130 replies to this topic

[rekorderlig]

First post. Does this mean that you can no longer posses these legally without the licence?

How does this affect the manafacture, especially regarding the ~100g limit?

 

A bit of a pain in the arse if it does to amateur chemists and car boot salers. Some of the poisons mentioned sometimes turn up at the latter and are no doubt in collections of the former.

 

Also a crappy thing to come back to after a few years of hiatus.

[cooperman435]

Yes you are fully correct on the first point, as of the introduction of the PPL obtaining the chemicals listed was unlawful without a licence and now the grace period is up owning them is too. Dispose of or obtain a licence are your only options

[rekorderlig]

Yes you are fully correct on the first point, as of the introduction of the PPL obtaining the chemicals listed was unlawful without a licence and now the grace period is up owning them is too. Dispose of or obtain a licence are your only options

Thanks for the reply. I have to say, that is really annoying, especially regarding the poisons. I'm personally not a fan of them myself, but as I and another member has previously said, some people have them in their chemistry collections.

 

I do wonder what if you accidentally create one of the above, say such as as a by product of something else.

 

The fact that Phenols, Mercury and Barium salts are included puzzles me. Thallium, arsenics and cyanides, ok, but it certainly limits artists. I wonder how famous works of art are affected. Again. Very easy to find tubes of paint containing the above at antique shops and car boot sales, and of course, attics.

[rekorderlig]

Yes you are fully correct on the first point, as of the introduction of the PPL obtaining the chemicals listed was unlawful without a licence and now the grace period is up owning them is too. Dispose of or obtain a licence are your only options

Thanks for the reply. I have to say, that is really annoying, especially regarding the poisons. I'm personally not a fan of them myself, but as I and another member has previously said, some people have them in their chemistry collections.

 

I do wonder what if you accidentally create one of the above, say such as as a by product of something else.

 

The fact that Phenols, Mercury and Barium salts are included puzzles me. Thallium, arsenics and cyanides, ok, but it certainly limits artists. I wonder how famous works of art are affected. Again. Very easy to find tubes of paint containing the above at antique shops and car boot sales, and of course, attics.

 

-Rek.

[cooperman435]

It is a simple and cheap process to obtain a licence though so no one who wishes to have them for legitimate reasons should have any issues.

Don't forget many of them are exempt under certain concentrations too

[rekorderlig]

Yeah true. I beleive, although I could be completely wrong, educational institutions and museums are also exempt to an extent, obviosuly meeting the experimental and education requirement.

 

Obviously not to all of which mentioned, but I can think of numerous reasons why a school or unviersity would need +12% H202 or mercury. I do also wonder about mercury thermometers too. It's a shame this means they cannot be sold as antiques. They are very collectable.

[cooperman435]

I don't know for a fact but I suspect a Mercury thermometer would be exempt, if anyone knows for sure please speak now or forever hold your peace!

[Rob.L.]

 

 

Hello All,

 

Just thought I would start posting as I am a new member and this is relevant to me.

 

When the time came for me to decide weather to give up chemistry or not I asked around to see if barometers would be a problem.

 

The allowance on my EPP licence is for a specific amount of Mercury and specific allowances for other Mercuric compounds.

 

At the time of my application I phoned Barometer World in devon and asked them. They knew absolutely nothing about this and stated that the Members of Parliament that had bought Mercury barometers would be in a dillema if this was the case. There is still no mention to date of it being an offence and if it was they would all be in prison by now.

 

No mention of scientific equipment containing mercury was ever made to me despite telling them about it.

 

The situation is the same with my work stock of xxxxxxxxx, I have a bulk supply of 'x' kg which does NOT need a license. The 'x' g I keep at home for general chemistry and wood cleaning on a diy basis DOES need a licence. Yet the same person has access to both!!

 

Same for xxxxx acid.

 

I also had a visit from government personnel before EPP license was applicable to ascertain my purpose for owning a variety of items and it was then noted that i posessed a barometer and quantity of extra Mercury. Not to mention the numerous Mercury thermometers.

 

In no place are scientific instruments of any kind are mentioned. How many folk still have thermometers? Barometers? Reed or tilt switches?

Fluorescent tubes of various kinds contain an easily extractable amount Mercury, it is clearly visible in UVC tubes and would make these illegal as well on that basis.

 

The wording on the government web site is "Mercury and its compounds (including: nitrates of mercury; oxides of mercury; mercuric cyanide oxides; mercuric thiocyanate; ammonium mercuric chlorides; potassium mercuric iodides; organic compounds of mercury which contain a methyl group directly linked to the mercury atom)" nothing more.

 

In all honesty I do not think the Home Office has thought this through very well or are aware that thousands, even tens of thousands of people including judges, magistrates, MP's, lords, ladies, police officers, would be in trouble if thermometers or similar were illegal. If such a prosecution were to be persued it could trigger the 'panic' dumping of a huge amount of these items.

 

So it would seem that the law as it stands does retain ambiguity and is subject to interpretation by the courts and unfortunately by people who may or may not have a clue about any of this.

Anyone that has followed this whole process has seen

 

The very bottom line is that as far as I know there have been no prosecutions to date for this. They are sold regularly on ebay without a string of prosecutions recorded anywhere.

 

In fact the only case involving owning mercury i found was this https://www.google.c...6ysbFuV0UCgN8-Q. And I'm sure you will agree that in this case there were aggravating factors to say the least.

 

 

[cooperman435]

My understanding was that Mercury contained within a unit would not require EPP whereas if it's on the list that containers of it would.

As with many scenarios the news report is about a fella clearly stopped because of information they had to already know he was "up to no good" and his prosecution is due to his intent rather than solely the materials he had. I suspect that the ammunition would have resulted in a prosecution anyway even with intent but the Mercury alone probably wouldn't have been an issue.

My advice is help others by pointing out IF it's on the EPP list then yes a licence is needed.

[Arthur Brown]

My GP now charges £100 for filling in the form.

[Rob.L.]

 

 

 

My understanding was that Mercury contained within a unit would not require EPP whereas if it's on the list that containers of it would.

As with many scenarios the news report is about a fella clearly stopped because of information they had to already know he was "up to no good" and his prosecution is due to his intent rather than solely the materials he had. I suspect that the ammunition would have resulted in a prosecution anyway even with intent but the Mercury alone probably wouldn't have been an issue.

My advice is help others by pointing out IF it's on the EPP list then yes a licence is needed.

Yes, If it is contained within the current lists of precursors and poisons it is mandatory. There are however certain compounds that are in paint pigments as was previously mentioned that would go unreported, they are not on the list specifically although one could assume inclusion to be on the safe side. From the pyrotechnic angle it is all reasonably clear.

 

For the amateur experimenter like me, it is not quite so easy. The combination of chemicals, apparatus ,electronic equipment and now pyrotechnic sundries could easily be misunderstood and I go to great lengths to avoid this at all costs. I can tell you from personal experience it pays to give attention to detail, If I had not done so then things may not have been so positive as they are now.

 

Just to clarify, I included the link to the extreme case of a prosecution to illustrate that it is UNLIKELY to happen to anyone in the amateur science community.

 

To conclude on a positive note I will say that every government employee that I have had contact with, weather FEO/ELO or other government personnel, have been really good to deal with and I would encourage all legitimately interested people to start the process of scientific discovery.