BTW That ban on "three-necked round-bottomed flasks" is pointless, because one can made a single-necked RBF with a wide neck into a 3-necked one by fitting it with a rubber (or cork or wood or plastic) bung of appropriate diameter through which three holes are bored, and the desired tubes (or a thermometer in one of them) fitted into those holes.

MagicJigPipe - 12-1-2008 at 21:21

I never quite understood how our government can say (by way of law) that overthrowing a govt by violence is wrong. Isn't that basically what we did to make this country? I know the revolution was more like international war than revolution but we still threw out the British govt when you get right down to it. How else can you overthrow a violent govt except by violence?

I am as much against unnecessary violence as the next guy but you sometimes have to weigh loss of life against the atrocities and human suffering that are perpetrated on a daily basis by an oppressive govt.

If only it were black and white.

The_Davster - 12-1-2008 at 21:45

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnWW

BTW That ban on "three-necked round-bottomed flasks" is pointless, because one can made a single-necked RBF with a wide neck into a 3-necked one by fitting it with a rubber (or cork or wood or plastic) bung of appropriate diameter through which three holes are bored, and the desired tubes (or a thermometer in one of them) fitted into those holes.

Or putting a stopper in a 4 neck flask, or two in a 5, which shows how absolutely MORONIC those legislators are.

Quote:

Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
I never quite understood how our government can say (by way of law) that overthrowing a govt by violence is wrong.

Not since the whisky rebellion(forget the year, but it was a long time ago) have members of the gov advocated such things, and even then it was only Jefferson who did, leading the the famous 'tree of liberty' quote

Also, I would like to see this thread go back to discussion on the chemistry part of legislation, and not onto the overthrowing stuff.

[Edited on 12-1-2008 by The_Davster]

microcosmicus - 12-1-2008 at 22:01

Such a law is still of some use against equally moronic cooks
who only know that the instructions said to use a flask with
three holes and are clueless about how to make do if
such a flask is unavailable because they have no real
understanding of what they are doing. Of course, the
problem is that, sooner or later, somebody is going to
tip the cooks off to the fact that they could make do with
four-holed flasks and stoppers. Then the law will be expanded
to include four-holed flasks. This soon escalates into some
sort of "arms race" with the net result that more and more
apparatus and chemicals get banned.

microcosmicus - 12-1-2008 at 22:38

Quote:

Not since the whisky rebellion (forget the year, but it was a long time ago) have members
of the gov advocated such things, and even then it was only Jefferson who did, leading the
famous 'tree of liberty' quote

And let's not forget that, were Jefferson and Franklin around today, they might
well be members of Sciencemadness

MagicJigPipe - 12-1-2008 at 22:51

I just find it hypocritical for a govt to make something illegal that gave it the ability to make laws in the first place. Like Lenin advocating a law against revolution.

Now, let us get back on topic.

-jeffB - 13-1-2008 at 06:34

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnWW
BTW That ban on "three-necked round-bottomed flasks" is pointless, because one can made a single-necked RBF with a wide neck into a 3-necked one by fitting it with a rubber (or cork or wood or plastic) bung of appropriate diameter through which three holes are bored, and the desired tubes (or a thermometer in one of them) fitted into those holes.

Texas is way ahead of you, requiring a permit for three-neck, two-neck, single-neck, round-bottom, Florence, AND Erlenmeyer flasks.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/criminal_law_enforcement/narcot...

I briefly thought about opening up an eBay storefront that specialized in supplying Texas customers with unregulated four- and five-neck flasks, along with similarly unregulated plain glass stoppers. :mad:

But since nearly all such flasks have round bottoms, the legal foundation would be a bit shaky. Maybe jacketed flasks with bottom drains would be okay?

MagicJigPipe - 13-1-2008 at 12:50

Nearly all glassware is regulated in Texas, whether it has 1 neck or 8 necks, round, flat, cone etc...

One thing that might have been mentioned earlier that I would like to reiterate is the fact that if they can't get rid of crack by banning cocaine (much more rare than baking soda) what makes them think they can do anything by regulating the bicarbonates?

Also, if you can make crack, you can make pure freebase cocaine with any weak base (ammonia) and something that is immiscible with water that will dissolve the base. This is so stupid, although not near as stupid as the bill that is being proposed to ban people from TEACHING others to make explosives. How can you ban conversations? I know they already try to do that with the "advocation violent overthrow" law. Advocating could be me telling you that violently overthrowing the govt is a good idea. And that would make me a criminal? Fuck that!

[Edited on 13-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

JohnWW - 13-1-2008 at 13:38

It is becoming increasingly obvious that, when the Second Revolution comes in the U$A, ALL laws that have been passed, both Federal and in all States, since 20 January 2001, when Bu$h assumed (was not genuinely elected into) office, will have to be abolished, as the first Act of the new régime! This applies not only to law$ affecting the supplies of chemicals and laboratory equipment, but also such things as who can buy night-vision goggles and arms, the DMCA, the Patriot Acts, and laws allowing for greater surveillance and repression of the populace generally. And the day will not be long before the Revolution comes - by 2010 at the latest, heralded by general economic collapse.

12AX7 - 13-1-2008 at 15:25

John,

Please keep your inane ramblings in Whimsy.

Tim

MagicJigPipe - 13-1-2008 at 22:25

2010? That's pretty soon. I think you are jumping the gun, pun intended. What'$ with you doing thi$? It'$ kind of annoying.

quicksilver - 14-1-2008 at 07:35

The concept of using the dollar sign is meant to imply that one politician is more focused on financial issues or general money grubbing than another. Which, of course, is an inane crock of $hit. All elected officials, especially of the two major parties are money-grubbing, financially focused crooks. Only the politically immature would assume that one party has the interests of "the people" over another.

As we examine this issue in it's totality we see BOTH parties [represented in repressive] attempts via the focus on object restriction to circumvent human behaviour. Let's not turn this thread into a childish "bashing" discourse. I would leave that for actors in Hollywood who play to a crowd of youth-centric consumers.

chloric1 - 14-1-2008 at 17:11

2010 is not as far fetched as you think. Most of the traits of repressive totaltarian dictatorship are already in place or very soon to be implemented. All that is needed is a "catalyst" of sorts, an event to galvenize the public to widely support further security initiatives to remove our liberties. Chertoff is getting restless becuase the May 11, 2008 deadline is approaching and the Real ID act is in serious trouble. I could easily some immigration issue being raised this spring. Maybe a Mexican terrorist attack?

microcosmicus - 14-1-2008 at 17:43

BTW, note that the same congressman (Sensenbrenner) is behind this
Real ID act as the bill described at the top of this page! What deadline
is supposed to happen on 11 May?

quicksilver - 15-1-2008 at 10:29

Both political party's are full of real shitheads & Sensenbrenner is a dangerous man.

I was a young teen when President Lyndon Johnson used the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to launch us into a full war in S. E. Asia. He then escalated it and escalated it...till more than half a million men in uniform were there. JFK sent "advisers" there but Johnson cranked it up to it's highest level.
Would we need a "catalyst" today? Perhaps. If so - it's easily manufactured.
The country KNEW that "Tonkin" was very questionable but there is so much money to be made from war that it takes a momentum of it's own after a time.

I remember when I got my induction letter, appointment for my physical & draft card. I remember what that felt like. I remember when the first one of my circle of friends got drafted. The shit ain't funny when it really happens. I was very young so I was in the Lottery. My number was something like 300+ so I knew that I might not go if we got out. After Johnson quit and didn't try to get re-elected a good friend came back from overseas. He HATED Johnson. LBJ used to talk about the "Domino" theory and the communist taking over all of S E Asia.... Folks like to blame Nixon for Vietnam because he's an easy target and was a crook. But those who grew up then KNEW is was not the media manufactured "bad-guy", Nixon...he was a jerk alright....but it was the Posturing Good Guys who actually moved the war along.

I think only one candidate for President voted against the sending of troops to the middle east. Don't [for one minute] be fooled....It was NOT Hillery.

chloric1 - 15-1-2008 at 11:01

Bush signed the Real ID act into law May 11, 2005 and gave a time tabe of three years until its implementation. Eighteen states have since rejected this bill as it absolutely NO federal funding and the individual states get the bill.

MagicJigPipe - 15-1-2008 at 19:58

I don't think sending troops to the middle east (Afghanastan sp?) is a bad idea. Troops to Iraq, however, was stupid.

quicksilver - 16-1-2008 at 06:58

Boots on the ground in a Islamic country is a quagmire. It's a long term issue no matter the country. The cost is staggering and thus the revenue that cannot be spent on our own country. Quite frankly I am an isolationist. I think it's about time to solve the problems in our own country and let the rest of the world be second on the list or priorities. I know that the world is getting smaller and smaller but the amount we spend on the middle east is so vast that we actually could gain energetic self sufficiency with that money. We could do something that would help all of humanity by not sticking our economic nose in the world's business. If we were to turn our attention to energy self sufficiency we would not HAVE to support the Saudi monarchy.

This in turn would allow us to think globally without the encumbrances of maintaining private economic interests. Let them (private enterprise) fend for themselves. Without the "house of economic cards" with major energy producers we COULD look at the totality of environmental impact in a mature manner. We would not have to have choices of weather a child eats or a tree is cut down; we could do both.

MagicJigPipe - 16-1-2008 at 14:49

Yes, if we had energy self sufficiency, we might be able to avoid the middle east altogether. Then, like you said, we could focus on things that really matter. Maybe we could even take the ~$70 billion we spend on the War on Drugs and use it elsewhere.

microcosmicus - 16-1-2008 at 15:52

Quote:

Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
Maybe we could even take the ~$70 billion we spend on the War on Drugs and use it elsewhere.

Like building the SSC, medical research, NSF budget, support for science
students, space exploration, etc.? I think it is a downright shame that the state which, a few years ago, was slated to have the world's biggest piece
of scientific apparatus is now cracking down on labware.

As I see it, the current policy is a sort of national suicide. What made
America great is not its might as an imperialist power, but Yankee
ingenuity. Therefore, policy which all but outlaws backyard chemists
and garage inventors is destroying what has historically been a national
asset. Coupled with moving funds from institutional science to wars on
drugs and terror, this is a disaster.

quicksilver - 17-1-2008 at 07:32

I think it would help if we had a grasp on where this movement away from institutional science began so that we might understand where we went wrong in the first place. If we understood where this shift took place, perhaps we could prevent further erosion or at minimum understand what forces drive us to [what I would agree, are,] intellectually suicidal efforts.

This did not happen overnight: that much is obvious. IMO, several forces were at work. One such thing would be common marketing / advertising, depicting the scientist as a "nerd" or outsider in comparison to the athlete. We all saw that much at school. Socially, the science-oriented individual was not given status in western society.

Another force may have been that of "political correctness". Not all people are capable of, or even appropriate for a university level education. The demand for inclusion of those less suitable for such an education, instead of attractive alternatives may have "dumbed down" our efforts to a substantial degree.
Our universities are filled with people who simply don't belong there. They are not less important, vital, & contributing members of society but they don't belong in higher education. A plumber or mechanic is a damn important person but he does not belong in a upper level bio-chem class. Those people suited for such vocations have few technical schools to attend. That is a serious issue. Athletes as such, should NOT be given a free ride. In fact our whole emphasis on sports in university is a serious mistake. We may go back to that agenda during the latter part of the nineteenth century to trace that phenomenon.

[Edited on 17-1-2008 by quicksilver]

MagicJigPipe - 17-1-2008 at 10:22

You're right quicksilver. That's because everything, in the end, always comes down to one thing; money. The universities and the NFL/NBA will do anything to keep it coming, therefore, they encourage sports activities over academics for certain individuals they feel can make money for them. I think being healthy and playing sports is a great idea, but all this money being made on it is just rediculous. Not to mention the fact that at any high school in America one is given special priviledges (getting less homework for example) for playing football or basketball (most of the time). I know this from personal experience. This is especially a problem in the south.

I don't think the advertising depicting scientists as "nerds" is as detrimental (I mean come on, many of them are socially ackward and people know this) as the common portrayal of them as 'mad scientists', and 'evil creators of doomsday devices' in books and film. I mean, if someone dresses up as a "scientist" on Halloween, it is always a mad scientist. Many villans in comic books are 'Professor This' or 'Dr. That'. Moreover, most of the time a chemistry lab is depicted on television or movies (aside from that STUPID show, CSI) it is being used for evil by evil.

I fear the average American dolt has an image in his/her head of a mad scientist creating a chemical device to destroy the world when they hear the word "scientist".

I, however, always imagined someone that looked like Albert Einstein in a white lab coat messing with a particle accelerator. When I was a kid of course.

Ozone - 17-1-2008 at 17:44

There is a decent rant about this at (a conservative website):\

www.uncommonacumen.com

specifically:

http://www.uncommonacumen.com/oppeds/Ockhams%20Razor.dwt

Cheers,

O3

[Edited on 17-1-2008 by Ozone]

microcosmicus - 17-1-2008 at 18:04

Based on my experience, the thing started unravelling when the Berlin wall
came tumbling down. With no more Soviets to defeat, the U.S. government
lost its motivation to promote the natural sciences and instead set about
redirecting the cold war from communists to drug dealers and terrorists..

The reason that this had such an impact was, in my opinion, due to the
economics of academia the social situation of the general public. Since
the days of the Manhattan project, universities and institutes became
addicted to government grants. Sure, while accelerators, observatories,
and similar big science may need the sort of funds which can only be
provided by an organization the size of a government, there is really no
need for government grants for small science, let alone the theoretician
whose only equipment is pencils and paper. Unfortunately, however, the
ready availability of grant money led to a situation where pretty much no
science, not even theory or small-scale experiments gets done unless
funded. As example of the disatrous consequences of such a situation, I
have watched firsthand as much of the field of general relativity
evaporated, with even well-established research groups going belly-up
because the NSF decided to spend the relativity budget almost exclusively
on gravity waves to the detriment of other branches of relativity physics.
Sure, private funding helps some, but it usually only applies to narrowly
practical research so doesn't do much for pure science.

The general economic situation did not help much either. In universities,
tenure is pretty much a bygone memory and one-or-two year appointments
are common. Between this, growing administrative bureaucracies, and
downsizing (or elimination) of departments, academic science has become
a publish-or-perish pressure cooker with fewer graduates are staying in
academia. At the same time, the great industrial labs which supported
both pure and applied research suffered from downsizing.

As for the general public, not only is there the perception of scientists
as weirdos, but I think there is a deeper problem --- most people, even
otherwise well educated people, have rather distorted notions of scientific
method and epistemology. Most of the folks hanging around this board
have a good understanding that truth in science is tentative, always open
to re-examination with even the most fundamental theories open to
revision and replacement should observed facts warrant a change.
Unfortunately. the average man in the street has a much more simplistic
black-and-white understanding of the matter. As one of my buddies at
PlanetMath pointed out, this general naivete and inability to think critically
and quantitatively can lead to an instability where people either believe
all science or believe no science. Back in the heyday of the 1950's, the
stream of pro-science propaganda kept the American masses pretty well
pointed in the "believe all science" direction. But once this external
influence disappeared in the 1980s, people started flipping to the "believe
no science" direction like so many spins in a magnet. A major reason surely
was the backfiring of hype--- when nuclear power plants blew up (think
three mile island and Chernobyl) and DDT turned out to harm birds, people
who bought into the hype of scientists as some sort of supergeniuses
with a privileged access to truth were at a loss as to what to think and
wound up coming to the conclusion that they had been duped and that
science was some sort of hoax or sham.

As to what could be done, here are some thoughts. I don't claim to
have anything like a complete solution, just a few things that could help.

All too often, scientists have stayed away from public life either because
they figured that they did not have the necessary expertise or because
they were put off by the messiness and illogic of politics and business.
This is a tragic mistake which means that policy gets left in the hands of
people whose expertise is in getting votes and pleasing lobbyists, resulting
in baking soda bills and similar nonsense.

This "believe all science or believe no science" thing is best attacked at the
root --- people need to learn how science really works. While being lectured
in class helps, actual experience is the best. Every week around here, it
seems another kid asks for help finding apparatus or doing an experiment,
then gets hooked on science. Not to exaggerate the drop in the bucket, but
that means one less ignoramus advocating bans on chemicals down the road.

As I am learning every day, there is quite a large contingent of people (like
me) who have advanced degrees in science but are not researchers in
universities or institutes. To be sure, most of these people have jobs which
make use of their technical knowledge, while that pays the bills and all, it
isn't quite the same sort of intellectual stimulation, so these people are taking
up their scientific interests on the side. To this, we can add some people in
temporary teaching positions who would rather be doing research. There is
considerable potential here, and it would be a shame to see it going to
waste. Given the appropriate (self-)organization, I could see this group
making a significant difference.

The internet makes science possible in non-traditional settings. Most
importantly, it provides a library of technical information and interaction
with colleagues which previously only existed in universities and institutes.
Granted there is quite a gap between what is currently available online
and what a good university library can offer, this gap is shrinking as new
preprint servers, websites, open access journals, virtual libraries, etc.
appear. In addition, the internet of course provides a new media outlet
for educating the public about science and presenting the subject in a
positive light.

I also see potential for the virtual communities now appearing and envision
some of them evolving into new types of scientific societies and institutes.
For instance, while I may be a newcomer here at ScienceMadness, I have
been heavily involved for some time with PlanetMath both as contributor
and administrator. While progress is slow, we are already established
relations with mathematical organizations, put out a technical reference
which is used daily by students, engineers, and scientists. and even served
as a locus for some original research. We have incorporated, are raising a
budget and looking for partnerships with industry. Hopefully. in a few years,
we may mature into a new type of virtual scientific organization which not
only benefits the math community at large, but also offers some economic
support for non-traditional mathematical careers.

A most pleasing aspect of my involvement with PlanetMath is seeing how it
bridged the gap between amateur and professional. Knowledgable,
competent amateurs who have produced quality content there are
respected and treated as colleagues by academic mathematicians. In the
future, I could see the distinction blurring --- for instance, maybe someone
with a math degree who is working in some unrelated business collaborates
with academic researchers online. Or maybe someone starts out
with a home lab as a hobby, eventually gets good at it, then maybe gets
some sort of funding to pursue a line of research as a part time job through
a suitable organization (which may need to be created).

I am not so bold as to claim that these alternatives provide a replacement
for what is being lost, but only that they could at least help some and
provide niches of opportunity for a few people who take the initiative to
pursue them.

[Edited on 17-1-2008 by microcosmicus]

len1 - 18-1-2008 at 00:23

Its not just GR thats disappearing, particle physics and many other areas of physics are going with it.

The reason is that these areas have not borne fruit in the last couple of decades. The publication have flourished no doubt - but thats bourne of the public-or-perish mentality you mention rather than the need to report results. As a result most of what phys rev etc. has to report these days is rubbish - and few read it. Compare it with an average phys rev volume 50 years ago. I guess its called saturation - after the exponential growth in physics of the 20th century almost everything has been found out.

microcosmicus - 18-1-2008 at 01:02

If you consider contemporary physics to be rubbish, I supposed you're entitled
to your opinion.

I'll just point out that GR is flourishing just fine in places like Paris and Vienna (and
New Zealand for that matter --- I remember having a nice chat with a kiwi relativist
at an international conference a few years back) so obviously there are some people
who have a higher opinion of the subject. This decimation of the subject of which I
speak is local to the United States, due to the policy of the NSF.

As for everything being found out, Kelvin expressed a similar sentiment 100 years ago
as did Lagrange 100 years before him.

len1 - 18-1-2008 at 02:31

You too are entitled to your opinion - although Im not sure what contemporary physics you mean. If you mean what has mainly been filling international journals over the last twenty years, its easily tested. Will any of it make it into future physics textbooks - as whats been done 40 years ago did, or wont it. I like to think of things in clear terms. We are already seeing the answer.

As for this argument that at the end of the 19th century they thought they found everything out - and were they wrong -> the same holds now. Ive heard this non-science from many scientists funny enough. Its like saying - theres no such thing as saturation because last time we thought so we were wrong. Len

[Edited on 18-1-2008 by len1]

quicksilver - 18-1-2008 at 07:44

I think many remember essay questions wherein the answer was required to "have x amount of words" or some such craziness.
The "Publish or Perish" phenomenon may have some aspect of diluting the joy of learning for learning's sake.
The people today are made to crank out material and published material (& volume) becomes paramount. Therefore we see vast amounts of published material that hones a point finer than need be or re-hashes an old shoe to a degree of monotony....I understand this but fortunately missed it as I graduated in the late 70's and that pressure was almost absent. I certainly wouldn't use the term rubbish but I understand that much fewer people are sitting under the apple tree letting their minds open and wonder.