|
|
| Author |
Message |
java
Consumer
|
| Joined: 07 Feb 2005 |
| Posts: 736 |
| Location: The Mexican Republic |
21794.14 Points
|
|
|
A Question in the Sales of Glassware and Equipment for Labs
Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:59 am |
|
|
| Does anyone have any information on the status for the companies that sell glassware and lab equipment , wheather they have to report all sales made in the US to the LE, and does that apply to sales outside the US......java |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ApprenticeCook
DILLIGAF
|
| Joined: 12 Feb 2005 |
| Posts: 162 |
| Location: Australia |
8486.38 Points
|
|
|
Mon Apr 04, 2005 6:55 am |
|
|
dont know about the US, but in australia there is a list of specific glassware they have to report sales of to the LE, same as chemicals... grades of risk to diversion etc...
But i guess the US has the same thing if anything more stringent...
-AC |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Taz
|
| Joined: 13 Feb 2005 |
| Posts: 13 |
|
208.06 Points
|
|
|
Tue Apr 05, 2005 4:01 am |
|
|
I could be wrong but I think it depends on the state you live in some report and some don't the federal list of reportable lab equiptment is very short
large heating mantles capsule machines a few things like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Tue Apr 05, 2005 4:08 am |
|
|
Taz: Wouldn't happen to have a link to the federal list, would you?
I'd imagine companies screening their customers would be the primary route of detection. They are encouraged to report odd behaviours/patterns, after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Taz
|
| Joined: 13 Feb 2005 |
| Posts: 13 |
|
208.06 Points
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:56 am |
|
|
As far as i know, federal law has no requirement of glassware reporting.
Although state laws are another ball game, i only know of two(there could be more) and that is texas and california, in texas you need to apply for a license with the state to be able to purchase any and all types of glassware.
Califorina, any glassware purchases amounting to one hundred dollars or more requires information from your drivers license to be taken down and to be kept with the store owners records.
And even if glassware was reportable in every state, nobody in there right mind is going to authorize an investigation into the purchases of some RBFs.
Unless you plan on buying industrial size vessels, like 15-22,000ml containers, then i think i would tread very lightly.
But nothings fool proof, glassware merchants, along with the chem company has to keep there records open to the DEA, basterds can rifle through all purchases on any given day, and if they see something that peaks there interest........
just play it safe and dont give them a chance to sneak up on you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
re: A Question in the Sales of Glassware and Equipment for L
Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:20 pm |
|
|
I think you are ALL wrong. There IS and has been an international treaty signed some years ago.
'International treaties and national harm-reduction strategies
include regulated and co-operative approaches to monitoring the
distribution of chemicals and equipment used in the illicit
manufacture of amphetamines and associated psychostimulants.'
'The National Code of Practice is a significant initiative in supporting those strategies,
which represent industry’s concern for the community. The key objectives of the Code
include the establishment of a common system of practice for Australian chemical
manufacturers, importers and distributors and scientific equipment and instrument
suppliers. Essential strategies have been formulated relating to protection against
diversion of essential chemicals and scientific equipment, co-operation with government
and law enforcement, as well as the development of education and training programs
for staff and end users of precursor chemicals and associated scientific equipment.
The National Code of Practice is voluntary with the expectation of self-regulatory
arrangements between industry membership, law enforcement agencies and the
community. Industry members should be aware, however, that Federal and/or State
governments WILL FORMALISE SUCH GUIDELINES THROUGH LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS if they
consider there is insufficient support or adherence under these existing self-regulatory
arrangements.'
'Category I
Lists chemicals that require an End User Declaration (EUD) with each purchase and may
only be sold to ‘account customers’ or customers that are prepared to open an account.
(See Appendix 3 for ‘EUD Example Format’). Supply of these chemicals to End Users or
Distributors must be delayed for a period of not less than 24 hours.'
For Sale to Account Customers Only - EUD Required
CHEMICAL NAME ALTERNATE NAME CAS NO
Acetic anhydride 108-24-7
4-Amino-Butanoic acid Piperidinic acid 56-12-2
BromobenzenePhenylbromide 108-86-1
Bromo safrole
Boron tribromide 10294-33-4
1,4-Butanediol Tetramethylene Glycol 110.63.4
1-Chlorophenyl-2-aminopropane
L-Ephedrine (salts) Ethyl phenyl
Ethyl phenyl acetate Benzene acetic acid, ethyl ester 101-97-3
Gamma butyrolactone 96-48-0
Gamma hydroxybutyrate salts
Hydriodic acid Hydrogen iodide 10034-85-2
4-Hydroxybutanal 4-Hydroxybutyraldehyde 5371-52-8
2-Hydroxytetrahydrofuran Tetrahydro-2-furanol 1346-46-9
4-Hydroxy-butanoic acid lactone Gamma-valerolactone 9648-0
4-Hydroxy-butanoic acid nitrile 4-Hydroxybutyronitrile 628-22-8
4-Hydroxy pentanoic acid Gamma Valerolactone 108-29-2
Hypophosphorous acid Phosphinic acid 6303-21-5
Methcathinone
3,4--Methylenedioxyphenylpropan-2-one
N-Methyl ephedrine 552-79-4
Methyl phenylacetate Benzeneacetic acid, methyl ester 101-41-7
N-Methylpseudoephedrine 51018-28-1
Norpseudoephedrine 53643-20-2
2-Pyrrolidone Gamma-butyrolactam 616-45-5
Phenylacetamide 103-81-1
Phenylacetic acid, salts & esters
Phenylacetonitrile Benzyl cyanide/Benzeneacetonitrile/
Benzyl nitrile 140-29-4
Phenylacetyl chloride 103-80-0
1-Phenyl-2-chloropropane
1-Phenyl-2-nitropropene
Phenylpropanolamine Norephedrine 37577-28-9
1-Phenyl-2-propanone Benzyl methyl ketone, Phenylacetone 103-79-7
1-Phenyl-2-propanone oxime
1-Phenyl-2-propanol 14898-87-4
Phosphorus red/white 7723-14-0
Phosphorus acid Phosphonic Acid 10294-56-1
/13598-36-2
Propiophenone P1P P5160-5
Pseudoephedrine (salts)
Pyridine 110-86-1
Category II
Lists chemicals and apparatus that require an EUD when sold to non-account customers.
CATEGORY II - ILLICIT DRUG PRECURSORS/REAGENTS
EUD Only Required When Sold to Non-Account Customers
CHEMICAL NAME ALTERNATE NAME CAS NO
N-Acetylanthranilic acid 2-Acetamidobenzoic acid 89-52-1
Allylbenzene 3-Phenyl-1-propene /2-Propenyl Benzene 300-57-2
Ammonium formate 540-69-2
Anthranilic acid 2- Aminobenzoic acid 118-92-3
Benzaldehyde 100-52-7
Benzyl chloridea-Chlorotoluene 100-44-7
Benzyl bromide a-Bromotoluene 100-39-0
Calcium metal 7440-70-2
Chromate salts
Chromium trioxide Chromium(VI) oxide 1333-82-0
Dichromate salts
Ergometrine Ergonovine 60-79-7
Ergotamine 113-15-5
Ethanamine Monoethylamine 75-04-7
N-Ethylephedrine
N-Ethylpseudoephedrine
Formamide 75-12-7
Hydrobromic Acid 24426-0
Hypophosphite salts
Iodine (salts) 7553-56-2
Isosafrole 1,3-Benzodioxole,5-(1-propenyl)- 120-58-1
Lithium metal 7439-93-2
Lysergic acid
Magnesium metal 7439-95 4
Methylamine (gas) Aminomethane/Monoemethylamine 74-89-5
Methylammonium salts
N-Methylformamide 123-39-7
Palladium (salts)
Phenylalanine
Piperidine 110-89-4
Piperonal 3,4-Methylenedioxy-benzaldehyde 120-57-0
Heliotropine
Potassium metal 7440-09-7
Propionic anhydride 123-62-6
Raney nickel 12635-29-9
Safrole 5-(2-Propenyl)-1,3-Benzodioxide 94-59-7
Sassafras oil 8006-80-2
Sodium Borohydride 45288-2
Sodium metal 7440-23-5
Thionyl chloride 7719-09-7
Thorium (salts)
APPLICABLE APPARATUS
Gas Cylinders
Hydrogen sulfide gas 7783-06-4
Hydrogen chloride gas 7647-01-0
Hydrogen gas 1333-74-0
Ammonia gas 7664-41-7
Methylamine gas 74-89-5
Glassware
Round bottom reaction flask: capacity 500ml or greater
(including the repair or modification)
Condenser: joint size B19 or greater
Splash Heads and Distillation Heads
Scientific Apparatus
Heating mantles: capacity 500ml or greater
(including the repair or supply of parts)
Pill presses: manual or mechanical
Category III
Lists chemicals and apparatus that may be used in the illicit production of drugs.
Purchases from this list should alert companies or organisations to seek further
indicators of any suspicious orders or enquiries. No official reporting is required for
items on this list unless considered warranted.
CATEGORY III - ILLICIT DRUG REAGENTS/ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS
No Reporting Required. This list should be used as guide to alert staff that these products
may be used in illicit drug manufacture
CHEMICAL NAME ALTERNATE NAME CAS NO
Acetic acid Glacial Acetic Acid/ Ethanoic Acid 64-19-7
Acetone 2-Propanone 67-64-1
Acetonitrile Methylcyanide 75-05-8
Acetyl chloride 75-36-5
Chloroform Trichloromethane 67-66-3
Cyclohexanone Sextone 108-94-1
Diethyl ether Ethyl ether/ Ether 60-29-7
Formic acid 64-18-6
Hydrochloric acid Muriatic acid/ Hydrogen chloride 7647-01-0
Lithium aluminium hydride LAH, Lith Al 16853-85-3
Mercuric chloride Mercury(II) chloride/
Mercury bichloride 7487-94-7
Methyl ethyl ketone MEK/ 2-Butanone 78-93-3
Nitroethane 79-24-3
Phosphorus pentachloride Phosphorane pentachloride 10026-13-8
Phosphorus pentoxide Phosphoric pentoxide/ Phosphorus oxide 1314-56-3
Phosphoric anhydride
Phosphorus trichloride Phosphorus chloride 7719-12-2
Potassium cyanide 151-50-8
Potassium permanganate 7722-64-7
Sodium acetate Acetic Acid, sodium salt 127-09-3
Sodium cyanide 143-33-9
Sodium hydroxide Caustic soda 1310-73-2
Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9
Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9
Toluene Methyl benzene / Toluol 108-88-3
Applicable Apparatus
Buchner funnels
Buchner flasks
Magnetic Stirrer/Hotplates
Separating funnels
Chemical balances
Quickfit adapters
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/international/factsht/precursor.html
http://www.saps.gov.za/drugs/precursor_control/precursor_backgrounds.htm
Thanks to George Bush and Muslim groups around the world for provoking terrorism and helping turn our world into a state of oppression and totalitarianism ((((((((((((((( great |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Vitriodor
|
| Joined: 11 Feb 2005 |
| Posts: 91 |
| Location: Belgium |
2618.86 Points
|
|
|
re: A Question in the Sales of Glassware and Equipment for L
Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:46 am |
|
|
Although it is "voluntary" in Australia, I don´t think these lists apply for all countries. For most of them there is no legal restriction on buying or selling laboratory glass ware as far as I know. And also part of the chemicals are freely available in other countries.
I feel pity for the Australians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
drayen
|
| Joined: 02 Aug 2005 |
| Posts: 9 |
|
353.14 Points
|
|
|
re: A Question in the Sales of Glassware and Equipment for L
Sun Sep 11, 2005 10:45 pm |
|
|
i was gonna put this question in a seperate thread, but it fits very nicely in this one...
(i hope i'm not violating any "source posting" rules, considering the publicity of this site. i believe no one will be too pissed off...)
does anyone know how safe ordering lab glassware off ebay is?
considering most of thier sellers are private citizens getting rid of thier old "crap," this should be a pretty safe, and traceability to the end user should be minimum even if you order with your credit card.
(though using a friend's and paying them off in cash would be a much less retarded way to order shite if you wanna remain discrete) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
java
Consumer
|
| Joined: 07 Feb 2005 |
| Posts: 736 |
| Location: The Mexican Republic |
21794.14 Points
|
|
|
re: A Question in the Sales of Glassware and Equipment for L
Sun Sep 11, 2005 11:04 pm |
|
|
| One never know who one is dealing with .......but as the saying goes "no pain no gain", you'll need to go through the gut churning to see if there isn't any tails with your purchase......it's just ludicrus for hobbiest to have to endure this streess to buy the equipment needed for legit research........java |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Vitriodor
|
| Joined: 11 Feb 2005 |
| Posts: 91 |
| Location: Belgium |
2618.86 Points
|
|
|
re: A Question in the Sales of Glassware and Equipment for L
Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:22 am |
|
|
| Quote: |
it's just ludicrus for hobbiest to have to endure this stress to buy the equipment needed for legit research
|
I came across this text which I liked very much. It is more or less what Java is referring to in his comment above. Buying or owing chemicals and/or glass ware makes you a criminal or terrorist, whatever your real intentions are.
Christian Thorsten on Laws Affecting Legitimate Amateur Science
Editor,
I know that we as citizen scientists would all like to be able to pursue our experiments and researches without worrying about violating this or that law whose scope originally had nothing to do with us.
Increasingly, though, it seems we're finding the need either to take up our cause as a political issue, or else to give up on some branches of amateur science and admit defeat. I submit that there is really no in-between course of action, because to accept each incremental restriction in the ceaseless ratcheting-down of our rights is really a stepwise way of giving up completely.
Please bear with me, because I'm going to be very blunt in making some points.
Besides the difficulty in obtaining reagents, one of the biggest problems the citizen scientist faces is lack of public understanding about amateur science. In this article I'd like to explore a very real danger posed to amateur science: the unwanted and unfair melding of terrorism and amateur science in the public consciousness.
I must begin by asking the reader: Do you have a vehicle that runs on gasoline? Do you have any glass bottles or jars in your home? Do you wear clothing or own paper towels or rags?
I hate to say it, but if you answered “yes” to these questions, you're in possession of bomb making materials.
I recently saw in a major news magazine an article about the London bombings and the materials that the bombers may have used. The article mentions an explosive whose common ingredients the article makes sure to spell out.
I'm not sure how much public service the article does by telling readers the specific ingredients for a bomb. While the intended effect might be to say that we're never really safe (since terrorists will figure out how to make bombs from anything), I think such articles also foster public mistrust of anyone who might possess the chemicals in the first place. When people suspend their ability to think critically, panic overrides logic. Yes, common materials can be put together to make dangerous things—any chemist knows this. Some non-chemists also know this. What the article fails to mention is that it's not unrealistic to make explosives from one's own urine, given sufficient time.
Let's talk about some of the unsettling fallacies and misconceptions we as amateur scientists may face. Even if you haven't encountered them, it's good to think about them in case they ever pop up in a conversation with some uninformed person.
Fallacy # 1: “You have bomb making ingredients. Therefore you intended to make a bomb.”
This can be two fallacies in one. First, define “bomb making ingredients.” As stated above, your possession of gasoline, rags, and bottles means that you have everything you need to make incendiary bombs. Does this say you were planning to make them? While someone who has half-finished detonators lying all over the place is probably making explosives, it should take this kind of hard evidence to make such an assumption.
For example, let's suppose you have potassium nitrate. Right away, people are thinking “black powder.” Never mind amateur mineralogy, crystal growing, rocketry, metallurgy, metal finishing, general chemistry, or other scientific pursuits. People can't get past the idea of “black powder” and “blowing things up.”
I'll let you in on a secret. Most amateur chemists went through a phase somewhere in adolescence in which they learned that real black powder is extremely difficult to make without huge and costly mills, special types of charcoal, etc. It's essentially beyond the means of all but the most dedicated amateur. While most of us are years beyond the realization that, no matter how much potassium nitrate you have, you're probably going to end up with a slow-burning flare, the average person is back there somewhere thinking, “Potassium nitrate! Call the authorities!” Some people are going to hear only about ten percent of what you say, acting on it despite anything more you tell them.
I recall an experiment I did, many years ago, in which I made a chemical volcano. What budding chemist hasn't done this? (See Cherrier's "Fascinating Experiments in Chemistry" or "Palder's Magic With Chemistry," for example). The goal in my version of the experiment was to produce actual burning of sheet aluminum foil. It worked. It required at least a pound of potassium nitrate to supply the necessary oxygen, and appropriate amounts of sulfur and charcoal to get the burning started. I'm sure some people got the wrong idea—wrong ideas being relatively harmless back then but not so today—as soon as the word “gunpowder” somehow became bandied about.
Hydrogen peroxide is another good example. With fears of explosives being made in bathtubs, an amateur scientist found to have a gallon of 35% H2O2 could conceivably fall under intense suspicion (or worse). Like many chemists, I have peroxide around the lab for a number of legitimate uses and would never dream of making explosives with it. In the back of my mind, though, there's the worry that emotional, ill-informed people would be all too happy to assault me with the names “terrorist” or “bomb maker.”
I refuse to accept this world-gone-mad way of thinking.
President Bush said we should still go to ball games and live our lives in spite of the terrorists, and that sounds good. However, I don't go to ball games; I do chemistry experiments. That's how I live my life, and I know many other SAS members do, too.
Fallacy #2: “No normal person would have all these chemicals .”
A variation is: “No person with good intentions would have this much of a given chemical.” Such statements, unfortunately, aren't unheard of. They have passed for logic against accused persons, even in the absence of any indication that an individual was up to no good.
Any reasonably well-equipped laboratory is going to have quite a few different chemicals, with certain ones in abundance. There probably won't be dimethylmercury or diisopropyl fluorophosphate in an amateur lab, but certainly there will be some chemicals that, like gasoline or pesticides, could be dangerous if misused. Sometimes the amateur scientist will buy a large amount of some reagent for no other reason than a perceived lack of future availability (caused by irrational restrictions, litigation against suppliers, etc). There are a few reagents to which “stocking up” might not apply— bromine, for example—because they are unpleasant or dangerous to store in quantity, but having a little extra reagent stored for future use is otherwise well within reason. Bulk purchases also make financial sense, because they are more economical, especially since the amateur scientist doesn't usually have bottomless pockets.
The “intent-by-quantity” fallacy is primarily what convicted Travis Biehn, a Canadian citizen and Pennsylvania high school student, of planning to make “explosives.” While it's outside the scope of this article to determine whether Biehn was guilty of other offenses, his possession of several pounds of potassium nitrate (the exact amount of which the media couldn't seem to get straight, and the possession of which isn't illegal or immoral in the first place) was the central, so-called “fact” that led to his conviction. This finding should worry legitimate, amateur scientists more than it perhaps does.
In the chemical volcano experiment I mentioned above, I used probably ten pounds of potassium nitrate, doing trial after trial of the experiment until I achieved repeatability. I'm glad I never had to explain to a judge or jury what I was doing. The Travis Biehn case tells us that if they can't understand what you're doing, then it must be sinister! Again, I'm not saying Biehn was either innocent or guilty of other charges, but we as a group should keep our eyes on cases such as his. They can hatch irrational and dangerous precedents.
Fallacy #3: “The only legitimate science is done in a corporate or government laboratory. If you have a home laboratory, you must be a crackpot or a criminal.”
This is one of the most patently absurd ideas that we as amateur scientists may face, but it still arises on occasion.
Employment in a government-run or corporate lab is by no means a guarantee that a person has good intent, nor does lack of institutional affiliation indicate malicious intent. Albert Einstein and other luminaries have written praise for the free and independent pursuit of scientific curiosity. They were completely aware of the importance of what we now call citizen science.
Fallacy #3 is actually a huge issue in itself, and we could of course write entire articles devoted to it.
With all this said, it's still true that some people will misuse the principles of science to cause destruction and harm to others. That is nothing new, nor has it ever been. These people are not scientists in any sense. Yes, terrorists should be apprehended and prosecuted. We simply have to be careful that our own, legitimate pursuits don't become casualties in well-intentioned crime-fighting efforts.
Finally, in case anyone still gets the wrong idea from this article, I'll repeat something I've told others before: I strongly believe that amateur scientists actually present a valuable but untapped source of collaboration for law enforcement.
Christian Thorsten, CR Scientific
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2005/2005-08-12/backscatter/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.11 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Igloo Theme Version 1.0 :: Created By: Andrew Charron
|