Hydrogen peroxide is extremely difficult to handle at high concentrations, so I feel some sympathy with the suppliers.

However, the same situation applies to numerous industrial chemicals which are not dangerous. I needed some “stuff” which is available only from one supplier, which owns the patent. This “stuff” is chemically inert. You could probably drink some without ill effects. Still, the supplier sent me their standard form which basically says, “What do you want to use this for?” And if I had answered truthfully, they would have said, “We are not going to supply it to you,” because I am engaged in research where the chemical compound is used for a new application.

Now imagine this situation multiplied across the nation. Basically it means that if someone has an idea to use an existing, safe chemical for an unusual purpose, either he must lie, or he cannot use it. This is an obvious recipe for stifling innovation.

Of course I can see it from the supplier’s point of view: They have insurance which covers them against liability for “approved uses” of the various chemicals. If they knowingly supply the chemicals for unapproved uses, I am betting that their insurance won’t cover them. So, naturally, they don’t want the exposure. (And at my end, my insurance won’t cover unapproved uses either, which means that if an employee has an accident while using the chemical, I am in trouble, even if the chemical itself doesn’t do any harm.)

I’m curious about this statement. From what I read, once he decided to refine his own peroxide, he consulted professionals and constructed a facility for doing it correctly and safely. In my opinion, the only thing that he did wrong, was being too open with his vendor about his intentions.

I can understand the vendor of the 70% peroxide refusing to sell to him, as is their right, but, didn’t they over reach when they contacted the vendor of the 50% peroxide? As one of the comments stated, does he have a case against the company?