4 ms·

Here's the police report: http://www.scribd.com/doc/138927259/Wilmot-Arrest http://www.scribd.com/doc/138927259/Wilmot-Arrest The chemicals were aluminum foil

by uvdiv 13y ago

Here's the police report: http://www.scribd.com/doc/138927259/Wilmot-Arrest http://www.scribd.com/doc/138927259/Wilmot-Arrest The chemicals were aluminum foil and hydrochloric acid. The setting was near an outdoors gazebo on school grounds. The context was, in her first version, a "science fair project"; in her second version, she was following instructions given by a friend, not aware it would explode.

rdl 13y ago
Wow, the government's case, even if you accept it as true, doesn't seem to be a serious crime. She either was conducting a "science experiment", or screwing around with a small amount of chemicals to make a small bomb without threatening anyone, neither of which should be felonies. A one-day suspension for doing this unsafely seems like about the limit of what's reasonable, and even that is questionable. The focus should be on making sure she knows about the accidental injury possible from this, not punishing her particularly, and encouraging her to continue with her interest in chemistry. (The number of people I know who went to top-tier schools later who did crazy things much more dangerous than this, such as making fougasse, 5-10 pound black powder pipe bombs, ANFO, etc., is pretty high. They were all white or asian, though, which seems to be what this is about, as well as doing it off school property.) I was initially a bit more suspicious of the story, assuming she was doing something actually dangerous and then explained it as "a science experiment" when caught, which clearly doesn't seem to be the case.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- mcherm 13y ago
  What you are missing is the policies of "zero-tolerance". Worried that lenient individuals might fail to enforce rules strictly enough and wanting to make a clear and unambiguous statement about behavior that should not be tolerated, many (especially schools) are setting up "zero-tolerance policies". These say that if you commit a certain offense, then certain consequences will be imposed regardless of mitigating circumstances. In this case, she did (even according to her own admission) create an explosive on school grounds. Now, the "explosive" was extremely mild (hydrogen gas can make a loud "popping" sound), she may not have realized that would be the effect, there was no malicious intent, and no one was hurt. But mitigating circumstances don't count with zero-tolerance policies, so she must be expelled. The prosecution as an adult for felonies... for that there is ABSOLUTELY no excuse. I only hope that these threatened prosecutions do not materialize.
marshray 13y ago
It said toilet bowl cleaner http://www.theworkscleans.com/toiletcleaner.html http://www.theworkscleans.com/toiletcleaner.html and aluminum foil. Here's the MSDS data sheet for "The Works" http://www.chemtura.com/msd/external/e/result/report.jsp?P_LANGU=E&P_SYS=6&P_SSN=67698&P_REP=00000000000000000017&P_RES=7590 http://www.chemtura.com/msd/external/e/result/report.jsp?P_L... IIRC, that combination should release H2 and a little heat, but not enough heat to ignite anything. So the bottle basically went "fizz" and "pop". Some of those plastic bottles can make a loud pop.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Alex3917 13y ago
  From the company's website: "IT IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW TO USE THIS PRODUCT IN A MANOR INCONSISTANT WITH ITS LABELING."
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    Clearly, then, school grounds fall outside this limitation.
    - ptaipale 13y ago
      Indeed. This mix doesn't sound too lethal. In some other cases, "the penalty for violating labeling rules is death and the punishment may be carried out at the time of offense without benefit of a trial as a natural consequence of the laws of nature and chemistry."
    - Vivtek 13y ago
      Because the school is not a manor?
  - droithomme 13y ago
    So... it turns out this has to do with Hydrochloric Acid being considered a Pesticide by the EPA since it can kill bacteria. This means they have to register its label for review and feedback with the EPA, as do companies that make bleach and a wide variety of other things. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/005185-00494-20121120.pdf http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/005185-00494-... The "inconsistent with its labeling" part deals with using it as a pesticide. If you are found guilty (consumers have never been charged under this that I can find a reference to) as a non-commercial user, the penalty for the first time is a warning letter. According to the controlling Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), fines can only be administered if you violate usage another time after receiving a written warning from the EPA. And none of this has anything whatsoever to do with what she is being charged with. She is not being charged under the Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Those concerned that the FIFRA means you must strictly limit use of EPA controlled pesticide products to specified uses only should consider the fact that since ordinary tissue paper is considered to control the spread of viruses when you have a cold, it is regulated as a pesticide as well under the EPA. Notice this one allowing an exception - Kleenex will be allowed to remove the ordinarily required "Keep out of reach of children" warning for their EPA regulated pesticide known as Kleenex brand tissue paper. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/009402-00010-20030821.pdf http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/009402-00010-... According to the theory that this act strictly controls usage, using Kleenex to clean your glasses is a violation of federal law as that usage is not listed on the label. Of course we all know that is not the case.

by uvdiv 13y ago

rdl 13y ago

Wow, the government's case, even if you accept it as true, doesn't seem to be a serious crime. She either was conducting a "science experiment", or screwing around with a small amount of chemicals to make a small bomb without threatening anyone, neither of which should be felonies. A one-day suspension for doing this unsafely seems like about the limit of what's reasonable, and even that is questionable. The focus should be on making sure she knows about the accidental injury possible from this, not punishing her particularly, and encouraging her to continue with her interest in chemistry. (The number of people I know who went to top-tier schools later who did crazy things much more dangerous than this, such as making fougasse, 5-10 pound black powder pipe bombs, ANFO, etc., is pretty high. They were all white or asian, though, which seems to be what this is about, as well as doing it off school property.) I was initially a bit more suspicious of the story, assuming she was doing something actually dangerous and then explained it as "a science experiment" when caught, which clearly doesn't seem to be the case.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mcherm 13y ago
What you are missing is the policies of "zero-tolerance". Worried that lenient individuals might fail to enforce rules strictly enough and wanting to make a clear and unambiguous statement about behavior that should not be tolerated, many (especially schools) are setting up "zero-tolerance policies". These say that if you commit a certain offense, then certain consequences will be imposed regardless of mitigating circumstances. In this case, she did (even according to her own admission) create an explosive on school grounds. Now, the "explosive" was extremely mild (hydrogen gas can make a loud "popping" sound), she may not have realized that would be the effect, there was no malicious intent, and no one was hurt. But mitigating circumstances don't count with zero-tolerance policies, so she must be expelled. The prosecution as an adult for felonies... for that there is ABSOLUTELY no excuse. I only hope that these threatened prosecutions do not materialize.

marshray 13y ago

It said toilet bowl cleaner http://www.theworkscleans.com/toiletcleaner.html http://www.theworkscleans.com/toiletcleaner.html and aluminum foil. Here's the MSDS data sheet for "The Works" http://www.chemtura.com/msd/external/e/result/report.jsp?P_LANGU=E&P_SYS=6&P_SSN=67698&P_REP=00000000000000000017&P_RES=7590 http://www.chemtura.com/msd/external/e/result/report.jsp?P_L... IIRC, that combination should release H2 and a little heat, but not enough heat to ignite anything. So the bottle basically went "fizz" and "pop". Some of those plastic bottles can make a loud pop.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Alex3917 13y ago
From the company's website: "IT IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW TO USE THIS PRODUCT IN A MANOR INCONSISTANT WITH ITS LABELING."
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  Clearly, then, school grounds fall outside this limitation.
  - ptaipale 13y ago
    Indeed. This mix doesn't sound too lethal. In some other cases, "the penalty for violating labeling rules is death and the punishment may be carried out at the time of offense without benefit of a trial as a natural consequence of the laws of nature and chemistry."
  - Vivtek 13y ago
    Because the school is not a manor?
- droithomme 13y ago
  So... it turns out this has to do with Hydrochloric Acid being considered a Pesticide by the EPA since it can kill bacteria. This means they have to register its label for review and feedback with the EPA, as do companies that make bleach and a wide variety of other things. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/005185-00494-20121120.pdf http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/005185-00494-... The "inconsistent with its labeling" part deals with using it as a pesticide. If you are found guilty (consumers have never been charged under this that I can find a reference to) as a non-commercial user, the penalty for the first time is a warning letter. According to the controlling Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), fines can only be administered if you violate usage another time after receiving a written warning from the EPA. And none of this has anything whatsoever to do with what she is being charged with. She is not being charged under the Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Those concerned that the FIFRA means you must strictly limit use of EPA controlled pesticide products to specified uses only should consider the fact that since ordinary tissue paper is considered to control the spread of viruses when you have a cold, it is regulated as a pesticide as well under the EPA. Notice this one allowing an exception - Kleenex will be allowed to remove the ordinarily required "Keep out of reach of children" warning for their EPA regulated pesticide known as Kleenex brand tissue paper. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/009402-00010-20030821.pdf http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/009402-00010-... According to the theory that this act strictly controls usage, using Kleenex to clean your glasses is a violation of federal law as that usage is not listed on the label. Of course we all know that is not the case.