Why We Need to Remember: Never Do the Rainbow Experiment with Open Flames

“Flame colors are best taught through atomic emission concepts — not open-flame demonstrations.”

When a 20-Year-Old Accident Still Has Something to Teach Us

A recent article revisits a serious school laboratory accident that occurred more than 20 years ago, involving what many educators once considered a routine and engaging chemistry demonstration: the Rainbow (flame test) experiment.

The incident itself is not new. The injuries are not hypothetical. And the lesson is not outdated.

The reason this story is being told again—two decades later—is simple: the same risks persist if the same practices continue.

What the Rainbow Experiment Really Involves

The Rainbow experiment typically uses flammable alcohols combined with dissolved metal salts to produce different flame colors. When performed with open containers, excess fuel, or improper controls, it introduces multiple hazards at once:

• Flash fires from alcohol vapors

• Rapid flame spread beyond the container

• Burns to hands, face, or clothing

• Loss of control once ignition occurs

In the revisited accident, those risks became reality — resulting in severe injuries that permanently altered lives.

Time Does Not Make Unsafe Practices Safe

One of the most dangerous assumptions in laboratory instruction is that age equals safety.

The Rainbow experiment has not fundamentally changed in 20 years. The chemistry has not changed. The behavior of flammable vapors has not changed.

What has changed is our understanding of duty of care, risk assessment, and professional responsibility in K–12 science education.

Today, we know that demonstrations involving open flames and flammable liquids — especially when used for visual impact — carry risks that often far outweigh their instructional value, particularly when safer alternatives exist.

Why These Demonstrations Persist

Despite well-documented incidents, hazardous demonstrations sometimes continue because:

• They are familiar

• They are visually dramatic

• “Nothing bad has happened yet”

But safety decisions cannot be based on past luck. This accident is still being discussed because its consequences were permanent, and the same sequence of decisions could still occur in classrooms today.

What Responsible Science Instruction Looks Like Now

Responsible science education means asking harder, more professional questions:

• Is this demonstration essential to student understanding?

• Can the same concept be taught without open flames or flammable liquids?

• What is my plan if something goes wrong — and is that risk justified?

In the case of the Rainbow experiment, safer instructional alternatives exist, including simulations, videos, microscale methods, and teacher-controlled demonstrations that eliminate or drastically reduce risk.

A Lesson Worth Remembering

The purpose of revisiting a 20-year-old accident is not blame — it is prevention.

Some demonstrations belong in history, not in live classrooms.

Let this be a professional reminder to pause, reflect, and reassess practices that were once common but are no longer defensible under modern safety expectations.

Student engagement should never come at the cost of foreseeable harm.

Need Help Reviewing or Updating Your Lab Safety Practices?

If you’d like support with:

• Safer alternatives to high-risk demonstrations

• Laboratory safety training for staff

• Risk assessment aligned with current standards

• Building a stronger culture of safety and duty of care

📧 Email: Kevin@KevinDoyleConsulting.com📱 Cell: (973) 876-5995

Proactive safety conversations protect students, educators, and institutions — and they are always worth having.

Proactive safety conversations save injuries, careers, and lives — and they are always worth having.