So wouldn't all of those reasons also apply to this chemistry set as well? What is it about this one that would mitigate the same concerns as applied to other sets?
That's the whole point of this set it to allow you to do the "dangerous" (read: interesting) experiments. None of it is illegal, but it just discards the last 50 years of increasing concern for allowing children to do dangerous things.
So yes it's a risk and it can be used to make illegal/dangerous substances, but none of it is illegal, just risky.
Just major companies don't want to take on the kind of risk that comes with it. Whereas boutique shops have a lot more freedom because they're selling to self selecting audiences, which (generally) understand they're taking on additional risks with the increased benefits.
Whereas boutique shops have a lot more freedom because they're selling to self selecting audiences, which (generally) understand they're taking on additional risks with the increased benefits.
They may take advantage of having the same freedoms that larger companies just don't exercise, but the idea that their audience is "self-selecting" likely won't hold up or protect them from the kind of litigation that means this is (in practice) a bad idea (from a business survival standpoint).
I see the set as a good thing, but I don't think saying they're protected in any way or that the concerns of larger companies don't apply is accurate.
The guy with the Kickstarter runs a science supply shop/museum called the "H. M. S. Beagle," in Kansas City. He's already no stranger to risk.
I need to do some more research to make sure I'm not supporting some sort of kook, but I like what I've read about him (and from him) so far. If he checks out at face value I'll participate in his Kickstarter at a higher-than-strictly-necessary level, just to support what he's doing.
I've met the guy; he's legit. My wife and I stop by every time we visit KC because it's such a neat shop. I've looked for a store like his in the NYC area without success.
