Talk:Amateur chemistry

A fact from Amateur chemistry appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 July 2008, and was viewed approximately 0 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Hall-Héroult process for extracting aluminium? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/July.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemistry High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Bob Lazar#United Nuclear Scientific Equipment and Supplies|United Nuclear]] The anchor (#United Nuclear Scientific Equipment and Supplies) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Hyperdeath (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive of the deleted wikipedia article "List of commonly available chemicals" on archive.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.253.130 (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed that article

I agree that the topics can be merged, but I don't agree with getting rid of the list altogether as you suggested there. That could be renamed into a List of commonly available chemicals or equivalent. --Itub (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the old "kitchen chemistry" article to List of commonly available chemicals. Hyperdeath (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You merged, then subsequently someone removed the list of chemicals. THE NARCISSISM of wikipedia editors is unending. That list is why I came here, PUT IT BACK. Revert war impending, and I know how to subvert any weak lock you may employ. Put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.65.105.219 (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong point. The article merger was merely a proposal. As is clearly stated above, the old "Kitchen Chemistry" article was moved to List of commonly available chemicals, where it remains to this day. Please take your bad attitude and ridiculous script-kiddy threats elsewhere. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 16:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is clearly written from a U.S. perspective. While I don't have any references for adding a more global perspective, I think at least it would be a favor to readers to be more specific. For example, where is United Nuclear based, which Consumer Product Safety Commission the article is talking about, etc. I can say from experience that in Mexico it is much easier to get chemicals and equipment (at least 10 years ago, but I doubt it has changed much). I expect the same will be true for many countries. --Itub (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article to address your concerns. I have made it clear that the United Nuclear incident happened in the US. I have also eliminated the implication that amateur chemists in every part of the world are affected. (I do, however, stand by the phrase "...hobbyists in many parts of the world..."). I have moved the globalise tag into the "Legal Issues" section, where I believe it is more appropriate. Hyperdeath (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that this article is something like original research and does not belong in Wikipedia. It is also advice-giving, which is also counter WE guidelines. Oh well, we have

Can you be more specific? (It's difficult to argue against vague generalities.) Also, what are these "other issues"? — Hyperdeath ^(Talk) 18:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article doesn't make any outrageous claims, and it has lots of references. Yet there is still a bit of an essay-like feel to it. Who exactly qualifies as an amateur chemist can be arguable. And the connection between gentlemen chemists and amateur chemists is a bit tenuous in my opinion. I see a significant difference between the two: gentlemen scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries were generally "serious scientists" (at least the ones in the history books). By this I mean that they published in scientific journals and books, discovered new things, and went to scientific meetings. The main distinction between them and today's professional scientists was that they were typically self-funded, perhaps from a "day job" or an inheritance. On the other hand, the modern "amateur chemist" depicted in this article really does things just as a hobby, and usually doesn't discover new science (although some may come up with more spectacular ways of showing off known chemistry). There are occasional exceptions, of course. --Itub (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an explicit division between the "gentleman chemist" and "hobbyist" paragraphs to remove the implication that they are directly connected. I have also moved the "procuring chemicals" section to the list of commonly available chemicals section, and demoted the link to the "see also" section. Whilst I concede that the article is still slightly essay-ish, I don't believe that it constitutes original research. Also, with the "procuring chemicals" section gone, it can no longer be said to be "advice giving". — Hyperdeath ^(Talk) 16:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Halford. Chemical & Engineering News, November 10, 2008, Volume 86, Number 45, pp. 38-40. Underground Science: Chemistry hobbyists face a labyrinth of local and state regulations. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/86/8645sci1.html (URL may require subscription?). A quote from the article:

"On Aug. 5, a police officer passing Deeb's home noticed smoke coming out of an air conditioner in the window and called the fire department. After putting out the flames, a fire fighter went to turn off the power in the basement. He didn't find the electrical circuit box there—it's in the garage. Instead, he found Deeb's basement laboratory.

"By the end of the day, the home would become the site of a Tier 3 hazardous materials cleanup, visited by city code inspectors, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the local board of health, the state bomb squad, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

In case anyone finds it useful as a reference. --Itub (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another depressing story. I must get around to adding them to the main article. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 21:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another depressing story — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 23:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for the Discovery series "Kitchen Chemistry" and ended up here... --77.109.212.174 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page makes it sound like it is illegal to possess chemicals which are on the US DEA's List I or II of drug precursor chemicals. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that these lists primarily affect MANUFACTURERS and DISTRIBUTORS of these chemicals. Chemicals on those lists have reporting and record-keeping requirements (for the SELLER, not the possessor) as well as limits on the amount which can be sold to a single individual per year. I think this should be clarified by someone knowledgeable about this.Sbreheny (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amateur chemistry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003105702/http://faculty.cua.edu/may/Elgar.pdf to http://faculty.cua.edu/may/Elgar.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stratlab.co.uk/stratlab/value/items.asp?Cc=CHEM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Amateur chemistry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624165843/http://genchem.chem.wisc.edu/sstutorial/Text1/Tx14/tx14.html to http://genchem.chem.wisc.edu/sstutorial/Text1/Tx14/tx14.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214072700/http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/lifestyle-money/article/grinch-stole-chemistry-set_397395_20.html to http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/lifestyle-money/article/grinch-stole-chemistry-set_397395_20.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509143538/http://www.timstar.co.uk/Ordering.aspx to http://www.timstar.co.uk/Ordering.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107031435/http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac%24ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=5&ti=37&pt=1&ch=13&sch=E&rl=Y to http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac%24ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=5&ti=37&pt=1&ch=13&sch=E&rl=Y

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find out, what is meant by “reportable”, could be that I might be dumb, but does it mean the sellers have to report anyone who buys magnesium powder for example, to local authorities? I am just really confused by what is exactly meant by this. XenogenesisX2 (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @XenogenesisX2. The definition of "Reportable" can be found on the Annex II header of the Regulation (EU) 2019/1148: "substances on their own or in mixtures or in substances for which suspicious transactions and significant disappearances and thefts are to be reported within 24 hours", and the definition of restricted, on the Annex I header of the same document: "substances which are not to be made available to, or introduced, possessed or used by, members of the general public, whether on their own or in mixtures or substances that include those substances, unless the concentration is equal to or lower than the limit values set out in column 2, and for which suspicious transactions and significant disappearances and thefts are to be reported within 24 hours"

At least in theory not any sale, just suspicious ones (have a look at the rest of the document, just in case). But the transposition of the EU regulation into the local set of laws of your country might include a provision stating that all sales must be reported. Even if they don't, your national authority might require reporting any activity with these substances. Thorm-bjkp55 (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]