initial reports of my death are wrong!

Is this a case of scientists being too specialised these days. Thirty or forty years ago a physicist would know basic chemistry and not make such basic mistakes. Or, is it that certain substances have been demonised to the point where a mere atom of it is deemed deadly? Just asking?

Mike.
Edit, I wonder if the Hydrogen peroxide under my sink is considered explosive as it can produce explosive organic peroxides. I'm pretty sure schools treat it this way.

Pommie said:

Is this a case of scientists being too specialised these days. Thirty or forty years ago a physicist would know basic chemistry and not make such basic mistakes. Or, is it that certain substances have been demonised to the point where a mere atom of it is deemed deadly? Just asking?

Click to expand...

Chemists have to study Physics and Biology, but neither Physicists or Biologists have to study Chemistry, despite much of their work been as much Chemistry as anything else.

Incidentally, having just visited my daughter she was showing me the solar cell she'd made, part of her job requires her to be 'clean room qualified' so she had to do a clean room course. The course consisted of making a solar cell (or multiple ones) on a silicon wafer, and she showed me the wafer she created - really nice. Bit of an earlier disaster though, at one point the wafer has to be spun at high speed, and it's held down by a vacuum pump - she turned the pump on, the wafer spun, and after a while it flew off and smashed to pieces against the wall. The instructor suggested she had not turned the pump on, so she showed him she had, and apparently there was a blockage in the system that reduced the vacuum level allowing the wafer to fly away - so he had to strip the system down and clean it. Apparently it's never happened before.

Personally I'd suggest that was more physics than chemistry?, as her research sounds as well - 'developing virus detection techniques using nano-technology' - doesn't sound very 'chemistry' to me, although presumably the team is from multiple disciplines?.

I'm sure when I was studying ANY scientist had to learn all disciplines before they were allowed to specialise. Sounds like your daughter was taught "old school" and has very useful all discipline skills.
I worry about the future where everyone is a master of only one trade, a world full of specialists.

I wonder if medicine has gone the same way or if they still have to become an all round medic before specialising.

BTW, here I'm not allowed to fit a shower or change an electric plug. I HAVE to get a licensed tradesman in to do it - actually many different ones. Can't even play with poo anymore. Edit, for clarity, only plumbers can play with poo.

Mike.

Pommie said:

... BTW, here I'm not allowed to fit a shower or change an electric plug. I HAVE to get a licensed tradesman in to do it - actually many different ones. Can't even play with poo anymore. Edit, for clarity, only plumbers can play with poo.

Click to expand...

Mike, I have to wonder what prevents you from just fixing whatever's broke: how would anyone know that you didn't hire a licensed tradesman?

Or are the laws so draconian that you can't even buy the requisite repair part(s) without that raising red flags?

Nigel Goodwin said:

Personally I'd suggest that was more physics than chemistry?, as her research sounds as well - 'developing virus detection techniques using nano-technology' - doesn't sound very 'chemistry' to me, although presumably the team is from multiple disciplines?.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the phrase "chemical engineer" was assigned to the people who calculate the mass flows and heat flows in a chemical manufacturing process. Assuming the word "engineer" is based on ‘contrive/devise’, there are a whole lot of chemists contriving/devising solutions to many of the world's problems.

If the expectations of your daughter's chemical career (and all chemists) is to simply design/make/analize/quantify more (new/different) chemicals, the there would be no economic benefit from the chemical industry. Ultimately, chemicals must be useful. Chemicals that drive the success of the industry solve problems outside of the chemical industry.
Chemicals that are only raw materials or intermediates to make other chemicals are important but not known outside of the chemical industry.

Many students of chemistry tend to hate the topic, physical chemistry, but that is simply understanding properties and behaviors of chemicals. Most research in chemistry is associated with finding new uses (new markets) for existing chemicals and the chemists who understand physical chemistry the best tend to be the winners in that arena. These "industrial chemists" or "applications chemists" are the people who eventually become New Business Development Managers and business leaders that know how to evolve.

Now back to the question of over-specialization...
I have worked in the chemical industry for 30+ years - solving engineering problems with chemicals and tweaking chemicals and formulations to better solve engineering problems. I have researched and developed a solid understanding of more than a hundred specific opportunities to the point I can have an interesting conversation with technical experts and teach them fine points of the role chemicals play in their process/product. I have been described as "a specialist at being a generalist" which is a nice way of being called a know-it-all.

Deciding what is and what is not chemistry is a useless question. Chemistry has been described as "the central science" for more than 40 years (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_central_science). If successful, she will see the edge of many different industries before her ride is over. Hopefully, she will learn from each view, but be willing to turn away to embrace a new opportunity.

Pommie said:

here I'm not allowed to fit a shower or change an electric plug. I HAVE to get a licensed tradesman in to do it

Click to expand...

Many years ago on my first business trip to Australia, I had a number of items of electrical equipment all with UK plugs, I did not know what the Oz mains plugs were like so I thought I would sort out the problem when I got there.
Speaking to my local contact, I asked if there was somewhere to get an Oz mains plug...
Look of horror on her face, you cannot do that unless you are a licenced electrician!
So I ended up with one of those iffy plug/socket converters which make me shudder every time I have to use one.

On subsequent trips, fore warned is fore armed.
I could buy a lead with an Oz plug from RS here in the UK, fit it to a UK multiway socket, job done.
All very much safer and no licenced 'lekkies required.

JimB

Nigel Goodwin said:

Their next suggestion was on a similar basis, her reply was that it again diffuses into the air, and the result is phosgene gas! - oops, there goes the city again.

Now these are Professors and Doctors at a decent University, the general public is likely to be even less safe with dangerous materials.

Click to expand...

There are laws in most countries called "know your customer" that are typically associated with the banking industry (anti-money laundering) but used by other agencies to shift blame/liability (or threaten to shift blame/liability) for really stupid things done by upstream companies.

That is, you don't sell a full load of nitrate fertilizer to some guy that drives up in a van truck who knows nothing about farming. Any company selling a chemical that can do what your daughter feared would happen must know who they are selling it to, the skill level of the people the are selling it to, how it will be used and what will be done with the left-overs and waste. If not, there are agencies that can be called to insure the vendor stops selling it or starts managing it correctly. If neither happens, your daughter's fears may have been exaggerated for the particular molecule but better that she questions than sits silently.