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