Talk:The Golden Book of Chemistry Experiments

Banned

It is said that it was banned. Is that adequately important, do you think?

I would say so. We should expand this article, citing sources, detailing how it was banned. It seems like an important First Amendment issue. Gary 04:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Biases

I feel that the following articles are not fully impartial.

"The book was a source of inspiration to David Hahn, nicknamed "the Radioactive Boy Scout" by the media, who tried to collect a sample of every chemical element and also built a model nuclear reactor (nuclear reactions however are not covered in this book), which led to the involvement of the authorities. On the other hand, it has also been the inspiration for many children who went on to get advanced degrees and productive chemical careers in industry or academia."

VeryRandomPerson (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Rapidshare

Someone posted a link to the full text on Rapidshare. It has now been removed, with the explanation that Rapidshare is a pay-for-download site. I was able to download it for free, I just had to wait a minute for a download spot. Are such sites not allowed on Wikipedia? Gary 00:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly OK to link to a paid site, if a free one is not available. Much of the information in the world is not available otherwise. But the paid or subscription nature of a site must be stated. DGG 22:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain

The article states that the book is now in the public domain, but, a quick search here http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html indicates that the copyright was renewed by the Western Publishing Company in 1988.

"Dangerous Experiments"

Article needs sources to back up the claim that the experiments are "highly dangerous." I agree that they involve dangerous chemicals, but that alone does not make them any more dangerous than, say, pumping gasoline (an *extremely* dangerous chemical if ever there was one.) That doesn't necessarily make them appropriate experiments for a children's book (they might be appropriate for an older, closely supervised child, but I'm not a chemist so I can't be sure), but there's a VAST gulf between "not appropriate for children" and "too dangerous for the general public." Similarly, there is a vast difference between a "safe" experiment and an "idiot-proof" experiment. If you ignore their warnings to avoid inhaling the gases deeply or keep away from flame... well, YOU then are the one being dangerous--not them.

Now if the book neglects to mention certain warnings (e.g. perhaps some of the harmful chemicals can be absorbed through the skin, and the book doesn't mention anything about gloves) or certain chemicals are known to spontaneously combust or something, that's another matter entirely. Like I said, I'm not a chemist so I can't say one way or the other. But the book does at least appear to have all of the required precautions--it just doesn't beat you over the head with them like modern product warning labels. Unless someone has sources or persuasive scientific arguments to the contrary, I propose that the stipulation "if performed improperly" be added to the claims of danger. To me (a layperson), the experiments seem no more dangerous than a young teenager refilling a gas-powered lawnmower. --Lode Runner 06:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO in general the experiments are not "highly dangerous", except in the lawsuit-crazy culture of modern America. I would love to see one source explaining the supposed "banning" of this book. From what one hears occasionally in the American news today, people are still trying to "ban" books from public libraries all the time, especially when they are for children and have what the complainants consider offensive words, sex, or "witchcraft"... That said, there are some experiments that can be dangerous if done improperly, particularly if you do them in a large scale without adequate ventilation. For example, the synthesis of chlorine, iodine, hydrogen, and hydrogen sulfide. One experiment that should really be revised, though, is the one involving carbon tetrachloride. Although at the time it may have been considered reasonably safe, today the consensus is that it is carcinogenic and should be avoided (even by "real chemists"!) whenever there is an alternative. It is actually very hard to get CCl4 nowadays, unlike in the times when it was widely used as a solvent for dry cleaning. --Itub 11:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I had such chemistry books (and kits) as a child--and I eventually became a biochemist. They originated in a much less safety-aware period; Drano came in a metal can with a screw top lid, and people used it without gloves or eye protection; if water got into the can, it would explode. Toxic solvents were used in home workshops without ventilation. Lead paint was used in internal household applications. In academic research, & even education, materials such as sodium cyanide were pipetted by mouth until such practices became prohibited by law.

"if performed carelessly" or the like is appropriate in this case--the materials are not intrinsically too dangerous for use by supervised children with modern safety measures. But children can not really be trusted to engage in dangerous activities carefully, and unfortunately adults can not be trusted to always supervise or to supervise carefully. (And the same goes for unsupervised use of a kitchen). It is not prudent to do everything which may be legal. I've made a partial edit accordingly. DGG 22:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell which experiment in this book could be labeled dangerous? Btw, you are very arrogant person.Dexter's lab (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Golden book of chemistry expriments.jpg

Image:Golden book of chemistry expriments.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)