Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uranium-238 is just an element as well. However that is very highly regulated and I think is a very good thing for it be.
U-238 is natural and non-fissile.
I meant to write 235
Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
101–110 of 114 posts
Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not illegal to own uranium ore - I think the restrictions are only on the refined product
If we're being pedantic, pure uranium is literally perfectly refined uranium ore. Possession of weaponizable isotopes of pure elemental uranium is absolutely regulated. Pretty sure the same is true for some of the other particularly WMD-able elements, but I'm not about to google them.
Don't you find the idea sad that you would have self censor what you would read on the internet to not become of interest or concern to your government.
Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Deciding what is fundamentally good or drawing the line (eg the glassware) is the muddy part. The road to hell is paved with good intentions -- next thing you know, science chemistry kits are illegal & large swaths of population no longer believe in a spherical earth, evolution, and climate science.
Even setting aside the questionable association of beakers and evolution, you can take the same logic both ways: "next thing you know, asbestos is in every home and large swaths of the population take mass shootings for granted as an unpreventable phenomenon."
Asbestos used to be in most homes. There was a good reason and a replacement for it, as well as good rules for disposal.
With high explosives, governments tend to go so far as to require a licence for handling. Fine for breaking that is enough of a deterrent. It's relatively easy to acquire, because otherwise that makes explosive use rather tricky to monitor.
Sales and widespread manufacturing is regulated separately.
Easier and cheaper to get than CFC gas license. Or the general chemical laboratory license required to do such experiments like synthesis. (You can go to a lab and practice there, with supervision. Much less silly, more expensive.)
They're of course limited by volume, just so you don't go building unlicensed rockets and mines.
Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This rationale ad absurdum would suggest you should be able to keep a nuclear bomb without proving anything to the state - an equally terrifying prospect. This is precisely what other states do. Remember for a moment that nations are fictions, and jurisdictions are fairy tales. How is johnny down the road with a nuclear weapon any different than some other person unknown to you in military of the next country over…
> Your regulation can not extend to the whole planet I'd generally agree, but I happen to be from the USA - and my government spends an outlandish amount of money on military and diplomacy and geopolitical manuvering - which while perhaps not having the rigorous structure and definition of "regulation" - serves much the same purpouse. Casting all this effort aside as mere fictions falls flat. > should we be trying to…
Bah, here you can have nuclear material as long as you're registered and certified for handling. It is somewhat pain in the rear but for a good reason - because otherwise we end up with radioactive garbage in normal trash.
In said license you get to specify maximum radioactivity and amount of material as well as means of disposal, processing and storage. Includes auditing. Paperwork, but not that hard to meet - pertains to every x-ray machine out there. Kind of like ISO certification.
If you're trying for something big, sure, you won't get it without good reason.
Combined with explosives license, you can actually have a nuclear bomb. Just tiny and exploded in very controlled conditions.
Big amounts and processing hardware are big deal.
Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#105> section 4 (1), in the 1883 Explosive Substances Act, which says that anyone who makes or has in their possession explosive substances is liable to prosecution unless they can show that it was “for a lawful object”. > But two other judges ... declared that “to say that something is done for one’s own private education is not a sufficient object for the purposes of the section 4(1) defence, as it does not identify th…
Ultimately that is enough to nullify terrorism charge unless they happen to somehow show this person wanted to commit acts of terror.
They can still be liable for unlicensed handling of explosives and controlled chemicals.
Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The Explosive Substances Act was quickly passed by parliament in 1883 in response to fears of Irish nationalist bomb attacks and because previous offences were thought to provide insufficient protection for the public." Looking at the above list, it seems that terrorists are going to make bombs despite this venerable law. Who would have thought!
Yeah, pretty much my thought. The real question is "how many bombers were arrested ahead of time due to this law", which is a bit harder to answer though.
Rather easy. How many people were arrested due to this law as a whole?
I suspect not too many. These charges should not be thrown around willy nilly.
Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#10722 months in jail for making "damp firework" level explosives. What a travesty.
22 months on remand for terrorism charges, in a country which has seen recent mass fatalities from homemade explosives? Really this is a "don't you know there's a war on" situation, everyone should know that messing around with unapproved explosives is likely to get you reported to anti-terrorism police.
Why did they hold this person for 22 months though, is the investigation so overloaded they cannot handle it quicker?
This should have ended in a few months tops, expedited, and with a fine for breaking explosives handling licenses.
If whoever is in charge thinks long jail time will deter a terrorist, they should get their head checked.
Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buildings are pretty flammable on their own - people die in house and building fires without any gasoline being involved whatsoever. An animation studio filled with paper, without a fire supression system, and possibly without fire escapes is no exception. When holding out the kyoto animation studio tragedy - are you sure you're not arguing for better fire codes and gasoline regulation, rather than the deregulation o…
By all means write better fire codes, but unless you wrap yourself in a mile of asbestos blankets I don't think anything you do will render you immune to burning gasoline. There is nothing you or any government can do to stop a nutjob from killing you with gasoline. Yet here you are, unscathed. Nobody has thrown gasoline at you yet, and probably nobody ever will. Why? It's not because of any gasoline regulations, nor…
The phosphorous crime in question is using it as a reagent in a few illicit drug synthesis paths (and poor ones too), specifically methamphetamine.
So yes, there have been a plenty of phosphorous related crime.
Now, whether we should allow just about anyone to synthesize meth is a different and more pertinent question. Synthesis alone is not especially dangerous, illegal distribution is... and this ban was taken to curb it. It is not especially successful. (Also limits on saffrol and sulfuric acid for other drugs.)
In comparison, production of explosives is dangerous. Risks fire and explosions, therefore should not be done on a bench top by just about anyone. (And reason for limits on nitric acid.)
Chemical disposal is also a quite minor problem.
Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could not disagree more, for much of human history only the rich and their offspring typically had access to higher education and crucially learning materials, books where horrendously expensive for example for all but the most wealthy. We live in a golden age for autodidacts, that people often seem intellectually incurious says less about the society and more the people who constitute it, many people are simply incu…
What you wrote is basically Hans Rosling's "Factfulness" [1] and the other person wrote the rhetoric of 1984 or whatever. I guess we see what we want to see, and the news focuses on the negative. Consider, for example, computer security. You'd think with a recent RCE in Bluetooth and in Windows SMBv3 the world is insecure. Well, it was way worse 20 years ago, and even worse 30 years ago. Heck, barely anything used st…
Had not heard of Hans Rosling so thanks for that it seems I'd like his books.
I've always strived (but not always achieved) to reach my opinions on the world based on evidence and figures and facts that I've looked at myself deferring to experts in the various fields where I'm not educated enough to understand (medicine - I trust my doctors).
If you look at the world through that lens for the average person this is a golden age despite all the problems we still have.
Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#110I hate how chemistry can land people in legal hot water due to overzealous government policies. While this example is not in the UK. It's illegal to own certain glassware without a permit in Texas for instance. The glassware is considered a drug precursor, like freaking glassware. Oh also federally the DEA treats Phosphorus as a type 1 precursor to meth. That's a freaking element! An element is illegal/regulated like…
I was surprised to learn about the glassware. When I learned that mdma therapy for ptsd wouldn’t be available for years and would cost 15k even with insurance, I dusted off my old organic chemistry book. I can’t believe I’ve been made to do this in order to get medical treatment.
99% of people would just find a street dealer or buy off the dark web. You're the 1% that the laws are actually established for.
> I can’t believe I’ve been made to do this in order to get medical treatment.
No one made you break bad and then brag about it on the internet... Fabricating your own controlled substances is exactly why certain types of glassware are illegal.