Gross Negligence in Discussions of Dangerous Knowledge

  • Complaint
  • Thread starter Psyop
  • Start date
In summary, a high school freshman in Ohio was injured when his model rocket exploded while he was conducting an experiment.
  • #1
Psyop
2
6
"We do not discuss dangerous activities here on the PF."
berkeman

Is it appropriate for an individual moderator to block the open discussion of what I feel could be a dangerous safety flaw in a device?
I would propose that by not allowing those with the knowledge to reply and possibly save many people from harm shows gross negligence by the moderator.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Psyop said:
"We do not discuss dangerous activities here on the PF."
berkeman

Is it appropriate for an individual moderator to block the open discussion of what I feel could be a dangerous safety flaw in a device?
I would propose that by not allowing those with the knowledge to reply and possibly save many people from harm shows gross negligence by the moderator.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/component-reliability.785817/

Your DIY group doing electrical experiments on themselves is generally not a good idea. It is good that you want to understand the dangers and try to point them out to them, but discussing them on a web forum is probably not the best way for you to proceed. Please check out the UL 544 Medical Device Safety specification that I mentioned in the thread, and perhaps find a local EE resource who has a biomedical background to discuss the issues involved.
 
  • Like
Likes gracy
  • #3
Psyop said:
Is it appropriate for an individual moderator to block the open discussion of what I feel could be a dangerous safety flaw in a device?

There is often some contention about what the mods do here, both individually and as a group, but here's the thing ... PF is the best science forum on the Internet and a big reason for that is that time and effort put in by the mods, who do all this for nothing more than the love and kisses that we blow their way, along with the occasional cuss word, and their own sense of satisfaction at being helpful.

I can understand your annoyance and an attempt to change/improve things is welcome, but at the end of the day, PF is what it is.
 
  • Like
Likes gracy, John M. Carr and berkeman
  • #4
Psyop said:
Is it appropriate for an individual moderator to block the open discussion of what I feel could be a dangerous safety flaw in a device?
Although actions are taken by individual mentors, we discuss the close calls among ourselves first and you can safely assume that any action has the support of the entire mentors' community. This one certainly does, and it does because...

I would propose that by not allowing those with the knowledge to reply and possibly save many people from harm shows gross negligence by the moderator.
Unfortunately any reply of the form "If you're going to do it, here's how to do it safely" is going to be heard by someone out there as "It's OK to do it as long as you do it this way" and that's just asking for trouble.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and Danger
  • #5
Thank you for the well put responses, and for providing the opportunity and platform to voice my grievances.
You have all made solid points and recommendations. I now see how an open forum is not the best place to pursue this topic.
This is a great forum, I see lots of interesting work being done here. Hopefully in the future I will have a less controversial subject to come to the experts with.
Your time is appreciated.
 
  • Like
Likes gracy, Danger, dlgoff and 3 others
  • #6
This is an older Feedback thread, but our policies here have not changed, and there have been a couple unfortunate reminders in the news lately about why it is so important to stress safety to inexperienced experimenters, especially young people.

Pretty sad...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ohio-boy-electrocuted-conducting-youtube-experiment-38537056
Oliver said the high school freshman apparently was trying to conduct an experiment called Jacob's Ladder involving a high-voltage traveling arc of electricity between two points.

Authorities found a battery pack from a microwave oven attached to an electrical outlet by extension cords, with jumper cables going from the battery pack to two pieces of a wire hanger. The hanger pieces apparently were intended to be used as the points for the electricity to travel along, Oliver said.
Various websites discussing Jacob's Ladder warn it can be dangerous and should not be done at home.

Oliver said the experiment wasn't part of any school assignment.

"He was doing this on his own," the deputy said.
 
  • Like
Likes dlgoff
  • #7
And a couple honors high school students who got surprised. That could have been me. Have I told you about the time I almost blew up my ChemE roommate in college? Lesson learned...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/1-dead-1-hurt-model-rocket-explodes-school-084933712.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes dlgoff
  • #8
I wonder if it would be a good idea to refer members finding themselves in such a situation to a local hackerspace.
The bigger spaces usually have some people around that can help with safety considerations and even mentor them in their pursuit of knowledge.

Of course this doesn't apply to anybody as they don't exist everywhere. In Belgium I know knew of two before I googled some more.
This one seemed great from the virtual tour we got during a stream by freecodecamp (great opensource initiative).

Might be something to consider.
 

What is gross negligence in discussions of dangerous knowledge?

Gross negligence in discussions of dangerous knowledge refers to a failure to exercise reasonable care and caution when discussing or sharing information that could potentially harm others. This includes intentionally spreading false information, disregarding potential consequences, and failing to take appropriate precautions.

Why is gross negligence in discussions of dangerous knowledge a concern?

Gross negligence in discussions of dangerous knowledge can lead to serious harm or damage, both physical and psychological. It can also contribute to the spread of misinformation and dangerous ideologies, leading to further harm and potential conflicts.

What are some examples of gross negligence in discussions of dangerous knowledge?

Examples of gross negligence in discussions of dangerous knowledge may include sharing conspiracy theories or false information about public health, promoting harmful and discriminatory ideologies, or advocating for violence against a certain group of people.

How can individuals avoid gross negligence in discussions of dangerous knowledge?

Individuals can avoid gross negligence in discussions of dangerous knowledge by fact-checking information before sharing it, considering the potential consequences of their words and actions, and being mindful of the impact their words may have on others.

What are the consequences of gross negligence in discussions of dangerous knowledge?

The consequences of gross negligence in discussions of dangerous knowledge can vary depending on the severity of the harm caused. It can lead to legal repercussions, damage to personal and professional reputation, and harm to individuals and communities. In extreme cases, it can even result in loss of life.

Similar threads

  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
1
Views
421
  • Sticky
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
138
Views
5K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
90
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
832
Back
Top