Comments (33) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Goodbye to chemistry sets
Tools
Many an adult who today makes a good living -- and contributes to our standard of living -- as an engineer or scientist first had his or her enthusiasm for the field kindled by a home or classroom science kit.
But as the modern nanny state gets busy, such inspiration may become a thing of the past.
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, known as CPSIA, requires extensive -- and expensive -- safety testing of products designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger, checking for lead, chemicals, flammability and other potential dangers.
Now caught up in the Consumer Product Safety Commission's debate about the act's regulations are those classroom science kits and some of the items they contain -- including paper clips, used to show kids how magnets work.
The science kit makers had asked for a testing exemption for the paper clips and some other materials. On Wednesday, in a close 3-2 vote, the commission declined to give them the waiver they sought.
Will the manufacturers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for new tests to prove that paper clips are safe -- or just leave them out? And how about home chemistry sets? We're sure the Bunsen burners and asbestos heating pads of decades past are long gone. But will the chemicals themselves now have to be tested to find out whether they contain, you know ... chemicals?
Will consumers now be carded when they buy things in the toy store .. to make sure they're 13?
After the science kit vote, CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum sought to reassure people that, "There is nothing in this rule that bans science kits."
Right. But while the commission vote doesn't ban the kits, manufacturers say it may crimp the supply of kits for elementary school children.
"If the first introduction a student has is seventh or eighth grade, you've lost them already," warns Steve Alexander, business manager for the Hands On Science Partnership, based in Denver. The costs associated with "the testing requirements would far exceed the value of the materials in the kits," he said.
The partnership is a coalition of companies that sell hands-on science educational materials.
Or used to.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
frank .thompson you are of the mindset that there is no such thing as pollution and that humans cannot affect nature. But, remember Love Canal. That area is still uninhabitable. You seem to think that global warming is a joke. But, how do you explain the strange weather patterns of the last 20-30 years? How about the severity of hurricanes and the frequency. The much higher frequency of f-3 and higher tornadoes. Tell me you all knowing scientist.
I've been a secretary for 30 years using, probably, millions of paper clips. Where's that class action lawsuit lawyer willing to file a lawsuit on my behalf because my employer forced me to use paper clips. I'm sure the cold I just over was a direct result of such use.
Give me, and our kids, a break. This is plain stupid.
@ frank.thompson: I will agree with you in the sense that, in my opinion, Al Gore in his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" tried very hard to make global warming seem absolute, and to convince everybody that the "sky is falling." The most offensive piece of inflammatory rhetoric in that movie was the way he repeatedly showed himself looking down from on high in an airplane, like Zeus looking benevolently down on the world from Mount Olympus. But the fact that his presentation and some of his details were wrong does not prove that he was entirely, ABSOLUTELY wrong. The reality of global warming is almost certainly far more complex than the simple, black-and-white picture being painted here: either Al Gore is absolutely right in every way, or global warming is a lie and a hoax. I repeat that for an alternative, more subtle view of global warming, see "Earth's Changing Climate" by Richard Wolfson, or read "The Great Warming," by Brian Fagan. PS- to put it directly; I am a scientist and I support the idea of global warming. But Al Gore does NOT speak for me. And neither do conservative extremists who try to paint me into false dilemmas!
Wow, George, it's usually up to me and Athos to take on the AGWers. Thanks for picking out the slack. I'll go take a nap...
I agree with the Bilderbergs. Global cooling and food shortages are what we need to worry about.
NOTACON: There is nothing scientific one way or the other that establishes global warming as absolute. You choose to believe the chicken little side of science. If Supermans name was uberman, and he fought for germany during ww2, do you think it would have made a difference in the outcome? Of course it would have. just as 10,000 nukes, or a massive volcanic eruption would. like i said, if you're so worried, plant a tree instead of just yelling the sky is falling.
Tom..we have idiots among us who believe that only God has the power to affect the global climate!! This is the level of unscientific idiocy that we face in this country.
To those I say, if the U.S. and Russia during the height of the cold war each unleashed their 10,000+ hydrogen bombs each, do you think the earth's climate would be affected or is "nuclear winter" a hoax also?
Don't claim to be an expert on global warming, all i know is that for every study you find pro, you will also find one con. If i'm not mistaken, the theory of global warming is based on a rise in average global temperature of .6 degrees celsius in 120 yrs.. During that whole time, temperature was rising and falling. During 5 year averages, it would sometimes go up .2 and drop .3. We have only been keeping track of weather for about 150 years, but evidence suggests cycles of warming and cooling. I couldn't even find a conclusive study as to whether man or volcanoes emit more CO2. You can find one to say man, and another to say volcanoes, just like global warming. I can agree with "climate change", in that right now it may be on a very slight upward trend, but based on weather cycles, it will have a slight downturn again. I absolutely do not believe we are on a course in which the earth will heat up to the point of becoming uninhabitable. Anybody truly concerned with CO2 being a major problem, i would say stop cutting the rainforest, and plant as many trees as you can. Just my opinion, of course. for a pretty unbiased view check out:http://science.nasa.gov/science-at-nasa/2000/ast20oct_1/ I know it's 10 years old, but if you check all the newer sites, nothing has really changed. NOBODY REALLY KNOWS
On the other hand, for a less hysterical look at the global climate change question, check out "Earth's Changing Climate," by Richard Wolfson, an excellent course of lectures on DVD put out by The Teaching Company. Sadly for the conspiracy theorists among us, there are many lines of evidence supporting the existence of human-induced global warming. Although, as I said earlier, the jury is still out on what exactly the effects of that warming will be.
OH THANK YOU NANNY STATE: for watching over me and seeing me to age 55, please continue to watch over me so that i make it to 56. Please don't let the sun shining through the giant CO2 cloud we've spewed into the atmosphere OH, OH, AHHHHHHHHHHH, i'm melting, help me nanny state!!!!!!