When Chemists Attack

Much to my parents’ dismay, when I was a small child, I was a an amateur chemist. Not having much in the way of chemical glassware, I would mix various things in the toilet to see what would happen. This, more often than not, produced amusing rather than toxic results. Amusing, that is, unless you were the one who had to clean up afterwards!

While I soon graduated to crystals in jars, ripping apart electronics, and putting them back together again (occasionally successfully), I eventually came back to chemistry and got a degree in it – then started teaching it.

Even in my youth, though, the chemistry set was on the decline (hence the reason for putting reagents into the big white bowl with convenient “waste disposal” lever). Too dangerous, they said. You can’t let kids play with magnesium ribbon! They could poke their eyes out! Or blow up the house! Or whatever the heck that stuff does …

So I have a certain affinity for household chemistry, and articles like this one in Wired disturb me. There’s a drive on – spurred by the unavoidable fact that chemicals can be dangerous coupled with the mad desire for protection from terrorism and drugs – to legislate the amateur chemist out of existence. The elimination of budding scientists might not be the intention of the criminalization of amateur science, but consider this: Almost everything that causes an interesting chemical effect can be dangerous. Take away everytihng that’s potentially dangerous and/or could potentially be used to make some kind of drug and you have … nothing.

Want proof? Take a look in the Wired article:

more than 30 states have passed laws to restrict sales of chemicals and lab equipment associated with meth production, which has resulted in a decline in domestic meth labs, but makes things daunting for an amateur chemist shopping for supplies. It is illegal in Texas, for example, to buy such basic labware as Erlenmeyer flasks or three-necked beakers without first registering with the state’s Department of Public Safety to declare that they will not be used to make drugs. Among the chemicals the Portland, Oregon, police department lists online as “commonly associated with meth labs” are such scientifically useful compounds as liquid iodine, isopropyl alcohol, sulfuric acid, and hydrogen peroxide, along with chemistry glassware and pH strips. Similar lists appear on hundreds of Web sites.

I’ve bolded the ridiculously common items here. Iodine, rubbing alcohol (isopropyl alcohol), and hydrogen peroxide can be found in most medicine cabinets. Got an aquarium or pool? You’ll need the pH strips. (Not mentioned on this list, but another household compound associated with meth is pseudoephedrine – found in Sudafed.)

Sulfuric acid’s one of the most common compounds in the world – you’ll find it in your car battery. And here’s a hint to overzealous legislators: Erlenmeyer flasks are not actually required to make drugs, but they sure do make simple kid-level experiments like titration of household vinegar easier.

So heaven help you if you have a car, a pool, an inquisitive kid, and a reasonably stocked medicine cabinet. You’re probably on someone’s watch list!

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 30th, 2006 at 1:10 pm and is filed under Science education. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.