Talk:Hazard symbol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Chemical Weapon and Biological Hazard

It's awesome that they changed the radiation symbol. The chemical weapons and the biological hazard signs aren't exactly threatening looking though, if one didn't know what they stood for. The biohazard one sort of looks like some kind of cotton plant or something. The laser sign too. It isn't immediately obvious that whatever it is, can be really bad for you. Are there any attempts at all to change these, I wonder? 192.33.240.95 (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

just merge it, cant see why not.

As I am unfamiliar with merge, I don't know if this is redundant, but when you merge, don't forget to keep Mr Yuk. This is a more useful page than Warning Symbol for me, because I wanted the history of the symbols. However, I think I may be retarded, so this probably doesn't matter.--128.113.198.122 03:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change

I read in the paper today that the radiation symbol has changed. A.Z. 18:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The radiation symbol has not changed. A symbol for ionising radiation has been introduced to differentiate ionising radiation from other kinds of radiation (laser light gets the radiation symbol, for instance - it's not good enough to label a source with the radiation symbol if could be confused with a laser assembly, for instance). Mattabat 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for tag

I think that the European symbols are treated as studid wierd l symbols u holly k crap a hi hi. thereby not giving the article a worldwide view.--Dark Green 23:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hazard symbols details

I am converting a few hazard symbols to vector format. I noticed there are some unreadable details in the raster images - looks like it's manufacturing identifier and a UN conformance... I would like some help in converting those.
I believe my talk would be the best place to do this but I'm adding this to the watchlist anyway.
MaxDZ8 talk 19:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

Dark Green, yes, it is treated differently. The symbols have diffrent meanings and are inturpreted a totaly different way. It is in no way being discriminatory to countries outside the US. Tag removed unless someone else sees differently.

Origin of biohazard?

I thought the biohazard symbol orignates from a Japanese feudal banner, but I can't find this anywhere. Any ideas? kzm 09:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laser symbol?

A typical laser warning symbol.

I think adding 'laser hazard' symbol is a good idea... pic from Laser safety... FourBlades 10:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.-- Penubag  00:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added First Trefoil Design

I added an SVG of what the Radioactive trefoil first looked like in 1946, I hope this is alright. --888gavin (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


That's great! Thanks! -- penubag  02:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Yuk?

Dunno if it's been mentioned, but what about Mr. Yuk? Applejuicefool (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it's a trademarked symbol, so it can only be used on the actual article page for Mr. Yuk. Does it deserve a non-pictured mention here? Applejuicefool (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um...nevermind. *sigh* Was looking for the symbol on the main page. I figured out it was trademarked, but then didn't check back to see if someone had already done what I suggested. Applejuicefool (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's trademarked or not doesn't mean we cannot use it in this article, its just that it would have little purpose as Mr.Yuk is not nearly as widely used as the skull and cross bones. -- penubag  (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it's "fair use"...I thought that meant it could only be used on the actual article for the topic itself...in this case, Mr. Yuk. Mr. Yuk IS a well-known and recognized symbol, if perhaps a bit dated. Is this article only for symbols that are in current use? Why include the blue and purple radiation symbol, then? Applejuicefool (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, we could use FU images mostly anywhere, but that shouldn't be a problem since in my opinion, Mr. Yuk is notable enough to have an image of him in this article[dubious – discuss]. At the most, we should only mention it in the article somewhere and link to the Mr. Yuk article, but we don't need to have a picture. Articles are for discussing everything on the subject, including the history, so in this case the blue trefoil is completely notable. If you really think having an image of Mr. Yuck is needed, go ahead and add it, I'll mod the FUR.-- penubag  (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DHS Safety symbols

I was looking for this stuff after seeing some of these. Wondering why the DHS wants us to run from Backstreet Boys and Michael Bolton. --John Moser (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

"European hazard sign, saying highly inflammable (33) - gasoline (1203)" - Is it vandalism? Why is there a warning for highly inflammable? 64.231.106.61 (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert but you can try delving into the article history [1] to see if the first revision has been changed. You can use this automated tool to search for that revision [2] if you're lazy, or if you're in doubt, you can delete that section because material that is entered without a citation can be removed. Also, if it's really bugging you to find out,
WP:RD would be the place to ask this question.-- penubag  (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
is there confusion about this flammable vs inflammable?[3] 71.204.128.185 (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammable vs flammable

Flammable may be easier to understand by many, but inflammable is still correct. I suggest that we use the word inflammable but we link it to either Wiktionary or the linguistics section of the article

Flammability. That way it would be both linguistically correct and easy to understand. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Since no one opposed, I, being bold, made the changes. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Inflammable may be just as correct as flammable, but why not use the word that is easier to understand? Why make people have to look it up? If you search for "inflammable" in Wikipedia, you are taken to the article on
Flammability
where there is a discussion of the two words and the confusion "inflammable" sometimes produces. The only citation in the entire article says the following:
“Inflammable” means the same thing as “flammable”: burnable, capable of being ignited or inflamed. So many people mistake the “in-” prefix as a negative, however, that it has been largely abandoned as a warning label.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/inflammable.html
Wiktionary says:
Inflammable can be misinterpreted as an antonym of flammable and so taken to have the opposite meaning to that intended. Where such confusion might arise, especially where this may be a safety hazard, one may prefer to use flammable or another synonym.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inflammable (emphasis mine)
Let's change it to "flammable" and keep it that way unless there's a good reason to prefer the more confusing word. Ileanadu (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical weapons symbol

What is the history of the Chemical warfare symbol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.187.104 (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the triangle/rectangle/octagon?

I live in Canada, which might be at play, but I remember learning about a set of product safety labels where the triangle, rectangle, and octagon represented severity, and explosive hazard, skull and crossbones, and others were represented. 68.144.80.168 (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info about the topic of Safety sign.....

--58.38.47.48 (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--58.38.47.48 (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--58.38.47.48 (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--58.38.47.48 (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--58.38.47.48 (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice links to information about safety signs, but are you suggesting that something be done to the article?Ileanadu (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding "warning sign" section

Expanded the section mentioned above and removed notice. Also changed plain images into thumbnails. Please notify me if this is wrong. Astatine211 (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Astatine211[reply]

Carcinogenicity Warning?

Is there a commonly used sign to indicate something is carcinogenic? If there isn't there should be. As far as I know, there isn't one in the U.S. There's a symbol, which can be seen at

Carcinogenicity, that has been proposed by the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, but I have never seen it in use anywhere. Moreover, I personally find it unclear. I might know now that it means (potentially) carcinogenic, but I didn't before. Ileanadu (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I have also seen this, which might work in English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish, but I don't know if it works for others. I think the chaining of the C's to suggest the DNA molecule is creative:
http://www.safety.vanderbilt.edu/training/hazcom/haz_15.htm

Ileanadu (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it indicated as the biohazard trefoil in a triangle on a purple background with "Carcinogen" beneath it. 86.44.41.1 (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing of Biohazard Symbol

The relative sizes of the graphical elements described are completely wrong. I tried to draw it like described, but the symbol looks too fat then. The correct measurements are described here: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_WSH_part476_54539_7.pdf --TeakHoken91.47.69.52 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


link lost Composcompos12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 12:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hazard symbol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the "chemical weapons" symbol actually exist?

I've looked at multiple international standards (ISO 7010, GHS, etc) for the "chemical weapons" symbol as shown, and done every google search I can think of, and can find no evidence that the symbol on the page is actually used officially by any body. The page linked in the citation (the page for chemical weapons) does not show the symbol, nor can I find the symbol in that page's history. If we can't find a better reference (or, well, a reference at all), perhaps the symbol should be removed?

Elfchief (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfD for radiation hazard symbol

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO 361, a deletion discussion for an article about the ISO standardization of the radiation hazard symbol, and comment there if you have an opinion. One potential outcome of that discussion (depending on participant concensus) would be to merge that article here, or to split off more of the content from here to expand the other article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hazard_symbol&oldid=1205812445"