A hobby under threat?

It seems that one of the big stories doing the rounds on the ‘blogs today is the dumbing down of childrens’ chemistry sets.

When I was growing up as a kid, I remember begging for a chemistry set one Christmas, at the time the holy grail of chemistry sets was the Salters Science Chemistry Set 5. A large vile-green box packed full with everything you needed to split water into hydrogen & oxygen, strips of magnesium ribbon to blind yourself with when you stare at it burning and more copper sulphate than you can eat.

Of course I never actually got set 5. I was given set 2, which came with the same manual as set 5, but had a slip of paper telling you the contents of set 2 would not let you perform the experiment in the book beyond page 30 or so. It did also come with a nice order form so you could purchase chemical refils and seperate parts to upgrade set 2 to sets 3-5. Chemicals were about 15p per tube, the most expensive piece of glasswear ran to about five pounds.

I never did get set 5, but looking back over the manual I’ve saved these many years I realise that there was nothing too spectactuar you could do. The the most dangerous things in the set were magnesium ribbon and some chemicals for making chlorine gas.

Three years ago I was bought another chemisty set as a joke gift (I left the physics dept to join the chemistry dept). Nowhere in the manual did it make any mention of a more advanced set being avaliable – infact there was no more advanced set – this was the best it got. It contained about a half dozen test tubes, a small spirit burner and 8 chemicals. There was the obligatory copper sulphate, two dyes, iron filings, some citric acid and a few other odds and sods. There was nothing ‘fun’ in there. Not even any fun experiments listed in the manual.

If I’d had been given that set as a kid, I’d have felt conned. You can do many more fun and educational things with the contents of your kitchen cupboards. I used to know a couple of people that did chemistry at home – plating metals, coating mirrors, trying to find fun stuff in coal-tar. The don’t any longer, it is next to impossible for a private individual to get chemicals at home.

Chemistry teaching at schools, well science teaching in general, seems to be crap now. So where will the next few generations of scientists get turned on to science of not at home or school?

The Eastbrook connection

As I mentioned in the last post, the Eastbrook family are belived to have taken their name from the East Brook (now Wantz stream). Digging in the archives at lunch tuned up a copy of the will of one Thomas Esbroke, head of the household, a farmer and churchwarden in Dagenham in the 1550s of which little else is known.

This is his will written in 1556.

In the name of gode Amen. The xvijten Daye of november in the yeare of or Lord gode mvclvjty. I Thomas Esbroke at ye Well of Dagnhm beyng sycke in my body but thankes be to god of a good and purfitt memorye do ordeyn and make thys my prsent testmant and last will as foloweth : ffyrst I bequeth my soule to god ye father Almightie and my body to be burried in the churcheard of Dagnhm. Itm I geue to Jone my wyfe all my fre landes wth th’appurtenances until my heire cum unto the age of xxj yeres-Itm I geue to the sayd Jone my wyfe all my goodes and cattells, she to se me honestly brought on yearthe and to paye all my detts, the wch Jone my sole Executris to se thys my last will performed, as she shall answer. Itm I ordeyn and make Robert genys my ouerseer of they my last will, and he to have for his paynes xijd. Item I geue to Jone gosbye a Shepe. Itm to Thomas Devenysshe vjd. These witnesses : John logson, Willm Downynge and Willyam newman.

(as published under Dagenham Characters in the October 1953 Dagenham Digest. I shall attempt to track down the original copy of this will)

The Wantz stream

To the East part of Dagenham is an area known as Eastbrook. The name coming from the Eastbrook family, who in turn probably took their name from the local stream, then called the east brook. The family were in Dagenham from the 1280s until the 17th century, however the name lives on.

The stream on the other hand, has had several name changes. The longest lived of its many names seems to have been a corruption on the the medieval ‘Wythenbroke’, Wise (or Wisdom) Water. This lasted until the name became East Brook and this in turn lasted until sometime in the 17th -18th century when the name changed to the Wantz stream. Wantz coming from the crossroads near the stream source, The Four Wantz corner, Wantz being a corruption of Wents, an old common name for four way junctions in Essex and Kent.

By the early 1950s the source of the stream and the major part running though the Four Wantz & Eastbrook areas was little more than a polluted stinking trickle, so it was culverted and now lives inside a large drain not surfacing until it reaches the junction of Church Lane and Ballards Road.

The surface portion of the stream is now reasonably clean (obligatory mud burrowing shopping trollies aside) and home to the usual small freshwater plants and creatures including the crested newt. The stream runs above surface for about 1km before joining with the Beam river to the east of Lower Mardyke avenue.

The Beam river then continues to Dagenham Breach and the Thames ending the run of one of East London’s shortest streams and Dagenham’s only (partially) lost waterway.
(photos to follow when the camera behaves itself)

Water everywhere and not a drop to drink.

With all the talk of water shortages, hosepipe bans and drought orders, you’d be forgiven for overlooking all the water we do have. There is lots of water in East London, you just have to know where to look. Oh, and I really wouldn’t advise trying to drink any of it.

There are many streams and rivers running though London, Diamond Geezer has already posted on one of the lost rivers, the fleet. In a new series of irregular posts I’m going to write more about the streams and rivers in my area, starting with one partially lost stream. The Wantz stream.

Local Elections

Well, that was an interesting sociological experiment. Now can we please have 11 different councillors that:

a) Have some kind of clue.
b) Don’t wish to get suspended from the council for ‘telling the truth’. [1]
c) Will not quit after a few months because they didn’t realise a) was a prerequisite.

As pointed out to me elsewhere [2], in the first article, Nick Griffin says “this is a revolt against the entire liberal political elite”.

Umm, this would be the same liberal political elite that are responsible for the ID card bill and the Regulatory Reform Bill? The BNP aims to be less liberal than that?

[1] Quote I heard on the news this morning but a unable to find online.
[2] By donbert on LJ.