Physics Teacher Under Fire for Physics Experiment

[Jeff]

Brandon, exactly what was your "reality check?"

You just listed all of things I pointed out (with the exception of ether, which I didn't know wasn't used anymore-- although it might be in some schools) with all of these safety conditions surrounding them. So what is the difference between the use of those traditional materials and the gun experiment? You haven't addressed my point-- only strengthened it.

We already know those materials can be hazardous if used improperly, just like the gun can.

So what is the point?

 

[Brandon]

* ether has no place in the classroom anymore, just because it was used in the past doesn't mean we should do it now.

* sodium is relatively safe, like the potato launcher and the tabletop model. Cesium is not appropriate for a classroom full of kids with no training and neither is a gun used in this context. I never said that guns should not be allowed on campus- I see this particular use as bad judgement.

* kerosene causes more problems than it is worth

* phosphorous is only sparingly done under a fume hood- if ever. I don't do phosphourus. Have you ever seen a phosphorous burn?

* Magnesium is not that dangerous- out of context.

* I think too many people here played with too much mercury back in the day when it was considered "safe". Just because we used to do it doesn't mean that it is appropriate now.

Maybe -just maybe we should drop some francium or cesium in some water just so it will "excite" the kids. Although we could probably get away with not hurting anyone using appropriate shields and safety precautions, its not worth blowing shrapnel all over a room full of kids. We might even get away with it for 20 years but it is still not responsible.

Now if someone starts causing mortal problems on campus with violence then it is time to react with terrible violence, know what is beyond- and let lead fly.

Discharging a weapon on campus for fun and demonstration is innapropiate and reckless.

I wouldn't do it, he did. He's in trouble and I am not for showing the same principle in different but equally memorable ways.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Croyance]

Because he is not aiming at anything? The gun is being fired at point blank.

With high school kids behind him? Because they never do anything unthinkingly, like crowd or bump - hard, to get a better view. Or do it because they have issues, are the class idiot/clown, or just to see what happens.
The guy broke the rules - he is the one who must justify all conditions.

 

[Jeff]

Eh, sounds like a reach to me.

Not anymore dangerous than anything else that has been done in a high school chemistry lab.

It seems like we are so concerned with the word "gun" in the context of the experiment-- and all of its political bed-wetting associations-- rather than simply looking at an instrument with a metal tube that discharges a piece of soft metal via a metallic cartridge that is "excited" by a spring activated mechanism with a hard tip.

It's a rather simple device and really not that dangerous under the circumstances.

 

[Croyance]

Any demonstration in a chemistry lab, which this wasn't, is done with the students in front of the teacher if it is believed that it takes more safety and precision than the students are liklely to show.

And yes, any injuries due to a gun will be seen as worse by the public than a chemistry experiment gone wrong. That is reality.

Chemistry is a class. Firearms is not. If we harp on teachers not being creative enough to engage minds, we can also say that this teacher wasn't creative enough to figure out another way to excite interest.

 

[akodo]

i too saw this demonstration done with a .22 bolt action rifle.

The gun was placed in a cradel, secured, and loaded. the block of wood was 4-6 inches in front of it. Basically you are creating a 'no miss' scenario. To me this is just as safe as firing straight ahead into an earth berm. In both cases you have a absolutely tiny risk of something going wrong and the bullet going somewehre unintended. After all, at a gunrange a guy could run up and tackle you just as you were pulling the trigger, who knows where the bullet woudl go then. But for all normal practical purposes, this is absolutely safe, probably safer than when you let students use bunson burners.

Also, lets say you DON'T use a gun, but instead design, just for this expirement, a device that can accurately launch a very small projectile at extreme speeds, be it compressed air, other chemical reactions, magnets, etc etc. You have just created something equally dangerous.

 

[Kentak]

I suppose all those folks who think this was a perfectly appropriate acitvity would support their next-door neighbor shooting a rifle into a wooden block at point blank range while their kids played in the yard beyond.

K

 

[hso]

The commercial demonstration device demonstrates the principals as effectively without any danger.

This represents a small, but still non-travial hazard.

Tain't worth it for theatrics when a video would do.

 

[Croyance]

After all, at a gunrange a guy could run up and tackle you just as you were pulling the trigger, who knows where the bullet woudl go then. But for all normal practical purposes, this is absolutely safe, probably safer than when you let students use bunson burners.

Also, lets say you DON'T use a gun, but instead design, just for this expirement, a device that can accurately launch a very small projectile at extreme speeds, be it compressed air, other chemical reactions, magnets, etc etc. You have just created something equally dangerous.

A guy at the range is running the risk of being shot in self defence. Not so with a student. The teen years are also the most reckless and irresponisble years people go through.

You saw a similar demonstration. Was there a secured stand in this one? It wasn't mentioned.
If somebody is going to yell that I can't make assumptions about the backstop because this guy was in the military, nothing else should be assumed either.
And yes, other ways of having similar demonstrations could go wrong. Of course you can also use amounts of energy that won't hurt people (much) with those other methods, launching stuff into foam, for instance. Regulation can be more easily demonstrated to people who are less likely to get hysterical. I mean, this guy knows he is in California, right?

 

[Jeff]

I suppose all those folks who think this was a perfectly appropriate acitvity would support their next-door neighbor shooting a rifle into a wooden block at point blank range while their kids played in the yard beyond.

What?

This kind of question invites the position that NO safe backstop can ever exist. In fact, there is NO safe backstop while one goes hunting and discharges a firearm at his quarry. How does one know what is at the other side of that animal? Just a bunch of trees-- there is no real backstop in flatter country.

Who even said that there were students in adjacent rooms while the experiment is being conducted?

 

[Shweboner]

"National Association of School Psychologists."



The most ominous words in this thread.

 

[ajax]

I personally think I would have liked to be in this teachers class. I would also like to point out that no one here has seen the arrangment of the class room or the way the test was done. You only have a description in a article to go off of. You should consider this before you make statements about how unsafe this test was. Last time I checked a .30 carbine wasn't capable of going through 8 in. of wood then a brick wall.

 

[Owen]

It would have been a lot better if he had issued each kid a gun for the experiment...

This article was posted in another thread about chemistry labs.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/chemistry_pr.html

Every corner in this country is going to end up so well padded there won't be anywhere to walk.