Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

Minerals by Properties Minerals by Chemistry Advanced Locality Search Random Mineral Random Locality Search by minID Localities Near Me Search Articles Search Glossary More Search Options

The Mindat Manual Add a New Photo Rate Photos Locality Edit Report Coordinate Completion Report Add Glossary Item

Mining Companies Statistics Users Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations Mineral Shows & Events The Mindat Directory Device Settings The Mineral Quiz

Photo Search Photo Galleries Search by Color New Photos Today New Photos Yesterday Members' Photo Galleries Past Photo of the Day Gallery Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Fakes & FraudsToxics for kids in San Francisco

20th Dec 2014 23:43 UTCHoward Heitner

Just got back from shopping with my extended family in San Francisco (near Valencia and 19th). In a so called nature store, I saw copper sulfate and chrome alum cleverly grown on pieces of rock for sale. They were identified as minerals and sold alongside quartz crystals, fossils and other real specimens. All were displayed on an open shelf, easily within reach of children. No warning label about toxicity. When I pointed this out to a clerk, she said the customer is told that they are toxic after they are purchased. A childproof cap is required on a bottle of aspirin, and this stuff is being sold. Is there any legal way to stop this?

21st Dec 2014 00:03 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

I grew copper sulphate crystals at home when I was a little kid. It never occurred to me to eat one, so I'm still alive. Perhaps the average kid is a lot dumber nowadays?

21st Dec 2014 00:40 UTCHoward Heitner

Alfredo,

Did the copper sulfate come in a bottle with a label that said poison on it?

How old were you at the time? The kids picking up the copper sulfate looked about eight years old to me.

21st Dec 2014 00:58 UTCD Mike Reinke

Howard,

I would think you would have to ask a local lawyer?

21st Dec 2014 01:03 UTCturtledove thrushe

Howard unless the kids are eating it in several or large dosages I don't think it would be toxic or warrant this kind of outrage. Sure perhaps the specimen dealer or shop should have labelled them appropriately however their not as toxic as you would believe.

21st Dec 2014 01:05 UTCHoward Heitner

Perhaps some consumer protection agency might be better. I don't live in SF. I am flying home on Monday. Any California residents have any suggestions about whom to contact?

21st Dec 2014 01:13 UTCHoward Heitner

An LD/50 of 30 mg/kg sounds toxic enough for a trip to the ER to me.

21st Dec 2014 01:23 UTCHoward Heitner

Correction. MSDS says 300 mg/kg but still bad. Again I say enough for a trip to the ER.

21st Dec 2014 01:27 UTCturtledove thrushe

Howard Heitner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Correction. MSDS says 300 mg/kg but still bad.

> Again I say enough for a trip to the ER.

Howard compare that with say Arsenic itself and you will see it is not as toxic. The parents should not allow the children to eat the specimens anyway or to ingest it.

21st Dec 2014 01:44 UTCHoward Heitner

Vitality,

I fully agree with your last sentence. It is not the specific numbers that concern me but that there is no visible warning of toxicity and the stuff is called chalcanthite not copper sulfate. In other words the parents are not informed that there is any hazard and that they need to supervise their children. The verbal warning by the clerk is a joke. If the clerk is very busy, he or she could could easily forget to say anything

21st Dec 2014 01:48 UTCturtledove thrushe

Howard Heitner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Vitality,

> I fully agree with your last sentence. It is not

> the specific numbers that concern me but that

> there is no visible warning of toxicity and the

> stuff is called chalcanthite not copper sulfate.

> In other words the parents are not informed that

> there is any hazard and that they need to

> supervise their children. The verbal warning by

> the clerk is a joke. If the clerk is very busy, he

> or she could could easily forget to say anything

Howard it is indeed Chalcanthite and the specimen that you likely encountered there was the lab-grown material usually from Poland or other localities. Natural Chalcanchite is rarer to encounter and would likely also be more expensive due to the nature of the species. However I do agree that perhaps a label may be put near the specimen to identify it (ie Chalcanchite --- chemical formula ---- copper sulfate mineral).

I was at the Bancroft Gemboree this summer and there was also alot of children touching and handling various specimens and various minerals including Chalcanthite on display and there was no incidents with any kind of poisoning or toxicity. I think that a label is really all that is necessary and anything else is simply unnecessary.

Also here is the mindat description/quote for Chalcanthite:

"Health Warning: No information on health risks for this material has been entered into the database. You should always treat mineral specimens with care."

21st Dec 2014 01:55 UTCDmitriy Belakovskiy

One who ever try the test of copper sulfate and crom alum can tell how likely any kid would

enjoy eating that stuff.

21st Dec 2014 02:00 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Alfredo Petrov Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I grew copper sulphate crystals at home when I was

> a little kid. It never occurred to me to eat one,

> so I'm still alive. Perhaps the average kid is a

> lot dumber nowadays?

I grew them too Alfredo - and tasted them. No one who has tasted either copper sulphate or alum is *ever*,of their own free will, going to swallow them.

21st Dec 2014 02:11 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Exactly, Owen and Dmitriy. The tiniest lick and a kid learns this is not something to eat. The stuff is nauseatingly metallic and astringent - I tasted it as a kid too.

Actual real-life poisoning cases have happened but are extremely rare. More kids are killed by dogs, and we don't put warning labels on them either. A concern for safety is fine, but I think society has swung too far in that direction now, to an extreme degree, discouraging kids from experimentation in sciences. Anything with any possibility for harm is becoming prohibited, unless of course it's in the sacrosanct category of "sports" - then it's encouraged.

21st Dec 2014 02:19 UTCturtledove thrushe

Alfredo Petrov Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Exactly, Owen and Dmitriy. The tiniest lick and a

> kid learns this is not something to eat. The stuff

> is nauseatingly metallic and astringent - I tasted

> it as a kid too.

>

> Actual real-life poisoning cases have happened but

> are extremely rare. More kids are killed by dogs,

> and we don't put warning labels on them either. A

> concern for safety is fine, but I think society

> has swung too far in that direction now, to an

> extreme degree, discouraging kids from

> experimentation in sciences. Anything with any

> possibility for harm is becoming prohibited,

> unless of course it's in the sacrosanct category

> of "sports" - then it's encouraged.

I also agree. Chalcanthite and Copper Sulfate is an irritant and to ingest it would go against the wishes of the individual even if they were children or younger. I also think that society over-reacts to many things concerning earth-sciences. Just look at the scare with specimens and radioactivity. The situation becomes overblown with many specimens such as specimens containing mercury , radioactive emitters , arsenic , antimony , etc...

21st Dec 2014 03:19 UTCPaul Brandes 🌟 Manager

Water, in high enough doses, can be dangerous, even fatal.

Maybe we should put a warning label at every ocean, lake, river, bottle of Evian, etc? :-S

21st Dec 2014 05:04 UTCHoward Heitner

There is risk in every human activity. My tendency is to minimize it as much as possible. I have given my grandson many specimens, I would not give him chalcanthite, there is no good reason to, and there is some risk.

The discussion about water has been extended to a really strange zone Paper labels are not the only warning systems. There have been warning systems for water for years.

At the beach the warning is called a lifeguard

In a canoe it is called a life jacket

In a storm it is called a weather report or a flood warning

For a swimming pool it called a fence

For a baby in a bathtub it is called a nanny

21st Dec 2014 05:30 UTCDoug Daniels

Remember when we had chemistry sets, with all sorts of "nasty" chemicals in them. Try to find something like that today.

21st Dec 2014 08:23 UTCStefan Oertel

Hi Howard,

likely Paul wants to remind you that you're overreacting, especially from a non-american viewpoint. In 2012 563 children under 18 were shot dead in the US by use firearms (FBI statistics, 565 in 2011, 632 in 2010...). On the other hand no kid died from copper sulfate poisoning in 2012, which is very rare anyway and usually associated with suicide (PubMed research). You want to tackle a problem with a lawyer which does not exsist, I think there are more serious problems than copper sulfate which comes even with an oral warning.

Risks should be mitigated by knowledge, use of the brain and a bit of common sense. Otherwise it does not end with a warning label, it ends with forbidding everything as Doug and Alfredo stated. Getting chemicals legally as a private person in europe is almost impossible. As for your warning system: for children it is called parents. The children couldn't read the warning label anyway.

Just thoughts and no offense meant.

Cheers,

Stefan

21st Dec 2014 10:11 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

The bigger issue here is not the health angle but that these items are being sold as natural minerals - clearly a fraudulent act.

21st Dec 2014 14:12 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Howard Heitner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For a baby in a bathtub it is called a nanny

Since this thread has alread descended into bathos, here's my contribution to the Mindat christmas party:

'A muvver woz barfin' 'er baiby one ni'.

Woz lickle an' fin, the poo' lickle mi',

She turned arahnd for the soap orf the rack -

She woz bu' a momen' bu' wen she turned back

'ER BAIBY WOZ GORN!

"O where is moi baiby?" the muvver she cried,

"O where is moi baiby!?" The angels replied,

"Yor baiby 'as gorn dahn the plug-'ole. Yor baiby 'as gorn dahn the plug.

Poo' lickle fing woz so skinny and fin 'e ort've been barfed in a jug!

Yor baiby is perfeckly 'appy, 'E won' need a barf any more.

Yor baiby is perfeckly 'appy, not lorst bu' gorn before',

Compliments of the season to one and all.

21st Dec 2014 15:03 UTCHoward Heitner

Comparing copper sulfate to guns, cars or any other dangerous thing is irrelevant to this discussion. I saw no guns for sale in the store. I was only talking about copper sulfate and chrome alum. Let's boil this down to a risk /benefit analysis. In my opinion selling those things to children without any kind of hazard warning to their parents constitutes a risk. It may be large or small depending on how it is measured. I challenge anyone to tell me the benefit. All I have heard as a benefit is teaching them that they taste bad

21st Dec 2014 15:24 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Howard,

You've been told. Living is a risk. From ante-natal until death. Get over it and stop fretting.

21st Dec 2014 16:01 UTCWayne Corwin

And,,,,,, A BIG copper sulfate crystal could poke a childs eye out,,, what? no warning for that :-S

21st Dec 2014 17:10 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

> Comparing copper sulfate to guns, cars or any other dangerous thing is irrelevant to this discussion.

So is comparing it to a bottle of aspirin, as you did in your first post!

> When I pointed this out to a clerk, she said the customer is told that they are toxic after they are purchased.

So a warning is given. What exactly is the problem again.

Listen up. If you REALLY want to start kicking up a fuss about "safety" of mineral/crystal specimens and someone decides that things "must be done" to "protect the children" have you any idea where that could eventually lead? Maybe it would just be safer for them to ban the sale of all mineral specimens altogether, you know, just to be safe.

Pick your battles carefully. This isn't a good one.

21st Dec 2014 17:24 UTCHoward Heitner

I repeat risk/benefit. No one has told me the benefit of selling copper sulfate with out an effective warning. I am sick of people preaching about the hazards of life. We have no choice about that. In this case there is a choice. I choose to protect children over nonsense.

Let us now end this discussion. I think everyone has made their point.

Mr Lewis please translate that poem

21st Dec 2014 17:57 UTCJohn M Stolz Expert

I am amazed at the diversity of opinion on this issue.

Howard Heitner comes about as close to my opinion on the matter. He said--in pertinent part:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is no visible warning of toxicity...

> In other words the parents are not informed that there is any hazard

> The verbal warning...is a joke...could could easily forget to say anything

Regardless of what anyone thinks is an appropriate level of toxicity it is not their station to unilaterally decide what the parents have or do not have the right to know what risks their children are being exposed to

For that reason, I am appalled by statements such as:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Likely XXXX wants to remind you that you're overreacting...

I want to be clear on the matter--this is no ad hominem attack on XXXX. He just presents a viewpoint against which I am diametrically opposed. No offense is intended.

So, that said, who made XXXX the legislative authority in the matter? His knowledge gained from information? If so, then then why isn't information on toxicity disclosed so that perhaps the parents too might say: "Jeez, maybe (as Americans, no less) we're over-reacting--let the kid play with it"

Well, at least it's an informed decision.

Worse yet XXXX goes on to say:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In 2012 563 children under 18 were shot dead in the US by use firearms...

I guess that kind of thinking suggests nothing more than perhaps 562 kids could die before it becomes justifiable to do something about it. Or maybe it doesn't, since handgun laws are already in effect. Maybe the statistic would make more sense if the both risks were treated on the same level with the same precautionary measures. THEN would it perhaps be ok if only a handful of kids die every year? No, even that statement is absurd in my opinion.

What I don't understand though is that XXXX then goes on to say:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Risks should be mitigated by knowledge...

> As for your warning system: for children it is called parents...

So at least XXXX recognizes the need for a warning of some sort. Well if that's the case then how exactly are parents supposed to mitigate risks if there is no warning of a risk in the first place?

Are you all aware that many of you have relied on MSDS' for your information? Do you not see the irony in that?

And I will now bring up something I'm pretty sure has not yet been raised except peripherally by Howard Heitner:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The verbal warning...is a joke...the clerk could easily forget to say anything

Mr. Heitner you are absolutely correct. But take it one step further. Isn't the consumer entitled to get an 'MSDS' prior to purchase? After all the "policy" is you don't get to know how dangerous something is until after you own it. How ridiculous is that?

21st Dec 2014 18:28 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Howard. If you feel strongly about this particular establishment and the safety of what they sell then you should raise the issue with local authorities.

I am not a toxicologist (although I do work with them from time to time) so I can't say for certain how dangerous this material is. A quick search of a toxicology database gives me this article Food and Chemical Toxicology 2004, 42, 1931-1936 which may be a starting point for your communications with the authorities.

21st Dec 2014 19:40 UTCStefan Oertel

John, whats the stupid thing with XXXX? I have a name and when you want to discuss, do it in a polite manner. In your first citation you have to change XXXX to YYYY anyway or you get it wrong.

As to the comparison with firearms, you did not get the point. I checked literature resources and did not find a single case of deadly copper sulfate poisoning other than suicide attempts where it was stated you need 10 g as a deadly dose (for an adult). Some poisonings happend when copper sulfate was handled as a plant protectant. If Howard is so concerned about the well being of kids (which is good) then it might be wise to put the energy where really bad things happen, not on little potential dangers. Copper 0, arms 565. That's a simple one, isn't it?

Parents: seriously, there is a bright blue "rock" you don't know. Would you allow your kid to lick it or swallow it? Do you really need a warning not to do it? Thats what I meant with common sense.

A MSDS upfront every mineral sold? Fine with me....

Cheers,

Stefan

21st Dec 2014 19:57 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

@ John Stolz:

> Regardless of what anyone thinks is an appropriate level

> of toxicity it is not their station to unilaterally decide what

> the parents have or do not have the right to know what

risks their children are being exposed to

No one doubts that. The responsibility is on parents to learn what they need to know and not for the state to play Nanny. As pointed out neither copper sulphate nor alum are harmful in small doses and no one in their right mind swallow more than a trace of either.

You may have chosen to protect your childen from the potentially harm effects of sprinking NaCl on their food. I did not, leaving it to their palates to guide them (bolstered by the vomit reflex). Mine grew sound in wind and limb and to academic attainment at a serious level. I hope yours have or will do so to.

It is a necessary part of a body's defence mechanism to be exposed to all sorts of poisons and pathogens at a low level.There is already a burden of proof, that keeping small children in an overly sterile environment makes for sickly adolescents and adults. If there risk in the exposure? Of course there is - but its a lesser risk that total avoidance as a child. Ask anyone who has seen a death from typhoid and is old enough also to remember being inoculated with the live bacteria and having a bad reaction.

@ Howard,

> Mr Lewis please translate that poem

No translation necessary to an English speaker. It's a phonetic spelling of the Cockney (London, England) english dialect. Try speaking it out loud as you see it on the screen and you'll be just fine. Impress your friends.

I also know an advice from an Irish mother of 21 children to young mothers just expecting their first....

21st Dec 2014 23:25 UTCHenri Koskinen Expert

This recent Mindat article should probably be mentioned here.

AN OVERVIEW OF MINERALS TOXICITY

Posted by cascaillou

http://www.mindat.org/mesg-62-338876.html

I understand that too much spotlight on toxicity issues is bad for business. I am not a fan of hysterical safety regulations either but supressing neutral and factual discussion about these issues because of business concerns might not be the best way to deal with the issue.

Some minerals are toxic and I would like to read presentations of both the facts and data on toxicity issues and a balanced evaluation of the practical hazards involved as well. I have seen synthetic chalcantite been sold without any healt warnings and I actually told my kid who wanted to buy a sample that it is moderately toxic and we skipped the purchase as I didn't really know just how toxic it was. After reading cascaillous excellent article and the comments on this thread I know that it is fairly safe to buy a sample of chalcantite for my kid and actually would like to grow these crystals. But there are other minerals, like (partially decomposed) samples of orpiment, that I am not so sure of, and I wish to learn more about the toxicity of these minerals.

Henri

22nd Dec 2014 01:37 UTCJohn M Stolz Expert

Mr. Oertel,

No need to characterize something I say as 'stupid'. Neither is there any reason to characterize me as being impolite. The words all speak for themselves, and the reader can make his own determination of my stupidity or impoliteness. Frankly I didn't really read the rest of your post, because its clear to me from those opening words that we will have no meeting of the minds.

Mr. Lewis,

I too do not like the state playing nanny unnecessarily. There are far too many times that people say 'there ought to be a law.' However, I maintain that items that carry a 'significant' risk of toxicity when handled or ingested need to be identified. The question of course is what is 'significant.'

In the States, we have the most asinine law that requires identifying locations where chemicals and substances carry a high risk to women who are pregnant. These signs are peppered in parking garages, elevators, and other locations that are difficult to avoid as a matter of practicality. And yet, there is no actual information provided--such as what the substances actually are, and whether the risk can be eliminated by not touching anything or simply holding one's breath for the 5 or so minutes one is in the facility.

Your analogy of table salt is interesting. While I agree with you of course that no warning is needed for this substance, relying on taste for guidance may not be adequate. I have learned from our Brazilian neighbors that salt is very heavily used in seasoning their meals. And there is no debate by reasonable persons on the adverse long-term effects of a high sodium diet. So while Nietzsche may be right in certain cases, I don't believe his premise should be followed in general!

22nd Dec 2014 02:55 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

John Stolz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ....... I have learned from

> our Brazilian neighbors that salt is very heavily

> used in seasoning their meals. And there is no

> debate by reasonable persons on the adverse

> long-term effects of a high sodium diet.

Yes, there is room for argument. You speak as though there was certainty of a deleterious effect from relatively high salt consumption. There is no such thing - as many, now drawing their pensions and being life-long salty diet lovers can attest. What is true is:

1. There is a statistical probability that one will live longer on a low-sodium diet.

2. There is a presumption that living longer is, of itself 'a good thing'. I doubt that to be true - though billions are now spent in the developed countries every year in pursuit of this (false?) goal.

In my case and millions of others, a life-long high salt intake has not prevented a full and happy life. OTOH, my younger brother, a GP, a health fascist and life long low salt consumer, has had a series of four heart operations, the last being a triple bypass with the pneumonia he contracted immediately after that operation nearly killing him. Life chances are largely chaotic and we should all relax, take them as they come and hope to enjoy our life span, as long or as short as that may be.

A puppy licking the face of a child poses a health risk to the child. Is there a balance of general benefit to a child's life and early education from close association with an affectionate pet and playmate, despite the real but small risks? I think there is. Similarly, children should be encouraged to take risks whilst also being taught how to recognise and, better, anticipate them. I think I was six or seven when I learned -the hard way - that jumping from a relatively high branch with a home-made bedsheet parachute is not a good idea.

> So while

> Nietzsche may be right in certain cases, I don't

> believe his premise should be followed in general!

That which does not kill you makes you stronger? In general, true I think, in early life, but demonstrably untrue once past mid-life. We return to the wise advice of the very experienced mother to a young woman expecting her first child. 'Don't worry over everything. After your first four, you come to realise that they are quite hard to kill' :-)

22nd Dec 2014 03:24 UTCRock Currier Expert

Has anyone here ever put even 5mg of copper sulfate in their mouth? Everyone, including a kid would be spitting it out as fast as they could. There has to be practical limits on how much the government should try and do to protect its citizens, even kids. How many here think it is sensible to roll out a hazmat team in space suits to clean up a broken mercury thermometer at a school and to close it down for a day or two?

22nd Dec 2014 04:55 UTCMark Heintzelman 🌟 Expert

I was going to post the same, but could not fully contain my outrage at this suggestion. But let's at least play devils advocate and implement this suggestion. Say you DO put a "toxic" label on them, and junior decides to put the darn thing in his mouth anyway. Normally that kids tatebuds would tell him all he needs to know, well before any harm was done, but now you've got his mom totally unhinged and freaking out, essentially over nothing . . . that's a really great idea, kudos!

Guess it's true what they say, common sense was never actually common.

MRH

22nd Dec 2014 05:06 UTCD Mike Reinke

Wow, this thread needs to die. Poisoned by copper sulfate.

22nd Dec 2014 05:30 UTCDoug Daniels

And nobody's worried about the chrome alum, which contains chromium sulfate (granted, it's in the +3 valence state, and not the highly toxic +6).

Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: May 8, 2024 16:24:47

Go to top of page