Is chemical education being cramped by current safety regulations?

And what, pray tell, would be the "wanker excuse" for banning the mixing of two chemicals used quite frequently in the kitchen?

sparky (^_^)

Generally this is more of a debate than a poll, but it goes almost without saying that chemical education is indeed cramped by 'safety' regulations.

LMAO @ pyrovus, the funniest (and sadest) thing is, that if banning NaHCO3 and vinegar was to be voted by the people, they would believe all that shit. Can you just imagine: A terrorist could buy 1000000 kg of NaHCO3, and produce enough CO2 from that to cover an area in a cloud of deadly CO2.

I actually think acetone may get the 'thumbs-down' one day, like alot of other solvents did, because of AP and many other compounds that can be synthesised with it.

I think it would be very very easy to ban any teaching of chemistry in classes simpy due to an event that Pyrovus mentioned.

DiHydrogen Monoxide

California almost banned styrofoam cups because of that website. I have fooled numerous people into wanting to ban it and keep it away from our innocent children. They were about to write angry letters to baby food manufacturer's for using it in their baby food products.

When someone doesn't know anything on a topic, the general public will accept something that everyone says. One news story by Barbara walters on some hillbilly redneck who lost their kid to Dihydrogen monoxide, or a kid to a vinegar and baking soda bomb and there goes chemistry.

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide now!

To those who voted or who will be voting no, speak; I am quite interested in your reasons as to why you think so.

I ask for a "wanker excuse", Pyrovus, and I get this. Man, those bureaucrats are the barrel-bottom ones if they believe that sort of reasoning!!! That, is to say, very funny indeed.

sparky (^_^)

Isn't it the truth

The chemist of tomorrow has a protective suite and never exceeds the fmol level when doing innovative chemical research.


Can I have a bottle of acetone please?

Pyrovus and Sergei - you guys are damn funny!

I can't speak for high school chemistry as I am way too far removed, but I can comment on college level. I've noticed that the experiments are trending toward those with less harsh conditions such as let's extract caffeine from tea rather than make caffeine from an intermediate. Also, I know one experiment was abandoned which demonstrated an important stereochemical effect (exo vs endo)because a drop of elemental mercury would be produced as a waste product! We were asked to "pretend" that we had done the experiment and then draw conclusions.

I fear that someday (not long from now) chemlabs will be replaced with virtual labs via the wonders of the computer - now wouldn't that be just too much fun.

Even here in Canada the situation is pretty bad. In a lab where we test for different gasses(H2, CO2, O2), the acid(HCl) was diluted to .1 mol/L. They say they had a reason to because someone tried to see what it tasted like

Edit: Actually, some people shouldn't even be allowed near a toaster. Last year the same guy brought to school some mercury and was playing with it in class....

[Edited on 7-4-2005 by kyanite]

I voted no, if I understood the poll question right that is..

By education you mean in shools/highshools/unis. Then IMO experiments done there have not much to do with safety regulations. It's question about what's relevant to do..
First, school experiments are mostly based on the budget, and they include the most basic things one should know when moving on to the more advanced chemistry.
Oh and come on, it wouldn't be a good idea to do really dangerous experiments in school.. like making sodium from electrolysis of molten NaOH... This would certainly increase death rate of pupils.. Not worth this even if there 0,1% of people that are interested in these types of experiments.

As for university, at least here, if dangerous routes are the most convenient way then it can be used.. Can't come up of many examples, but I heard not so long ago some dude in our uni used phosgene (as intermediate) in a project.
Another thing, I'm still amazed that we could make nitrogen triiodide in basic chem class...

Anyway, uni chemistry goes more and more into bio chemistry (more courses in that field appear) and many of bio chem reactions aren't that dangerous to perform. But this have not much to do with any safety regulation (well a little). They just wan't to advance from non organic chem to bio chem.

EDIT: Btw, in org chem courses we got to use bunch of fun things (may be considered as dangerous..) that are probably irreplaceable in demonstrations of some basic reaction mechanisms.. Just some that come to mind are LiAlH4 in reductions and halogenated compounds (some was lachrymators)...

[Edited on 7-4-2005 by frogfot]

[Edited on 7-4-2005 by frogfot]

Safety to the nth degree

I work in a college lab and notice more safety regulations all the time.
For example all the organic macro methods are now done in microscale...
because of waste disposal concerns..
The other day I was told to remove all mercury thermometers from all the chem labs and replace them with alcohol thermometers. Every week is something else The dean of the college wants to get rid of the chem labs and use Virtual labs.

- It damn well ought to be banned! Look at all the damage it can do.
- Guns don't kill people, DHMO does.
- DHMO is solely responsible for the columbine shootings.
- DHMO is a drug used by cheating athletes
- Chemical plants have been dumping it in our water supplies and natrual aquatic environments.
- The large output of DHMO into the atmosphere is responsible for acid rain.
- The large output also infects our air.
- Above all that, it's highly toxic, imagine the LD50 of it!


I guess we are all going to need gas masks and water filters. How can the government let this happen! It's unethical, evil, barbaric! Let's all go protest to have DHMO banned, regulated, and have all traces of it removed from earth!

As I think I have said before, all the halogens at my high school were removed by the fire martial before I left. In addition all the mercury was taken away and all oxidizing agents (which included the concentrated sulfuric acid ) Along with poisonous reagents. In college there was a strong feeling of repression on some of the reagents we used, the lab classes used things that would normally not be considered toxic and if they were toxic they would be used in small amounts or pipetted/measured by the teacher.

All that suddenly went out the window when I started taking advanced synthesis classes, suddenly I had access to all the benzene, carbon tet, thionyl chloride, sodium borohydride, I could want, it was strange. Plus I get to order chems now, like 2-chloroethyl ether, I mean, it came in a metal cylinder, inside of which it was wrapped in a thick cloth, under which it was in a vacuum sealed pouch, inside of that was a plastic container, filled with something like kitty litter and inside of that was the bottle, and it had a top that had to be removed with a can opener under the lid. It was just strange that suddenly all regulations were removed, we even have dimethyl mercury if we want it for some odd reason. Overall though I would have to agree that teaching of chemistry is being hindered by regulations regarding health and safety.

And I'm getting sick of this DHMO joke that's been going on and on and on

Replies first.

BromicAcid:

Have fun with the chloroethyl ether! Just keep in mind to treat this potential carcinogen (and valuable intermediate) with respect.

Silentnite:

I second your point regarding the visuals. Not everyone is blessed with an active imagination. It is also my personal belief that chemistry is a science best learned by example. Books can only do so much...

rlr:

Quote:

"...it's your tax dollars that pay the teachers... so why restrict them so you get less bang for your buck..."

Well said. I cannot express this point of yours more lucidly.

frogfot:

Biochemistry isn't exactly "safe" either. Ethidium bromide (DNA intercalator, potential carcinogen) and acrylamide (irritant, lachrymator, potent toxin and carcinogen) come to mind as some of the "dangerous" chemicals commonly used in biochemistry...

Comrade Sergei:

Chemistry in the femtomole range?! What the hell can we only observe then?
At those amounts, I don't think we'd even need masks/gloves anymore; not like any chemical can do significant damage at femtomole concentrations...

I will now proceed to state my position. We can't dictate how our reagents will behave in a given situation. What we can only do is to cope with how they behave, and modify our protocol accordingly. It will always happen that some point in time, we may have to use a toxic/corrosive/energetic/blah material with no known alternative. Quoting a cliché, "with great power comes great responsibility". Now, as it applies to us, I believe that any chemical can be used as long as the proper precautions are taken, and proper disposal is done. I just think that current regulations are needlessly strict, and that chemical education will be an unwilling victim if current trends continue. I believe it will be good for pedagogy that those new to this be trained in the art of handling dangerous materials competently. (Of course, the nature of the chemicals to be handled should depend on how far they have forayed the field, e.g. beginners should not be handling Caro's acid.)

sparky (^_^)

[Edited on 8-4-2005 by sparkgap]

But they do, don't they... As a matter of fact, companies are free to dump their waste en masse into the environment as long as they pay the "appropriate dues"...

Now they try to restrict access to chemicals in the pedagogical setting. I'm starting to believe the premise that the government fears that making the people more knowlegeable in chemistry and other sciences might bring on repercussions for them.

sparky (^_^)

P.S. Just read the book "Trust Us, We're Experts". As soon as I get a decent scanner, this will be one of the first things I will be uploading to the FTP.

Spark, heh, acrylamide was probably the only dangerous thing we've used in bio chem class. I'm not much into bio chem, but it seems that generally it requires less harch conditions than usual chemistry. Where corrosive/toxic solvents/reagents are not used that frequently, again, generally that is.

Dunno how it is in our high school now (was not that long ago actually), but we could use things like conc H2SO4 and HNO3 and so on.. Then there was some projects that one could make anytime, with minor supervision. Basically, one could do experiments as long as someone else is in the lab (this is the same in labs of most chem companies).
Reactions that was involved (in HS labs that is) was mostly inorganics. Where one had to estimate concentrations of things.. mostly titration experiments basically. I thoat it was fun and educational.
Heh, once we had to make a continious booze "reactor" with yeast balls in a column, where one could measure CO2 evolution rate. That was fun

I did a little conclusion that safety regulation use depends on where in the education chain you are (..crap, dunno if I expressed this right)..

Chemistry

So for those of us who wouldn't have looked twice at chemistry because its all numbers and stoichometric ratios and avogadro's numbers and moles and dry and boring should not be allowed to enjoy chemistry? I had one class like that and it was my first one. I dreaded taking the next years class. More numbers and such I thought. Thank $Diety that I had a different teacher who thought to give examples, and have us help and do experiments and hands on equipment. From that class alone there were at least 10 converts.

And Disregarding getting new people interested. Why should the interested ones have to do it at home? Its safer in the lab is it not?

The only reason there is a budget problem is that if elsewhere is anything like my school, 99% of the budget went towards our loosing sports teams. Education no longer matters just the sports.

^^^

I think it is safer doing chemistry at home; it just happens that often what people do at home is very dangerous! At my house I at least have good gloves, a face shield and goggles and soon a good gas mask. I also don't have to deal with dumbasses that can't record data and slow me down(god damn I had to deal with so much stupidity last year)

As too learning chemistry work put into it is what you get out of it. Sure learning such detail about orbitals and sigma bonds is hard work - makes stoich look like a piece of cake. But that beautiful, perfect control over matter is so there! I know Im getting closer every day. Closer to that understanding in my mind giving me absolute power. Make any drug, synth any poison, produce any color, destroy anything and create everything. Chemistry is the central science and every hardship is worth it. To have that level of control is intoxicating. Read Perfume by Suskind and change perfume to chemicals, odor to organic and smell to science. Don't think Im going to try to distill any virgins however

health shmelth

"...what's so necessary about mercury thermometers? What about alcohol?"

If you're going to be taking the temperature of something that would boil alcohol at its current condition, it really isn't a good idea to use an alcohol thermometer for it. But this is still a moot point in defending mercury thermometers; gallium themometers (although a bit expensive) and thermocouples are good alternatives to using mercury.

tetrachloromethane (whew! long name ), they won't ban partially hydrogenated oils since there are usually no cheaper alternatives.

Geomancer, was it a law firm?

sparky (~_~)

P.S. Is thread digging becoming a rising sport here?

I remembered something my general chem proff once said right after doing a KClO3/Sugar +sulfuric demo; "Don't ever try this at home, if you were to order chlorates the police would show up and you would be thought to be a terrorist, we can only do this here because as a university we are the only ones which can carry out the reaction safely and in a controlled way, and we can keep stringent controls on who uses the chemicals."

Chem Nazi....

Surprisingly, I would have thought as a university they would have pure K-chlorate, but the flame colour indicated strong sodium contamination.

Last year most of my fellow Chemistry grad students worked for a Science and Technology centre, taking science "shows" to primary schools, we also ran shows for a few early secondary schools. The shows we offered were hydraulics, electricity, and chemistry.
Almost 90% (18/21) of the primary schools in the local area asked for the hydraulics demonstration. This demonstarion was the safest, but also the cheapest and the one with the least need for us.
The electricity show was only ordered by the secondary schools, and shockingly(sorry) none of these schools had a working Van de Graff Generator, Hiring us fitted better with budget constraints than getting the damned thing fixed. A result of some strange 80:20 guideline ie 80% of department funding should go on staff, 20% on infrastructure or consumables. This is not a law just a guideline, but still it's killing music departments, and crippling science at secondary levels.
The real tradgedy was the chemistry show only 2 local primary schools ordered it(both private), and one distant public school. the schools that ordered this one were amazing. The teachers were enthusiastic and wanted to expose their students to aspects of science that primary schools just can't offer. These teachers had also taken it upon themselves to teach some of the theory behind our experiments prior to our arrival.(Grade 3 and 4 or 8/9 year olds learning redox chem.) This show was loved. Each time we stayed an extra two hours playing showing what can be done with chemicals we could find in the staff room/art room/garden etc. the kids loved it.
The tragedy being that all the other schools missed out, as they could only afford one or for nonsensical reasons like "Isn't that a bit dangerous?" or "They're only children it's a bit over their heads"
From this limited sample it seems clear that chemical education is suffering more than most, but safety regulations themselves play only a small part in this. Fear of danger is more crippling. Lack of finances, bizarre financial priorities, Chemically ignorant teachers, and a persistant desire to underestimate a child's intelligence are just as detrimental.
I almost feel sorry for the students we interacted with, as they will not meet chemistry like this again untill post compulsory education( over the age of 16), unless they become home experimenters.
i'll stop now but I could keep up this rant for another 3 hours minimum.

[Edited on 16-6-2006 by triphenylphosphineoxide]

Read the entry in Bretherick's , it's hair raising


[Edited on 30-7-2006 by franklyn]

A little nostalgia