[fastneutron]

To the people posting about having good chemistry sets as a kid: what were these sets and where did you/your parents get them? Where are the good sources today?

Everything I remember growing up in the 90s was pretty dumbed down at best, and if you wanted to order any of the interesting chemicals or equipment, you needed a company or school letterhead with a PO account. Things got better in the 00s when eBay was still pretty open in terms of what you could find, but that seems to have been clamped down on more recently. Fear of litigation most likely.

[mumblemumble]

I think that 1990 is probably pretty close to the point where chemistry sets finally got safe(r).

I was born in the early 80s and my older brother was born in the mid 70s, and I distinctly remember preferring to play with his old hand-me-down chemistry set rather than mine. One like his could not be found in stores anywhere by the time I was old enough to be interested in a chemistry set.

But I also never gave myself any horrible chemical burns playing with my own chemistry set. So it's probably a decent trade-off, all told.

[n0tth3dro1ds]

Ever hear Kary Mullis (PCR inventor / Nobel prize) talk about his childhood? He could basically buy whatever chemical he wanted. Definitely did dangerous stuff and got into trouble, but it’s hard to imagine children today having similar ability to hone skills with brains still spungey and time still abundant.

[fastneutron]

I believe it. In the 50s You used to be able to get chemistry sets with potassium chlorate and mail-in coupons for radioisotopes. Now it’s all the same cheap, uninspiring crap for making glue slime or vinegar/baking soda fizzes.

I had sympathetic parents with chemistry degrees, and we were able to find ways to get the cool stuff when I was a teenager, but for the vast majority, it’s no surprise that kids lose interest in STEM fields as they reach their teens.

[II2II]

> I had sympathetic parents with chemistry degrees

In other words, you were able to access the cool stuff because someone in your life knew how to handle it. That is probably the way it should be. Now consider all of the families where the parents do not have chemistry degrees, do not work in industries where they regularly handle hazardous materials, or even have to take general workplace safety seriously. You pretty much have to hope the teenager instilled a sense of respect for safety in themselves.

[malux85]

Yea, when I was a teenager I had a key to my high school chemistry lab, and would go do experiments on my liquid mercury resonance reactor in the weekend.

How wild is that?! Can’t imagine it happening today

[bergenty]

Well now information is so accessible that with access to those chemicals you would have degenerate kids blowing up schools instead of just shooting them up.

[hnews_account_1]

Are .. are you saying it’s a bad thing children can’t handle dangerous chemicals anymore? Wut?!

[fastneutron]

There weren’t exactly mass casualties resulting from the chemistry sets being mentioned by the other posters in this thread either. We just got more afraid of being sued.

Snark aside, where is the middle ground? Fizzing and food coloring is interesting to a 5 year old, but that’s about all you can get as a consumer these days. There’s likely a vast gulf of squandered opportunity between that and what can genuinely be done safely and still be inspiring.

[n0tth3dro1ds]

Yeah, a little bit. It’s not just kids that can’t get their hands on stuff. Even trained adults have to jump through regulatory and legal hoops. Schools face tons of liability. Mass market chemistry sets are lame now.

[fastneutron]

If you want to buy anything from Alfa Aesar, Fisher Scientific or any similar “real” supplier, you need to be a corporation or educational institution and have a purchasing account or p-card. Even if it’s distilled water or sodium chloride. Find a kid who can jump through those hoops and you’ll have someone who’d probably make a decent cofounder

[strken]

I mean, yes? Our threshold for what's dangerous is very sensitive and our trust in kids is very low.

A ten year old raised to understand danger can be capable of using bleach safely, operating a lawnmower, or carrying out fun exothermic reactions in the backyard.

[fuzzfactor]

>are you saying it’s a bad thing children can’t handle dangerous chemicals anymore?

well, yes.

I think it was much safer when kids in general were more well qualified across-the-board.

[yCombLinks]

In the 90's my aunt bought an old chemistry set from a yard sale and it was amazing! From the 60s or 70s I think. Had all kinds of crazy stuff you'd never get (even then) off a big box store shelf.

[lordnacho]

How about a virtual chemistry set? Saves me from cleaning up. Plus the kid can do dangerous stuff.

Does it exist?

[wheelinsupial]

Maybe? https://www.labster.com/

I think I heard a podcast interview with them that sounded like they were doing interesting work. Not sure if it's really aimed at kids.

[ehBut]

To these people as well; cooking is chemistry. Making household cleaners is chemistry.

To do chemistry with kids all one needs is a grocery store, an herb shoppe, and the right explanations for what’s going on.

But instead there’s bunch of waxing poetic about how the world has changed. It’s rather pathetic to think science should come neatly labeled in a box. The lack of individual creativity and imagination in our culture is stunning.

[antasvara]

As a child, a lot of innovation comes from riffing on things you see/learn from the world around you.

When you talk to people that had scientific experiences as a child, a significant component of the learning comes from tinkering with already built devices, seeing an experiment and thinking "what else would work in this," etc.

Science isn't neatly labeled in a box. However, a decent chunk of it is using previously done research to guide new questions, a process that is emulated on a smaller level by chemistry sets.

[ehBut]

What you said isn’t unreasonable but so generic it hardly says “must buy chemistry set”.

“Previously done research” like “these things taste good together” and “add this to cleaner to get a nice smell.” Sounds like riffing on the world right around them. You’re not going to get functionally fixed on when and where to use generic language like “previously done research” are you?

The rigor can come in when the work demands it. Kid’s chemistry sets are not saving lives or unlocking new truths. The industrial pipeline to produce them hardly seems worth it.

You do you. Personally, I prefer the path of least resistance for myself; buying less, dealing with less mess, and using the immediate environment to explore the same language and ideas. Of course it means having an imagination. Something adults often lack, seeing the path of least resistance as living in their memory, behaving literally in lock step with it.

[analog31]

Both of my parents are chemists. My brothers and I never had a chemistry set. There was plenty to learn about chemistry, and science, just doing regular household things, outdoors, etc.