[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.