Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Chemicals to Stock Up On (US)

MagicJigPipe - 7-1-2008 at 15:58

I know there are various lists on this forum of listed chemicals but I decided to try and make a comprehensive list of chemicals that might be banned or heavily regulated in the future.

The following list is nowhere near complete and applies mostly to the US. I think we should make seperate threads for different countries since chemical regulations can vary so much from country to country.

I would also like to organize this list from most likely to be banned or regulated to least likely. This is so we can make better decisions on chemicals we need to buy NOW as opposed to ones that can wait.

Most of these will be OTC but I will list some that can (mostly) only be purchased online or through a chemical supplier.

**Acetone (OTC)
Methanol (slightly impure OTC)
35% H2O2 (OTC)
Ethyl ether (slightly impure OTC)
Potassium nitrate (technical grade OTC)
Trichloroisocyanuric acid TCCA (impure OTC)
Sodium hydroxide (OTC)
Potassium hydroxide (rarely avail as OTC)
Sulfuric acid
Hydrochloric acid
**Toluene
Methylene chloride based solvents (OTC)
Methylene chloride stand alone (chemical supplier)
**Ammonium nitrate cold packs (OTC)
Propylene oxide (rarely OTC, mostly chem supplier)
Isopropanol 99% (impure OTC)
Hexane (usually in ether starting fluids)
Heptane ('' '')
Iodides (supplier)
**I2 Tincture (OTC)

Maybe, after some discussion, we can finish the list and post it as a PDF or something similar.

If there is already a post exactly like this, I'm sorry, I did "UTFSE".

roamingnome - 7-1-2008 at 17:32

why dont you just send this letter to the ATF/DEA and say you want to help them out because your in the know

dont take that the wrong way but jeesh

MagicJigPipe - 7-1-2008 at 17:38

Not sure how to take that because I don't know what you're talking about.

The ** means I have noticed efforts by private companies to reduce the sale of these items to individuals.

Nick F - 7-1-2008 at 17:42

If you think some of those things are about to be banned then you are way TOO PARANOID. Acetone? Nitrates? TCCA? NaOH? Sulphuric? Surely not. Or is the USA that much worse than Europe?

microcosmicus - 7-1-2008 at 17:58

I am wondering what is your rationale for singling out these chemicals as
opposed to others. Is there specific legislation pending or discussion
about tightening controls on these chemicals like what happened a few
months ago when iodine was restricted to one bottle of 2% tincture per
year per customer? If so, could you provide a reference to the relevant
legislation, DEA publication, or whatever.

Sure, given the U.S. political climate, it would not be too shocking if any
chemical got pulled off the shelves --- see the baking soda thread ---
but are any politicians talking about the specific chemicals on your list
and if so, who.? Yes, many of these chemicals are on the rather lengthy
list of chemicals whose purchases are watched in large quantities,
but is there any talk of moving any of them to the shorter list of
chemicals banned in all amounts?

In addition, I have some specific questions about your list.

You list TCCA but not Ca(OCl)2 or, for that matter NaOCl. Is there
a specific reason for singling out this chlorinating agent?

NaOH, KOH, and H2SO4 are all sold as drain cleaners (typically
mixed with bleaches, indicators, and what not). I would be
surprised (but only mildly) to see them all pulled for that reason,
although I could see the pure forms become increasingly
harder to get and perhaps see H2SO4 drain cleaner pulled on
account of it being so generally useful in chemistry.

Why do you think isopropanol is in particular danger of disappearing
soon, given that is quite well established as a rubbing alcohol? While
I haven't run into 99% OTC yet, the 91% azeotrope is quite common
and it is quite easy to salt out isopropanol.

HCl is well-established as a cement cleaner and pH adjuster for pools,
so I would not expect it to vanish unless there were a specific outcry
about its illegitimate use.

With most of the chemicals you list, I suspect that OTC availability is going
to depend a lot more on market vicissitudes and environmental concerns
than bans. For instance, methanol is sold as a gasline antifreeze, but is
nothing too special in this regard --- I have also seen isopropanol sold for
the same purpose and suspect many other compounds would work as well.
Should it turn out that an alternative becomes cheaper, I would expect the
MeOH to disappear from the shelves. While it is on nobody's list of
watched chemicals, I hoard up Na3PO4 whenever I can find it. Because
phosphate based cleaning agents are being phased out for environmental
reasons. it is increasingly harder to find --- instead, one sees the
oxymoronically named "phosphate-free TSP" which is actually a silicate. Of
course, I buy that too for what it is --- I used it to make alcogel the other
month, for instance.

[Edited on 7-1-2008 by microcosmicus]

[Edited on 7-1-2008 by microcosmicus]

MagicJigPipe - 7-1-2008 at 18:50

Ok, 15 years ago, would ANYONE have suspected phosphorus or psuedafed to be as regulated as it is now? NaOH (pure) is already being pulled from the shelves. I don't know why I put TCCA on there. Isopropanal 99% (isoHEET, no I didn't say 91% rubbing alcohol) is considered "a chemical used in the manufacture of methamphetamine" according to a local newspaper. Although it is unlikely that it will become regulated, there is always a chance. That is why the list needs to be given priority which I mentioned earlier.

KOH is hardly ever sold by itself as a drain cleaner.

H2SO4 has already disappeared off of the big chain store's shelves.

Since when has something that is a "well established chemical for X legitimate use" not been at risk of being regulated in the US? That is not a valid argument.

MeOH (100% OTC) is already on the verge of disappearing from store shelves in the name of the war on methamphetamine.

This is not about paranoia. This is about realism. Nitrates are already disappearing and being replaced by "safer" alternatives. In fact, the reason I made this post is because I saw an article the other day that said some stores were going to start pulling their cold packs from shelves because the NH4NO3 could be used by "terrorists".

Besides the WORST thing to do would be to stand back and say "you are paranoid" and do nothing. Then what do you have? Certainly not any newly restricted chemicals.

You call me paranoid, I say I'm cautious.

PS. I'm not sure you read any of my post but the list. I stated repeatedly that it is not comprehensive nor perfect, merely a subject that needs to be discussed and expanded upon.

Also, FYI, Wal-Mart now has signs up prohibiting the sale of more than 4 packages of lithium batteries at a time. We're talking about one of the most common household items here. Believe me now?



[Edited on 7-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

evil_lurker - 7-1-2008 at 19:47

Personally I don't see too much along the lines of gov't regulations as long as the chemicals in question are not used in the direct production of meth and have significant OTC uses.

That said, the biggest threat comes from the industry itself. Most OTC stores are pulling their more reactive chems off the shelves due to liability concerns. The fear of getting sued by some idiot who has absolutely no idea how to handle such mundane laboratory staples as sulfuric acid and lye, nor what personal protective equipment consists of is quite real.

Associations such as the NACD (burn in hell fuckers) aka National Association of Chemical Distributors have instituted some bullshit "Responsible Distribution" guidelines that dictate how they can distribute their chemicals. If a business wants an NACD certification, they have to stick by the agreed guidelines and be audited by a third party every so often.

Specialty laboratory suppliers lower down on the food chain have pretty much instituted blanket policies of only selling to established businesses or research institutions/schools to avoid liability. It seems that every government agency that exists that has anything to do with chemicals including the DEA, DHS, CPSC, EPA, DOT, is out to get them.

What is really scary, is that there are only a precious few laboratory supply companies out there that will sell chemicals to individuals. What happens if those few company's distributors begin to institute policies wherein essentially they are forced to only sell to businesses or research institutions?

We'd all be screwed... amateur chemistry as we know it would be reduced to back to the stone age. Such a scenario is entirely possible since nearly all of the higher ups on the chemical distribution food chain are NACD members who are required to stick together.

However, the good news is that most of the "commodity chemicals" MagicJigPipe has listed will probably continue to be readily available as there are significant numbers of uses and end users.

Paranoid

MadHatter - 7-1-2008 at 19:47

I would say that environmental concerns are one of the reasons that chemicals get
pulled. Some chemicals(not List I or List 2) used in the manufacture of drugs may
not be carried by major chains because of fear of attracting the methmakers, unwanted
attention from the LEOs , or potential lawsuits(think class action suits).

As for sodium phosphate, I found a box, 75% Na3Po4 / 25 % Na2CO3 last year. There are
other, not as well known, sources but the yields for the money paid would make it
very expensive.

smuv - 7-1-2008 at 19:50

Why propylene oxide? I can't remember any time where I have read anything about propylene oxide on this forum. I suppose it could become regulated as a precursor to various phenyl-2-propanols but I've never heard any mention of that route to controlled substances.

I am surprised you have overlooked chlorinated solvents. In the past few years it has become damn near impossible to find trichloroethylene. In addition tetrachloroethylene is slowly becoming harder to find (although still pretty available).

[Edited on 7-1-2008 by smuv]

Sauron - 7-1-2008 at 19:56

FWIIW, any store selling acrylic plastic sheets, rods, tubes etc. also sells solvent adhesive for acrylic (plexiglass). Sheets like this are used to make display cases, etc.

The standard solvent for acrylic is methylene chloride. AFAIK, it is methylene chloride (dichloromethane) and nothing else.

len1 - 7-1-2008 at 22:55

That is why there needs to be a list of how amateur chemist can make things themselves. We can look at this not as an evil, but as a challange. Ultimately the authorities cant win this game - we and the world around us are chemicals!

[Edited on 8-1-2008 by len1]

microcosmicus - 7-1-2008 at 23:43

Quote:
Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
Ok, 15 years ago, would ANYONE have suspected phosphorus or psuedafed to be as
regulated as it is now? NaOH (pure) is already being pulled from the shelves.
I don't know why I put TCCA on there. Isopropanol 99% (isoHEET, no I didn't
say 91% rubbing alcohol) is considered "a chemical used in the manufacture of
methamphetamine" according to a local newspaper. Although it is unlikely that
it will become regulated, there is always a chance. That is why the list needs
to be given priority which I mentioned earlier.


I agree with you --- I did not expect the prohibition of ephedrine either or,
for that matter, the PATRIOT act to which this was an amendment. However,
this does not really answer my question of why this list. I mean, since any
chemical could potentially be pulled, why not just list the whole freaking
Merck index or I_am_a_fish's list of commonly available chemicals. I
presume the reason for listing this handful of chemicals was they they were
in particular danger of being pulled in the immediate future, so one might
want to focus on obtaining them rather than other chemicals which are likely
to remain available. "there is always a chance" is to broad a criterion
to be of practical use.
Quote:
Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
KOH is hardly ever sold by itself as a drain cleaner.

In my part of the U.S.. an aqueous solution of KOH with, AFAIK,
no NaOH deliberately added is a quite common as a drain cleaner.
As for why NaOH is more common in some places, certainly more
common as a solid drain cleaner, I suspect that this may be the
case because it arises as a byproduct of industrial processes
which start with NaCl.
Quote:
Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
H2SO4 has already disappeared off of the big chain store's shelves.

Disappointing. However, this might have nothing to do with the war
on drugs, but with storage issues. Some people have pointed out
elsewhere that some hardware stores stopped carrying HCl because
it messed up their shelves. Perhaps the management of the big chain
store decided it was not worth the trouble carrying such nasty stuff
when the comparatively tamer alkali would do. Maybe some
dummkopf managed to do a condensation reaction on the organic
molecules which make up his hand and sued the chain. While, either
way, it may not matter because the chemical became unavailable,
at least it would be good to know why so one could bark up
the right tree. BTW, H2SO4 drain cleaner is quite available in my
part of the U.S.A. so this can't be a national issue.
Quote:
Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
Since when has something that is a "well established chemical for X
legitimate use" not been at risk of being regulated in the US? That is not
a valid argument.

While it by no means a guarantee, it at least does lower the chances
for two reasons. First, the big businesses who make and sell the
commonly used chemical are going to lobby against having it banned.
Secondly, the substance is not likely to be pulled overnight, but there
will be some sort of deliberative process with studies made to assess
the economic impact of the ban and, should the ban take place, there will
likely be some sort of grace period before the ban goes into
effect. All this affords plenty of time should it looks like
a ban is in the works.
Quote:
Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
This is not about paranoia. This is about realism.

You call me paranoid, I say I'm cautious.

For me, the best bullwark against paranoia is rational, scientific,
critical thinking. While I have no doubt that chemicals are getting
pulled off store shelves because of the war on drugs, I am not going
to jump to conclusions every time I no longer see an item either.
Rather, I try to keep an open mind and only believe my suspicions to
the extent that they are confirmed by observed facts and make it a
point to exercise caution when drawing conclusions.
Quote:
Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
Besides the WORST thing to do would be to stand back and say "you are
paranoid" and do nothing. Then what do you have? Certainly not any
newly restricted chemicals.

To me, the opposite extreme of rushing about to stockpile any and
all chemicals because who knows what will be restricted next is
equally irrational. Rather, I suggest steering a middle course
of keeping eyes and ears open as to what is going on, and only
making a point of stocking up on something for which one has no
immediate use only if one has good reason to believe that particular
item will become unavailable.
Quote:
Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
Isopropanol 99% (isoHEET, no I didn't say 91% rubbing alcohol) is
considered "a chemical used in the manufacture of
methamphetamine" according to a local newspaper.

Also, FYI, Wal-Mart now has signs up prohibiting the sale of more than
4 packages of lithium batteries at a time. We're talking about one of
the most common household items here. Believe me now?


These are exactly the sort of hard facts which I referred to above.
I agree that these things are rational ground for suspicion. Certainly,
I will keep an eye out for further developments. As a first step, I
had a look at the web. While I did find isopropanol listed in connection
with meth cooks, even in newspaper articles, it appeared in the context of
lists of solvents which even included things like water. In what
context did your newspaper talk about isopropanol and did it single
it out or list other solvents (e.g. methanol and ethanol) as well?

By the way, is only isoHEET unavailable in you neck of the woods or
is the rubbing alcohol also vanishing? Given how trivially easy it
is to dehydrate isopropanol using even table salt, this doesn't seem
like that much of a loss to me.

As for the batteries, I have encountered no such thing where I live.
Maybe there was a run on batteries so the store limited amounts so
everybody could get a battery? If this or the bit about isopropanol
has anything to do with drug wars, it must be strictly local policy
(but nevertheless worthy of note).
Quote:
Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
PS. I'm not sure you read any of my post but the list. I stated repeatedly
that it is not comprehensive nor perfect, merely a subject that needs to be
discussed and expanded upon.

Rest assured that I did read your whole post. My criticism was meant
in a constructive rather an a destructive manner; my apologies to you
if it seemed otherwise. My purpose is not to pooh-pooh your efforts
but exactly to discuss and expand what you are doing. Before going
further, I wanted to first understand how you came up with your list
because some of the items on it looked out of place.

One way in which I would like to see such a list expanded is to
add some pointers to why a particular item is likely to become
unavailable soon. Not only is this the only way I see of making
informed decisions as to what is most likely to become unavailable,
but it opens the door to more proactive steps. For instance, if
there is legislation pending or hearings going on, individuals
could contact politicians and bureaucrats. Given the collective
chemical wisdom of this group, I'm sure it would be possible to
do a bang-up job of writing sample letters or briefs on why banning
all these chemicals does more harm than good. Even though the
chances of reversing the policy are rather slim, at least this
would show that citizen scientists are not just clueless bumblers.

I have more hope of persuading a good segment of the general public.
When I have talked to friends who do not do chemistry at home, they
have agreed that the current policy of banning anything which could
be used to synthesize drugs or bombs has gone too far and that it
is a bad policy to be squashing the basement chemists and garage
inventors who were the driving force behind Yankee ingenuity. To
me, a lot of current policy about precursors is on a par with banning
screwdrivers because they could be use to assemble bombs. As anyone
who reads the first chapter of an organic chemistry book will
realize, reagents like H2SO4, I2, and P are angstrom-sized tools
which can be used to build all sorts of molecules, not just illegal
drugs. I believe there are a good number of technically-minded
people out there who would agree with this position if it were
presented well. While it might not make an immediate difference,
I could see positive effects down the road when the current
atmosphere of hysteria subsides --- in particular I wonder what
effect the upcoming presidential election will have.

MagicJigPipe - 8-1-2008 at 00:12

I think some people aren't getting my intention of this post. My intention was to make a (possibly short) list that may disappear in the future, whether it's due to government regulations, liability concerns or environmental concerns.

How could it hurt to buy a little extra toluene or acetone just in case it becomes even a little harder to get in the future? We all know it's likely. It's happened before. In my opinion, I'd give toluene a few years before it disappears from OTC sources completely because of methamphetamine.

Am I the only one that sees these restrictions on even some of the more mundane chemicals increasing? Why is it unreasonable to think that any chemical that could possibly be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine could be regulated in the near future? I think I might be noticing these things before some people in the rest of the country because I live in "meth country". My prediction is, it's coming your way.

I think you are forgetting the MASSIVE amount of chemicals that could POSSIBLY be used in methamphetamine manufacture. Not to mention "harmful" chemicals.

http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/caucus/rep/membernews/2003...


http://www.methwatch.com/FAQ/FAQ_index.aspx#5.__Are_cold_med...

"Small clandestine meth labs use a variety of common, widely available household products to manufacture meth, including: acetone, rubbing and isopropyl alcohol, iodine, starter fluid (ether), gas additives (methanol), drain cleaner (sulfuric acid), lithium batteries, rock salt, matchbooks (red phosphorus), lye, paint thinner, aluminum foil, glassware, coffee filters, and propane tanks."

http://roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?p=90120

I would look up some more but my computer is messing up. You guys are smart, I trust you can find your own sources :P

BTW, toluene is pretty much a commodity chemical but is becoming harder and harder to find.

YT2095 - 8-1-2008 at 00:20

Rock salt, propane tanks, alu foil....

ROFLOL, Too funny! :D

MagicJigPipe - 8-1-2008 at 01:00

Yes, I find it hilarious as well. And somewhat scary.

Anyway, I forgot to read mircocosmicus' post so....

I pretty much agree with you, except I am more pessimistic.

I just don't want to argue anymore. I'm sorry, I just don't want to. I was just trying to help people decide which, if any chemicals they should give priority to buying. Like if you had a choice between X and Y but Y was on the list that us members think could possibly be regulated in the NEAR future for various reasons, then you would buy Y.

And maybe, just maybe, you could even "stock up" on a few things whose regulation is imminent.

Is that completely unreasonable? I mean, don't people already do that? "I decided to pick up a few extra bags of chemical X just in case". I know they do because I've read about it on this forum. I was just trying to make the "list" more comprehensive than just heresay.

Goodnight. Tired. Bed.

EDIT

By the way. There's only one store in my immediate area that still sells toluene. So, I bought a few extra cans just in case. Is that paranoia? If so, then call me crazy.

And the lithium battery thing had everything to do with meth. I saw it on a replay of the news tonight. Apparently Wal-Mart was asked to limit the sale of lithium batteries because of the Li being used in Birch reductions of (pseudo)ephedrine.

Sorry for the incoherncy of this but I'm tired.

I thought of propylene oxide because of a post I made a long time ago. It seems to be almost gone from the market because it's "dangerous". In fact, when I searched for it a long time ago I only found one place online that still sold it. It was used as a racing fuel. It can be used (just like ethylene oxide) to make the corresponding amino alcohol, amongst other things.

[Edited on 8-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

microcosmicus - 8-1-2008 at 01:04

It is quite likely that I am not seeing the same things happen because I am
not in "meth country", but will keep an eye out. I just read the references
you provided. While they do mention all manner of reagents as possible
precursors, they also state that small time meth labs are not the real problem
anymore and are more keen on further restricting ephedrine than other
chemicals. This sounds like a good sign to me so there seems to be hope
that the federal government will no longer be interested in banning more
chemicals but consider the existing list adequate and focus its efforts elsewhere.
Therefore, I don't see it as inevitable that what is happen in your neck of the woods
will become national policy but, nonetheless, it is good to know that this is happening and be prepared just in case.

This also explains to me where you are coming from with your list. Even if
these materials are not banned, it is worth knowing what is going on
so one doesn't get into trouble being mistaken for a meth cook.

[Edited on 8-1-2008 by microcosmicus]

Phosphor-ing - 8-1-2008 at 06:08

I have a question @MagicJigPipe. Where can you find 35% H2O2 otc?!?

Nick F - 8-1-2008 at 08:02

Hydroponics stores carry hydrogen peroxide of 17.5%, and I believe that 35% can be found in pool/spa supply stores.
I still can't believe that things like hydroxides will become unavailable. Some of those things might become harder to find literally OTC, but there will always be specialist shops selling them online, eg solvents from craft shops for cleaning brushes with paint/varnish/resin on them.
Although you might as well stock up, because buying in bulk is more economical! I for example have never bought nitrate fertilisers in anything other than 55lb sacks...

MagicJigPipe - 8-1-2008 at 11:46

I get 35% H2O2 from my local hardware store as "wood bleach". Sometimes it's in a box, you just have to open it and see what's inside before you buy it.

And, Nick F, that's the whole point. If it becomes unavailable OTC then that makes it harder to get. But if you already have some OTC (that's usually cheaper) then you won't have to buy any on the internet and pay for shipping and all those HAZMAT fees (do they charge those for xOH?). Also, if materials become unavail. in your area and you have to drive further to get more, the price just went up. If you already have some of the cheap stuff then you save money.

I suppose almost ANYTHING can be had in this country with the appropriate amount of money, so that's what this mostly comes down to. Saving money.

[Edited on 8-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

Magpie - 8-1-2008 at 11:58

MagicJigPipe although I don't think I live in "meth country" I know that my state is likely in the top 5 for consumption. I have the same feelings about the likelyhood of future bans and have done some knee-jerk stocking up, especially during my early days on this forum.

I think what most states have done in making psuedoephedrine non-OTC is a good step for LE, the environment, and the home chemist. The amount of clandestine lab busts has fallen way off in my state since this law was enacted. However, once LE gets on a crusade they find it hard to let go - you know, programs, departments, jobs, etc, are at risk. A prime example is the taking of iodine to list 1 just when the clandestine drug lab busts are falling way off. I chock this up to mostly bureaucratic time-lag, however.

Evil lurker said:
Quote:

What is really scary, is that there are only a precious few laboratory supply companies out there that will sell chemicals to individuals. What happens if those few company's distributors begin to institute policies wherein essentially they are forced to only sell to businesses or research institutions?


I fully agree.

I was really shocked when I saw 35% H2O2 OTC. I have never bought any but its nice to know its readily available. I feel that all its going to take to get it removed from the shelves is a high publicity AP blast anywhere in the US. It seems that the last time there was an AP blast the news media was going on about the dangers of beauty shop bleach, which is a maximum of 12% I believe. BTW, that doesn't seem to be on the grocery store shelves anymore.

MagicJigPipe - 8-1-2008 at 13:34

You know, I was actually surprised to find 10% bleach at Home Depot the other day. It's the first time I've ever seen it at a non pool store around here. And I've looked actively.

toluene, and acetone, too

dwarferdude - 9-1-2008 at 18:02

Might not be bad to have a couple gallons around just because it's so useful: and acetone, too. Mixed, it enables
me to remove my nail polish, readily.
...............

As far as "surprises" goes, I was filled with wonderment to find HF acid for sale (concentration unk) in a "(discount)" store.

My recollection of this in the silicon fab industry was that no concentration was safe..

[Edited on 9-1-2008 by dwarferdude]

MagicJigPipe - 9-1-2008 at 18:22

Yes, even a 1% concentration can cause serious damage under the right circumstances. I don't know from personal experience as I try to avoid HF but I've done much reading on the subject.

Magpie - 9-1-2008 at 18:34

I have been looking for OTC chemicals since I revived my home chemistry hobby some 4 years ago now. I'm always shocked when I find a new one at this late date. Especially when it is right under my nose at Safeway or Wally Mart.

If you are wondering about the concentration of that HF I recommend you check its MSDS. I'm guessing that it is 2% and that the word whink is relevant. This is one I just recently found also. There was a clue dropped on this forum by Elawr but I missed it at the time of his post. This OTC has apparently been around a long time - let's hope that this continues and that the nannies of this world keep their filthy mitts off.

[Edited on by Magpie]

MagicJigPipe - 9-1-2008 at 21:58

Yes, I mentioned that one up thread. I just recently found it as well and I can't believe I missed it. I honestly think they just started (re)stocking it in stores because I always look in the detergent section when I go. Actually, what drew me towards it were the huge warning letters that say it can cause death on the front.

I just learned from this thread that KOH is avail. by itself OTC. I always wondered why the would do that as it should be more expensive than NaOH.

microcosmicus - 9-1-2008 at 23:41

You can find their MSDS here:

http://www.whink.com/rust_stain_remover.htm

It says 2.5 - 3.0%

You can order the product through the same website.
It is also to be found at Ace hardware:

http://www.acehardware.com/sm-whink-rust-stain-remover-01261...

From what I see on the web, people are using HF to clean rust stains off
their clothes and bathtubs. Hopefully, they are washing it off well, ideally
neutralizing it as well (soap should work). For both their sake and ours,
let's hope nobody tries to use it to clean rust stains off their skin, hand
wash the stains without gloves, spill the stuff all over the place, or
something equally dumb and come down with hypocalcemia. One good
lawsuit is likely all it would take to make the stuff disappear. I'm still mourning
the loss of iodine and wouldn't want to see yet another halogen put out
of public reach :(

garage chemist - 10-1-2008 at 06:33

That is unlikely. HF of less than 4% concentration does not have the skin toxicity that normally makes it so dangerous.
Spilling this rust remover on your skin will most likely not result in too much damage.
It is still seriously toxic orally, though.

HF Rust Remover

anotheronebitesthedust - 11-1-2008 at 20:27

From experience I can say that when I got it on my skin it made me itchy. Also gave me a mild rash that didn't last very long.

DeAdFX - 11-1-2008 at 22:32

Eh good luck... I think ebay might be the only true remaining source of chemicals on this earth. Either that you better make some contacts in the chemical industry because to be honest stores are most likely going to be carrying just enzymes and shit. It used to be that the eisles were filled with lye and sulfuric acid drain cleaners now its a 50/50 mix of lye and enzymes. Hell even the lye contains metal and nitrates.

Honestly this planet is better off in the stone age. Thats what everyone wants here. At least then we don't have to worry about global warming, pedophiles hunting jail bait, overpopulation, turning in next weeks homework assignment, terrorists and meth. We can all just give up and piss on hundreds of years of accomplishment. Perhaps some son of a bitch can come up with chemical bonds, kinematic equations, Utopias, rap music, politics and restart this whole process again...

[Edited on 11-1-2008 by DeAdFX]

MagicJigPipe - 11-1-2008 at 23:32

I would like to report that I went to buy a can of toluene today. As I approached the counter I noticed a newspaper article posted on the register. It seemed to be just your typical meth scare (pun intended a la Red Scare) mumbo jumbo with a picture of "household chemicals used to cook meth". I proceeded to the register and placed my item on the counter when I was greeted with "I need to see your ID please". I asked "Why?". While pointing to the article she said, "people use this to to make meth so from now on we're keeping track of who buys it". So, wanting to avoid suspicion and confrontation I handed over my ID. She took it, turned around and took it to a copy machine behind the counter and copied my ID! Without asking! Well, then I had to say something. I said, "What are you doing?". She replied with, "I have to make a copy of your ID so we can see how many ILLEGAL chemicals you are buying". Yes, she said illegal! Deciding to vent my disgust elsewhere, I informed them that I would not be shopping there anymore, completed the transaction and left. I can't believe this. That was the only store (that I know of) in my close proximity that still sold toluene. This is outrageous. I can't believe she actually thought the toluene was illegal!

One other thing that happened to me a long time ago that I forgot to mention is when I called a pharmacy trying to buy some benzyl alcohol. The pharmacist said I would have to wait while he "called the board to make sure I can't make any drugs or explosives with it". I called him back a week later and he said I could buy it. Regardless, it's just stupid. Mass hysteria is what it is. I no longer consider this fear rational.

anotheronebitesthedust - 13-1-2008 at 15:31

Maybe they thought you looked like you smoke the magic jig pipe.

MagicJigPipe - 13-1-2008 at 16:05

I don't think so Tim. I only smoke tobacco and I certainly don't look like a pothead. In fact, that day I was dressed up for an occasion, khakis and a button up shirt. Shaved, short hair and my speach is articulated. There is no reason they should have suspected me of drug use. Not that you can tell when someone uses drugs. Some of the most articulated, well dressed and trimmed people I know smoke cannabis. In fact, I prefer the company of people who smoke it over people who drink heavily or even socially. At least they are not violent and/or aggressively argumentative.

BTW, my name has nothing to do with pipes used for smoking cannabis.

[Edited on 13-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

joeflsts - 14-1-2008 at 05:15

Quote:
Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
I would like to report that I went to buy a can of toluene today. As I approached the counter I noticed a newspaper article posted on the register. It seemed to be just your typical meth scare (pun intended a la Red Scare) mumbo jumbo with a picture of "household chemicals used to cook meth". I proceeded to the register and placed my item on the counter when I was greeted with "I need to see your ID please". I asked "Why?". While pointing to the article she said, "people use this to to make meth so from now on we're keeping track of who buys it". So, wanting to avoid suspicion and confrontation I handed over my ID. She took it, turned around and took it to a copy machine behind the counter and copied my ID! Without asking! Well, then I had to say something. I said, "What are you doing?". She replied with, "I have to make a copy of your ID so we can see how many ILLEGAL chemicals you are buying". Yes, she said illegal! Deciding to vent my disgust elsewhere, I informed them that I would not be shopping there anymore, completed the transaction and left. I can't believe this. That was the only store (that I know of) in my close proximity that still sold toluene. This is outrageous. I can't believe she actually thought the toluene was illegal!

One other thing that happened to me a long time ago that I forgot to mention is when I called a pharmacy trying to buy some benzyl alcohol. The pharmacist said I would have to wait while he "called the board to make sure I can't make any drugs or explosives with it". I called him back a week later and he said I could buy it. Regardless, it's just stupid. Mass hysteria is what it is. I no longer consider this fear rational.


I think you're giving an $8 per hour cleark more cedit than he/she deserves. Her concept of illegal / legal is probably not based on her understanding of why she's collecting your information. The collection of your information provides the store with cover in case you do get caught making meth using their products.

Joe


Joe

YT2095 - 14-1-2008 at 06:11

I`m all for the idea of stocking up on chemicals that will become hard / impossible to buy in future, but I don`t think it`s wise to stock up on chems that will be Illegal to Own.

I think it`s Vitally important to operate within the law when it comes to our Hobby/Lifestyle even though there is often a Big gap between what is Right and Just, and what the Law says.

I think I`d rather work within the Law, than be in jail knowing I have the Moral High-ground!

of course that is just my Personal opinion.

Bromide - 14-1-2008 at 12:29

Quote:
Originally posted by YT2095
I`m all for the idea of stocking up on chemicals that will become hard / impossible to buy in future, but I don`t think it`s wise to stock up on chems that will be Illegal to Own.

I think it`s Vitally important to operate within the law when it comes to our Hobby/Lifestyle even though there is often a Big gap between what is Right and Just, and what the Law says.

I think I`d rather work within the Law, than be in jail knowing I have the Moral High-ground!

of course that is just my Personal opinion.


Of course, few disagree that it would be inconvenient (at the least) to expend time, effort and treasure in acquiring reagents, only for the stuff subsequently to be declared contraband.

Fortunately, it seems that criminal liability for the bare possession (excluding the sale or other acts of transferring possession) of certain forms of matter attaches only to a relatively limited set of controlled substances--usually, a two- or three-page list of psychoactive drugs in their completed form. Precursor reagents, on the other hand, are almost never illegal just to possess in and of themselves. To my knowledge, in fact, the sole exception to this general observation is phenylacetone, which is not itself a physiologically active drug yet, nonetheless, has been scheduled as a controlled substance in the USA.

Rather, the possession of precursor reagents becomes illicit when coupled with a corresponding criminal mens rea--such as, e.g., the intention to use such a reagent to manufacture a controlled substance without a priori government authorization. So unless the amateur chemist in question is acquiring a material that is in fact an active drug having characteristics likely to draw the attention of legislators, or he has an inclination to embark upon clearly criminal courses of conduct in the future, there seems little reason to worry with regard to this subject.

Alan - 14-1-2008 at 13:37

Ill start worrying about it when i cant buy 50lb sacks of NH4NO3 for $20

MagicJigPipe - 14-1-2008 at 14:21

Heh, intent can and is abused. I mean, intent can be just the fact that you possess other chemicals that could possibly be used in the manufacture of said compound. I think it would be a safe guess that most home chemists own the right chemicals for "intent" to stick simply because most of the chemicals used for production of drugs are so common and used for other things.

I mean, who here doesn't have some iodine, acetone, toluene, benzyl chloride/cyanide, phosphorus, decongestant medication and/or the means to create anhydrous ammonia?

I would be willing to bet that the only reason I was not charged with some drug crime when the cops searched my apartment (because of my roommate) a few years ago is because they wouldn't be able to prove whose stuff it was and because I was so nice and cooperative.

At the time, all I had was a few solvents and I think a small vial of iodine. Even then they were trying to accuse me of making meth even though all their tests of my equipment came up negative. They even tried to trick my girlfriend at the time by telling her they found meth in the apt (I assume they did that thinking she would turn on me and start telling them stuff). She called their bluff though. Bastards.

I could go on and on about the stuff they said and did to me but it just gets old.

microcosmicus - 14-1-2008 at 17:32

The fly in that ointment is "conspiracy to commit" laws. While
the precursors might be legal to own individually, having a combination
of reagents which could be used to manufacture a controlled
substance can be construed as conspiracy to make it, whether or not
there is evidence that one actually produced a micromole of the drug,
much less sold it.

As for mens rea, that is open to the interpretation of the court --- I don't
think a competent lawyer would have a hard time convincing a jury of
people like the clerk in MagicJigPipe's store that somebody with a garage
full of flasks, condensers, and beakers and a stockpile of chemicals was
obviously up to no good and that talk about home chemistry was a lame
cover story because the days of the garage inventor are long gone and
real science is obviously done in industrial and academic laboratories, not
in kitchens. Sure, if Harry Homeowner happens to have a bottle of
toluene and a stash of lithium batteries in the workshop, a drawerful of
matches in the kitchen, some iodine and sinus pills in the medicine chest,
the mens rea defense would work just fine because it is quite obvious that
he is only using these products for their intended purposes even if he
happens to stock a complete set of meth precursors. But if someone is
routinely using household chemicals in ways completely removed from
what their packages say to do experiments with them, the tables can
turn --- one may expect an uphill battle convincing the average guy in the
street, especially someone fed by sensationalist stories of bombs made
from OTC materials and the like, that one's experiments are motivated
purely by mens scientiae curiosa with no admixture of mens rea.

What can also make cases of mistaken identity so tragic is that, logically
enough, drug makers are a prime target for prosecution, ranking above
dealers and users --- cut off the supply at the source and the middlemen
and end-users will automatically be out of business. In the zeal to nab the
big fish, nicities like mens rea can get pushed to the side. While it isn't
exactly what we are discussing here, consider the case of Sam Zhadanov,
the inventor who had the misfortune to have the perfume sample bottles he
was producing in his factory be used as crack vials:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29676.html

Never mind the fact that Mr. Zhadanov supplied the vials in good faith as
perfume bottles not knowing what they were actually being used for.
Never mind that banning vials is about as irrelevant as banning
baking soda. Never mind that a professor of medicine testified that
Zhadanov's inventions were used in his lab. Never mind the parade of
character witnesses who should have cleared up any lingering doubts
as to mens rea.. Some latter day Elliot Ness had to crack down on the crack
vial kingpin, so the inventor went to jail and the factory was confiscated.
To be sure, there were tax irregularities and marking American-made
product as Chinese was questionable, but the drug paraphrenalia charges
were trumped up out of proportion.

For these reasons, I am wary of putting too much weight in the mens rea
criterion without having solid evidence in hand that what I am doing is
legitimate. I agree with YT2095 --- unlike the birdman of Alcatraz, I
doubt there will be a lab in my jail cell. Sure, I will stock up on stuff like
CFC's before they get completely phased out, but banned chemicals
are another story.

[Edited on 14-1-2008 by microcosmicus]

joeflsts - 14-1-2008 at 17:35

Quote:
Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
Heh, intent can and is abused. I mean, intent can be just the fact that you possess other chemicals that could possibly be used in the manufacture of said compound. I think it would be a safe guess that most home chemists own the right chemicals for "intent" to stick simply because most of the chemicals used for production of drugs are so common and used for other things.

I mean, who here doesn't have some iodine, acetone, toluene, benzyl chloride/cyanide, phosphorus, decongestant medication and/or the means to create anhydrous ammonia?

I would be willing to bet that the only reason I was not charged with some drug crime when the cops searched my apartment (because of my roommate) a few years ago is because they wouldn't be able to prove whose stuff it was and because I was so nice and cooperative.

At the time, all I had was a few solvents and I think a small vial of iodine. Even then they were trying to accuse me of making meth even though all their tests of my equipment came up negative. They even tried to trick my girlfriend at the time by telling her they found meth in the apt (I assume they did that thinking she would turn on me and start telling them stuff). She called their bluff though. Bastards.

I could go on and on about the stuff they said and did to me but it just gets old.


Why did they pick you out?

Joe

[Edited on 15-1-2008 by joeflsts]

MagicJigPipe - 15-1-2008 at 07:53

My roommate was a well known "pothead" (by the police because he went to high school with a few of them) to start out with. I was still packing my stuff 2 days after he moved out. I get home from work one night to discover that someone had broken in to the apartment. The doorknob just fell off and I walked in. All my stuff was "trashed" and I noticed that all my lab equipment (that was boxed up at the time) was out and had meth tests all in it and around it (negative of course). I even noticed (I think) a HI/Red P test and an MDMA test. Anyway, very suspicious, I decided to leave and go to the main office to see what was up (my girlfriend arrived about 20mins before). As I walked out the door I noticed two police cars pulling up so I thought "Ok, I'll just tell them what's going on". One of them got out as I was walking down the stairs and said, "are you Jake Blank?" I said, "Yes, and I'd like to know what's going on". Without saying another word she grabbed my arm and twisted it behind my back and threw me against the railing, cuffed me and took me to the back of the police car.

Background info:
A few months before this incident I was arrested by this cop for having a pistol in my car without a CCW. Before I was arrested I was threatened by her (she said she would "stick her Glock .40 in my mouth and pull the trigger if I didn't consent to the search") Well, needless to say, I reported her and pleaded coercement but nothing came of it because "her cruiser cam wasn't working at the time". She even told me personally that she was pissed that I "snitched on her".

Continued:
I sat in the back of the police car for 2 hours while they searched the apt. The male officer came back to the car, I asked him what I'm being charged with and he said, "we don't know yet". Eventually he got in the car and they took me to the station and put me in interrogation. The whole time I was asking about the charges and they kept ignoring me. To make a long story short I didn't know what I was charged with until I made bail the next morning. The charge was trespassing and possession of a controlled substance because the woman officer said that she didn't think my prescription was "what it says it is". Well, it turned out it was and the judge eventually dropped that. In the end they dropped the tresspassing for reasons I don't know but the whole process cost me nearly a thousand dollars and countless hours of my time.

I am almost absolutely certain that if I had more chemicals than I did, I would be in a federal prison right now. The only reason I didn't have chemicals is because I wasn't experimenting the whole time I lived in the apt with my roommate. All my chemicals were elsewhere.

I haven't been arrested for anything since (I got my CCW) but I am still afraid to go through that particular suburb. I used to fear for my life. I honestly thought that woman cop would kill me if she pulled me over again. My fear has subsided though.

joeflsts - 16-1-2008 at 07:15

Quote:
Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
My roommate was a well known "pothead" (by the police because he went to high school with a few of them) to start out with. I was still packing my stuff 2 days after he moved out. I get home from work one night to discover that someone had broken in to the apartment. The doorknob just fell off and I walked in. All my stuff was "trashed" and I noticed that all my lab equipment (that was boxed up at the time) was out and had meth tests all in it and around it (negative of course). I even noticed (I think) a HI/Red P test and an MDMA test. Anyway, very suspicious, I decided to leave and go to the main office to see what was up (my girlfriend arrived about 20mins before). As I walked out the door I noticed two police cars pulling up so I thought "Ok, I'll just tell them what's going on". One of them got out as I was walking down the stairs and said, "are you Jake Blank?" I said, "Yes, and I'd like to know what's going on". Without saying another word she grabbed my arm and twisted it behind my back and threw me against the railing, cuffed me and took me to the back of the police car.

Background info:
A few months before this incident I was arrested by this cop for having a pistol in my car without a CCW. Before I was arrested I was threatened by her (she said she would "stick her Glock .40 in my mouth and pull the trigger if I didn't consent to the search") Well, needless to say, I reported her and pleaded coercement but nothing came of it because "her cruiser cam wasn't working at the time". She even told me personally that she was pissed that I "snitched on her".

Continued:
I sat in the back of the police car for 2 hours while they searched the apt. The male officer came back to the car, I asked him what I'm being charged with and he said, "we don't know yet". Eventually he got in the car and they took me to the station and put me in interrogation. The whole time I was asking about the charges and they kept ignoring me. To make a long story short I didn't know what I was charged with until I made bail the next morning. The charge was trespassing and possession of a controlled substance because the woman officer said that she didn't think my prescription was "what it says it is". Well, it turned out it was and the judge eventually dropped that. In the end they dropped the tresspassing for reasons I don't know but the whole process cost me nearly a thousand dollars and countless hours of my time.

I am almost absolutely certain that if I had more chemicals than I did, I would be in a federal prison right now. The only reason I didn't have chemicals is because I wasn't experimenting the whole time I lived in the apt with my roommate. All my chemicals were elsewhere.

I haven't been arrested for anything since (I got my CCW) but I am still afraid to go through that particular suburb. I used to fear for my life. I honestly thought that woman cop would kill me if she pulled me over again. My fear has subsided though.


Interesting. So this all took place because you were ticketed for not having a CCW?

Joe

MagicJigPipe - 16-1-2008 at 14:56

That's my theory. I know the cop was pissed about the complaint and that I was arrested without being charged and the charges were dropped by the prosecution/judge. Seems like she was on a vendetta.

Also, since there is very little REAL crime (as in non-drug crime) in this suburb, the cops are always looking for something to do. I think this had something to do with the fact that the cops are bored there. I know they are notorious for arresting people for single cannabis seeds and whatnot.

joeflsts - 16-1-2008 at 19:18

Quote:
Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
That's my theory. I know the cop was pissed about the complaint and that I was arrested without being charged and the charges were dropped by the prosecution/judge. Seems like she was on a vendetta.

Also, since there is very little REAL crime (as in non-drug crime) in this suburb, the cops are always looking for something to do. I think this had something to do with the fact that the cops are bored there. I know they are notorious for arresting people for single cannabis seeds and whatnot.


Is there a legal threshold in your part of the country for Cannibis seeds? I think much of what you think happened is very different from what actually happened. That is merely my opinion and no better or worse than yours I suspect.

Joe

MagicJigPipe - 16-1-2008 at 19:26

No threshold. And what do you mean? Hardly any of my story is what I think happened. I know it happened. I know at least one person personally who was arrested because the cops found a half a seed in his pocket. It had been crushed and only half of it remained. He was charged with "Possession of 'Marijuana'".

There has been much more anecdotal talk of people being arrested for "marijuana residue" which, apparently, is the resinous material that sublimes on car surfaces when it's smoked. It's just stupid.

There is not threshold. Technically, one could be prosecuted for "possessing" one molecule of THC or 1 picogram of cannabis.

EDIT
I forgot this was in the Reagents subforum. I suppose we need to get back on topic.

[Edited on 16-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

joeflsts - 17-1-2008 at 09:38

Quote:
Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
No threshold. And what do you mean? Hardly any of my story is what I think happened. I know it happened. I know at least one person personally who was arrested because the cops found a half a seed in his pocket. It had been crushed and only half of it remained. He was charged with "Possession of 'Marijuana'".

There has been much more anecdotal talk of people being arrested for "marijuana residue" which, apparently, is the resinous material that sublimes on car surfaces when it's smoked. It's just stupid.

There is not threshold. Technically, one could be prosecuted for "possessing" one molecule of THC or 1 picogram of cannabis.

EDIT
I forgot this was in the Reagents subforum. I suppose we need to get back on topic.

[Edited on 16-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]


No problem - and I meant nothing by it - I asked the threshold question because in this state possession of a seed is a crime and will continue to be that way until the law is changed.

Joe

MagicJigPipe - 3-4-2008 at 19:08

I have noticed from anecdotal reports on this forum that a few types of chemicals seem to be getting harder to get. Most of them were listed when I first made this post.

Nitrates (some kind of new bill)
Toluene (at my solvent supplier toluene is now "restricted")
Iodides (most people seem to think they will be regulated)
I2 Tincture (pretty much gone in many areas of the US now)
Potassium permanganate (still available OTC but new laws/regulations are being made apparently)

If anyone else is having trouble with anything else, please post it here so it will be in one spot. Thanks.

evil_lurker - 3-4-2008 at 21:08

Ammonium nitrate is not problem, I have access to approx 125+ tons of fertilizer grade at the moment @ $400 per ton. Fuck, I could go swimming in it if I wanted to.

Urea same thing. Just go take a shovel to the bin.

KNO3, not a problem to order off the net, but the locals have never even heard of it.

Toluene, still plenty at Ace Hardware and Shermin Williams, but its dissappeared from Lowes, Wal-mart and Home Depot.

Iodides, yah you better stock up on these. May or may not be regulated, who knows. Probably will to some degree. I'd recommend getting several kg's if they could be found cheap.

Tincture is *poof* gone. Only thing available is those little tiny 1oz bottles of 2%.

Permanaganate is also hard to find. I have about 4Kg of technical grade so I'm not hurting.

MagicJigPipe - 3-4-2008 at 21:13

"Only thing available is those little tiny 1oz bottles of 2%."

Those are gone as well in my area.

soxhlet - 13-4-2008 at 10:02

The major supposition of this thread seems to be more driven of regulatory resentment than valid inference from fact.

Fact:
It is terribly costly for DEA to impose regulatory compliance upon listed chemicals. Consider anhydrous ammonia. The DEA could not begin to perform administrative audits of the tens of thousands of suppliers. They will only target very specific chemicals which have little if any use outside of business and research. (Or, the existing home use is so small as to be eliminated from cost increases that occur registration and addition administrative overhead).

Fact:
A new category of regulated chemical was established to control pseudoephedrine. This new category encompasses over-the-counter medicines which contain listed chemicals.

Fact:
Most recently, a change in verbiage has been observed in DEA submissions to The Federal Registry. DEA is now making some distinction between immediate precursors and those other chemicals whose use is peripheral.

This leads me to believe that efforts to eliminate drug manufacture will become more intensely focused upon those immediate substances such as ephedrine, benzyl methyl ketone, safrole, etc.

Someone, maybe joe, made a profound statement albeit in a different thread. “If you want to obtain regulated materials, simply comply with the protocols”. The regulations are not intended to discriminate between professional and amateur demand for chemicals. DEA doesn’t make any distinction between professional and amateur drug makers. ;)

MagicJigPipe - 13-4-2008 at 11:34

"The major supposition of this thread seems to be more driven of regulatory resentment than valid inference from fact."

Bullshit. This thread was made because of DIRECT observations by myself and others that many chemicals are becoming harder or impossible to obtain. This has almost nothing to do with listed chemicals as they are already virtually impossible to obtain.

Unfortunately, the DEA or DHS don't have to create new regulations or impose new restrictions to take certain chemicals out of the hands of ordinary citizens. They utilize threats and propaganda so that companies decide "on their own" to restrict them.

Why is it that there are hundreds of non-regulated chemicals that are difficult to obtain? It's not illegal or even technically suspicious to sell 5 gallons of toluene to an individual yet a local supplier in my area will not do it. Same with ammonium nitrate and iodine tincture.

"They" don't have to do anything but spit propaganda to make de facto regulation.

If you don't see it happening you are blind. And, IMO, if you don't act now you will regret it. That is, if you are interested in home chemistry.

EDIT
I would like to point out that 2 of the 4 things that I put stars next to in the first post have since become impossible to obtain locally "OTC".

Iodine tincture
Ammonium nitrate cold packs

I suppose I have no idea what I'm talking about and I'm just paranoid, though. That's fine. I will have these chemicals when they "disappear" and some others will not.

I will stop trying to convince people now.

[Edited on 4-13-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

Magpie - 13-4-2008 at 12:43

Well put MagicJigPipe!
Quote:

Fact:
It is terribly costly for DEA to impose regulatory compliance upon listed chemicals.


When did a government agency ever worry about costs?

soxhlet - 13-4-2008 at 13:58

One must consider regulatory impact on a macro scale. The change to list1 statue of iodine requires identification of, and notification to, tens of thousands of small businesses that sell 7% tincture. Those businesses then must apply for a registration. The application review process requires formal onsite audits and takes months to complete. The manpower required to perform this is remarkable. The administrative audits require that agents perform perfunctory duties rather than participate on task forces.

This thread has already identified why chemicals are becoming more difficult for hobbyists to obtain. Large-scale suppliers have deep pockets and are afraid of being sued when their products find use outside of a reasonably well equipped environment. Large companies wish to hide behind OSHA to shield them from liability.

Its not too unreasonable for people to perceive risks associated with garage/basement laboratories even if the risk is to a college student’s little brother.

And, its not too difficult to get around this. Many supply houses don’t inquire beyond a business tax id. Simply follow business policy.

Drug cooks most often use walmart.

I am speculating here,, but if a recently proposed restriction is any indication of future direction, some of the immediate drug precursors are going to become scheduled rather than listed.

Magpie - 13-4-2008 at 14:49

Quote:

This thread has already identified why chemicals are becoming more difficult for hobbyists to obtain. Large-scale suppliers have deep pockets and are afraid of being sued when their products find use outside of a reasonably well equipped environment. Large companies wish to hide behind OSHA to shield them from liability.


I think this is just a simplistic answer, and is often cited as the reason individuals have been denied chemicals by the major suppliers. This has only been the case in the last 10 years or so. Where was their fear of suit before this?

All corporations are subject to being sued for product liability, real or imagined. Just take the "too hot" McDonald's coffee suit for instance. It hasn't stopped them or anyone else from selling hot coffee.

It's just too easy for the major chemical suppliers to cave in to the DEA propaganda and intimidation. After all who cares about the home chemists anyway?

MagicJigPipe - 13-4-2008 at 16:35

Quote:

One must consider regulatory impact on a macro scale. The change to list1 statue of iodine requires identification of, and notification to, tens of thousands of small businesses that sell 7% tincture. Those businesses then must apply for a registration. The application review process requires formal onsite audits and takes months to complete. The manpower required to perform this is remarkable.


Actually, the most likely scenario is that those bussinesses will just stop selling it altogether. Therefore the DEA has essentially outlawed a chemical with no more than the stroke of a pen. It costs them virtually nothing. In fact, I can confirm this phenomena in at least one agriculture supply store in my area. They no longer carry iodine tincture. Not even 2%.
Quote:

The administrative audits require that agents perform perfunctory duties rather than participate on task forces.

Like I said above, most businesses don't want to deal with the costs/risk and will just simply stop stocking it.
Quote:
Many supply houses don’t inquire beyond a business tax id. Simply follow business policy.


Change that "many" to "few" and you've got it right, IMO.

evil_lurker - 13-4-2008 at 17:21

Keep in mind, that any chemical company that handles List I chemicals or participates in regulated transactions has to pay $2,500 or so per year in administrative costs to obtain and keep a license. So MJP is somewhat correct that funding for the DEA is moot point as chemical suppliers carry the majority of the costs.

Its not that hard to purchase reagents even from notorious tight asses such as cole palmer, sigma aldrich, fisher, and others. It just takes time. All that is needed is incorporation, establishing at least a one and preferably two year credit history with at least 3 references, a DUNS credit file, and a bonafide business storefront such as a website.

In the mean time, you establish business relationships with the suppliers lower down on the food chain. If you can just get your foot in the door, get to know your sales reps by name, and maintain a several year history with them, most of them are more than willing to work with you on getting "advanced" or dangerous materials and will provide those oh so valuable references needed to access the "holy" chemical suppliers.

soxhlet - 13-4-2008 at 19:02

MJP does have merit in general. AFOAF is registered. Says that DEA compliance audits are like getting sex instruction from your inlaws. Don’t quite know what he meant but it doesn’t sound very enjoyable. Lots of businesses won’t sell listed chemicals because they don’t want another god awful regulatory agency meddling in their livelihoods.

The $2500 annual registration fee probably does offset much of the cost of annual compliance audits. However, DEA spends loads of manhours in implement efforts. The effort involved in initial identification of current suppliers is no small endeavor.

General statements tend to be too broad to be reliable. If one considers 7% iodine tincture, well, folks will not go out and shoot their horses because DEA listed iodine. In this case, a large portion of the demand will remain unaffected. If the demand is present, suppliers will fill the gap. AFAIK much of the tincture sales have gone toward veterinarians.

Last I knew, ColePalmer had opened up a big portion of its offering to the general public.

Mr Luker has the method down cold. Its not all that difficult to work within the system. Takes some time and patience.

MagicJigPipe - 13-4-2008 at 19:11

Quote:
Its not that hard to purchase reagents even from notorious tight asses such as cole palmer, sigma aldrich, fisher, and others. It just takes time. All that is needed is incorporation, establishing at least a one and preferably two year credit history with at least 3 references, a DUNS credit file, and a bonafide business storefront such as a website.

In the mean time, you establish business relationships with the suppliers lower down on the food chain. If you can just get your foot in the door, get to know your sales reps by name, and maintain a several year history with them, most of them are more than willing to work with you on getting "advanced" or dangerous materials and will provide those oh so valuable references needed to access the "holy" chemical suppliers.


Holy shit! Is that all? I'm ordering some thionyl chloride from Fisher tomorrow! **laughs jokingly**

Oh yeah, you forgot to add lots of money to the time requirement. Let's come back down to Earth for a second, though. No offense, I just don't consider that "not that hard".

Not to mention that once you start doing that you become "higher profile" and even if you're not doing anything illegal we all know how the govt. likes to prey on everyone including "legitimate" ameteur chemists. I wonder how many big time drug manufacturers have done something similar?

I know it's possible and is being done by some but it's just not practicle for most of us. I think I might try it some day but it will have to be once I start making good money.

Thanks for the insight, evil. Just know that I certainly wasn't trying to insult you in any way.

[Edited on 4-13-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

MagicJigPipe - 14-4-2008 at 15:06

Also, I have solvents for sale.

On hand I have:

EtOH anhydrous (1% isopropanol, 1% isopropyl acetate) $4 a liter.
MeOH $1.50 a liter.
Toluene $4 a liter.
Ethyl acetate $6 a liter

All are technical grade. I'll put them in glass bottles. I can also obtain just about any common technical grade solvent (butanol, isobutanol, acetone, isopropanol etc...)

MagicJigPipe - 22-4-2008 at 19:14

Okay guys, this is the last chemical list I'll post. I can obtain most of the chemicals below (technical grade) relatively cheap. It is subject to availability. I'm not guaranteeing that all of these will be available all the time. Just ask me...

--Aliphatic--
Hexane
Heptane
LD Naptha
VM&P Naptha
Mineral spirits
Mineral seal oil
Odorless mineral spirits

--Aromatic--
Toluene
Xylene
Sol 100?
Sol 150?

--Chlorinated-- (Sorry guys, discontinued)

--Glycol Ethers--
Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether
""monopropyl""
""monobutyl""
Dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether
Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether
''''monoethyl''''
""monobutyl""

--Alcohols--
Methanol
Ethanol Anhydrous
Ethanol
Isopropanol anhydrous
n-propanol
isobutanol
butanol
n-pentanol (check availability)
2-ethylhexanol (sometimes known as isooctanol)

--Ketones--
Acetone
2-butanone (MEK)
Methylisobutyl ketone (MIBK)
Methyl n-amyl ketone
Cyclohexanone
Diacetone alcohol (4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-pentan-2-one; 2-pentanone)
Isophorone (3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-one)

--Esters--
Ethyl acetate
Isopropyl acetate
Propyl acetate
Isobutyl acetate
Butyl acetate
Amyl acetate
Isobutyl isobutyrate
Propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate
Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate

--Glycols--
Propylene
Ethylene
Hexylene
Dipropylene
Diethylene
Triethylene

Monoethanolamine
Morpholine

SpunBobSynthWeaver - 12-7-2008 at 13:34

I believe that if a material is legal to purchase, and falls under threshold quantities, then why not purchase in advance? I buy books all the time that I haven't read yet... The issue is storage, away from the other members of the triad (reagents, glassware, intent/ability - reference texts could go here if the trend continues). I agree, I have seen certain of the abovementioned not only become more difficult to find, but the institutions that used to serve 'em up, have gone the way of the wind...

I was musing the other day to a friend of mine that it seems like the intent is simply to make it economically unfeasible to even contemplate helping a precursor evolve... If it takes you 5 hours to achieve a 50 % yield of precursor, and you use solvent in excess (perhaps to break an emulsion), and you still have 1 or more intermediate reactions/proceedures until final product? Spendy in time, spendy in cash... That will weed out a lot of local folk (all it really does is shift the economics of production to foreign import). The rest, will become ever more skilled and creative, and may very well make a can of Toluene last for years, what with reclaimation via distillation... But, if nothing else, I trust in the creativity of the chemist, combined with the drive to live as you determine is best; to do what you will... That will overcome a lot of obstacles... Sure, it may mean that nano is the way of the walk, and the interval between labwork becomes longer and longer, but you cannot eliminate everything... Too many consumer goods, and too many smart people who can walk thru a cloud of funny smell and say, 'y'know, that smells like an acetate moiety... I wonder if I can do something with that... And, hydrogen vehicles will continue to permeate the market, and who wants to bet me a dime against a dozen donuts that someone will figure out a way to manufacture a catalyst, and chemhack a Parr bomb... Still, it is a pain in the ass, and seems reasonable to pursue stockpiling. Hell, given the current geopolitical climate, and the fragility of the US in general, is it so unreasonable to postulate a series of events, deliberate or not, that combine, magnify and finally bring us to the point of collapse? You might need that iodine to purify water. You might need to know how to distill to live... That knowledge base that you walk around with that concerns which plants have components of interest may determine your survival; should the switch flip like that...

And really, I find myself contemplating, and achieving a deeper understanding of a reaction when I'm forced to deviate from standard conditions... You may save what might have been lost, simply by understanding certain basic physical laws and constants... Anyway, I'll acquire until I retire, but that's just me... If some is good, more is better... And I seem to recall that Strike bought a 50 gal drum of isosafrole before it was watched, and declaimed that it was the best move he ever made... Ahhh, don't mind me, this is FIRST POST!

Hello all...

grndpndr - 17-8-2008 at 21:24

I am far from a conspiracy nut but when access to SA drain cleaner is being systematically outlawed in certain states as well as the cpsc making AL powder and may other formerly
OTC materials controlled /replaced w/ innoccuos substitutes put in place it cant be ignored.AN 32%-34% by the 100lb sack was available not long ago as was a gallons of NM OTC at auto speed shops < $40and some hobby shops caterng to model airplane etc ethusiasts.max content of NM contaning fuels dropped from 80% to 55% this last year and pure fuel NM must be mailed /shipped to a buisiness address,at least the gallon and larger containers from speed shops.
obviously to make it more difficult to make a binary or obtain Nm for other purposes.Reduced to buying cold packs with 2-3 oz may or may not contain AN,instead Urea is often used and at $1.25+ for a few OZs of AN thats expensive AN!
I dont see how all sources of precursors from aspirin to SA can be contained/regulated? we do need auto batterys, we do need to treat headaches but nitrates in fertilizers such as nitrate of soda now readilly available I fear will soon be a thing of the past containing substaces that prevent its use as a nitrating precursor.It may come to extracting pott nitrate from the nitrate salt bearing dirt in chicken coops etc.If I were to ratthole some precursors SA DRAIN CLEANER93%-98%/Garage size containers of BATTERY ELECTROLYTES 30% would be first on the list followed by a FERILIZER GRADE NITRATE of SODIUM(sodium nitrate 4lb sacks $6-$8)the basics to nitrate any number of HEs and familys of hes containing primarys-secodays. There are so many possibilitys contained in patents and publications it seems to be an impossible task preventing experimentation.now wholesale production which i doubt any here are interested in and what the gov should be concerned with easily made blasting explosives made in quantities is what should scare The authorities and what scare me.However it seems the terrorists in the US may be considereing reverting to less spectacular attacks but more of them which could involve firearms,fuel products/or fougasses,smaller explosive devices the size of claymores in soft trgets such as churches etc.More#s isolated cells-more attacks? Ive crossed the line as far as the topics concerned but the supposed gvt reasoning IS terrorism,but i would suspect with the difficultys in obtaining large quantities of immediately usable AN w/o purifying and the Urea also becoming more diffcult to obtain in quantities larger than what a garden could use unlikely the thousands of LBs of Urea or AN needed for a truck or even car bomb becoming difficult!!Unless extremely well organized in stealing or being able to by surreptitiusly buy/manufacture these items and the substantial amounts of nitric needed to make the urea nitrate or supposed OTC urea nitrate synthesis?It can be made more difficult but with the most recent attempt at terrorism overseas by very intelligent men!? utilizing schoolboy kewl unworkable
Ideas im wonderin about competency of the enemy at times.
If the best educated men can do is liquid peroxides carried about in coolers w/o any clues as how with what material inert or energetic to use to add to and desensitise the HE,any member here is capable of that simple task.Rant over.
[Edited on 17-8-2008 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 17-8-2008 by grndpndr]