Jump to content

Talk:Dangerous goods/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Request for class 9 materials

Good morning, I would like to make a small request, I would like to have all Class 9 hazardous matrials removed from the regulations.With all the exceptions that most class 9 materials have, I dont see why they should even be considered a Hazmat and i do belive that only the United States regulate Class 9 material. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you

Felix

Felix, you are wrong. Class 9 exists in all regulatory schemes and Class 9 materials ARE regulated by other authorities, as well as by the US. For instance, strong magnets are Class 9 when carried by air - and this is in the ICAO/IATA regulations.
Pzavon 03:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dangerous Goods vs Hazardous Chemical

Anyone can tell me the difference between Dangerous Goods (termed in IATA) and Hazardous Chemical (termed in Occupational Health & Safety Regulations)?

Both the classification is quite alike:

DG Class 1 Explosive Class 2 Gases (flammable/ non-flammable/ toxic) Class 3 Flammable liquids Class 4 Flammable solid/ substances liable to spontaneous combustion/ substances which in contact with water emit flammable gasses Class 5 Oxidizing substances/ Organic peroxides Class 6 Toxic substances/ Infectious substances Class 7 Radioactive material Class 8 Corrosive Class 9 Miscellaneous DG

Hazardous Chemical Explosive Oxidising Extremely flammable Highly flammable Flammable --- or --- Very toxic Toxic Harmful Corrosive Irritant

How do I tell whether a particular substance is a DG or Hazardous chemical at a glance?

Thanks!

Tang

"Hazardous Chemical" is a term used in US OSHA regulations. If you are using the OSHA regs and they address a chemical because of its inherent chemical hazard, you have a "Hazardous Chemical".
"Dangerous Good" is a term used in IATA regulations to describe those materials that are subject to regulation as to how they may be transported. Outside the US, the term means, more generally, anything that is subject to safety regulation primarily because of an inherent chemical hazard. The term is never used in US regulatory text. The equivalent term for US regulations on transportation is "Hazardous Material"
The only way to tell if a particular item is DG is to see if it meets the definition in IATA (or in another regulation using the term). The only way to see if a particular item is a Hazardous Chemical is to see whether it fits the definintion of the OSHA regulation. If it fits, it is.
Pzavon 02:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

YESYESYES

OMGOMGOMG I've been wondering where the central repository for all the warning placards is! OMGOMG Now I don't have to try and read them on the prohibition boards going through Pennsylvania!! YES! OMG! THANX 68.39.174.150 08:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

A Frick 00:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hazardous material

Why we don't create just one article to Dangerous goods and Hazardous material. These article are don't treat about the same subject?--Giro720 00:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree. It is really about the same. It just need to be carefully mixed. Kaverin

I Conditionally Agree.

The term Dangerous Goods in some countries is associated with "Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations" (TDG). Hazardous Materials may or may not be Dangerous Goods as defined in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations and are not known by that term when they are being transported. I agree in principle about creating a "Transportation of Dangerous Goods" root directory, but don't know how this info gets organized (aka I don't know how to do it). All trading countries in the world base their TDG rules on UN Recommendations. It would be useful to have this as a root. From there each country's rules could be laid out. What is specifically required in one country may be generally instructive in another, or wrong. Until you / we are able to distinguish the country of origin of the text articles and the time the articles are written, it will continue to be difficult to trust and or use information in these articles for understanding requirements for regulated goods. We need the time line for articles because UN recommendations and country specific regulations are subject to frequent updates. For example the Canadian Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations were completely rewritten in 2002 and have been amended 5 times to date (2006). A Frick 00:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merge with hazardous material

Please discuss at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers#October_2006 -- 790 21:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree --Natasha2006 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In the realm of transportation, "Dangerous Goods" is in fact synonymous with "Hazardous Materials." The term "Hazardous Materials" is used in US transportation rgulations in exactly the same manner as "Dangerous Goods" is used in in IATA, ADR, RID, DGR, TDG and other transportation regulations. (I believe FAA, being a US regulatory agency, uses the term "Hazardous Materials." (I can, however, make no sense out of your last sentence. Would you please clarrify it?) Pzavon 04:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Did some research, and found what you (Pzavon) said is true. Appreciate it. --Natasha2006 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Class 10: Antimatter?

Huh? I have not seen this in any of the formal documents on the topic. Funny, but what is it doing here? I assume it might be used as a in-joke at certain particle accelerators but not as a standard. Besides, does it even exist :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.150.72 (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Anti-matter exists but is not included in the classification system described in this article. I've removed the entry as obvious (though humorous) vandalism. Pzavon 02:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hydrofluoric acid

I have removed the example of hydrofluoric acid under Class 6.1 as it is primarily a Class 8. Subsidiary risks are just that - subsidiary to the main hazard so this should be listed under Class 8, if anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.14.38 (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

New Look

I've reinstated a couple of templates that I had made for this page (and actually had on here) back in September 2007; don't know why they were removed in the first place. There was (and continues to be) no difference other than the layout. I kept the exact verbage intact, it's just formatted better. Hope you folks enjoy the new look. I think it looks 100% better, more compact, etc. (Not to toot my own horn or anything...) Nickersonl (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I find your template version much to "busy". I thought it was fine to provide one example of a label for each class. I would support going back to the other layout. Comments from others? Pzavon (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested merge of Packing Group here

Someone has suggested merging Packing Group into this article, but left no supporting statement. I support such a merge since there is nothing much in the Packing Group article and the topic is relevent only in the context of Dangerous Goods transportation. Pzavon (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have carried out the merge. Please let me know if I was too fast... E-pen (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The section "Other hazardous materials labels (CHIP)" has been vandalised with "I LIKE CHICKEN". I don't know how to edit the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.14.20 (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No instance of that phrase appears anywhere in the current article. Other than the addition of a new photo today, this article has not beem modified since 11 December 2008. I have to conclude that you were somehow looking at an old version of the article.
For future reference, if you do find vandalism like that, don't worry about how to edit a table, go to the History tab, figure out which edit included addition of the vandalistic phrase and use the "undo" function there to get rid of it. Pzavon (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Limited Quantity Cargo Segregation

There are differences in the regulations regarding limited quantity (how small amounts you can transport before restrictions apply) and segregation (distance between same/different type of cargo) between the IMDG (ship), ADR (road), IATA (air) and RID (rail) codes. I experienced this when working on ferries transporting cars and passangers in Norway, but have also seen similar conflicts working on PSV (platform supply vessels). I have also received a limited IATA training as I have done service as Helideck Landing Officer (HLO). Some times the differences in regulations are all but logical for us working with it. Examples on that are gas racks containing oxygen and acetylen bottles can arrive on the same truck, when landed on the deck of a PSV they have to have an internal segregation of at least 6 meters. --Skippern (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There's far too many external links on this page, some of which may be most useful as external links and some of which may be best incorporated as references. I'm not sure which to keep or which to integrate so I've moved them to this talk page for people more familiar with the topic to sort through. If others disagree with this removal, feel free to re-add the links but please consider the advice at Wikipedia:External links. Otherwise, re-add the {{External links}} tag but with an updated date parameter. ClaretAsh 00:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

United States
Canada
European Union
United Kingdom

Organic Peroxide Placard

The image for the Organic Peroxide placard is out of date. See 49 CFR §172.552 "ORGANIC PEROXIDE placard". 205.225.145.1 (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Haz Mat Teams?

Well I came to Wikipedia this evening, looking for the detailed History of the development of Haz Mat teams connected with the Fire Department. Instead I discover some article on handling of hazardous Materials. Oh but yeal at the top 3 sentences to brush off Hazmat teams. No detailed history on the Teams, No description of the equipment they use nothing. Yet World Book Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Britannica totally leave Wikipedia behind. Each has several pages of data on Hazmat teams.

The honest question here is, why did the editors want to white wash Hazmat teams? Why did they choose to ignore all the equipment they use and how the first Hazmat teams were started in the United States.

Yeal, I am not happy. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Symbols of EU not commented and out of date

Hey that orange symbols of the old EU-Guidline are completely uncommented and due to GHS are out-of-date Somebody should change that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.228.67.206 (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

References update

Hello I just updated some references in DG page:

  • replace ref to Qorpak website (private company) for DG classification by UN website UNECE
  • for US: I added ref to wikipedia article about the Agency PHMSA regulating hazmat transport, it is more specfic than reference to DOT
  • Canada: added reference to provincial ministries of transport responsible for DG transport byRoad
  • UK: replace reference to 2011 guide of The Dangerous Goods Emergency Action Code List by 2015 edition

Thank you --Bnawal (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Portal requested move

For your information, see : Portal talk:Hazardous materials#Requested move 1 October 2016.
Tamara Tloftibê (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC). 

\

placard change request

change the poison gas placard to toxic gas because poison gas is not proper English the correct word is poisonous gas comment added by

User:Xjszabo2022

The placard is correct, it might not be proper English but that does not make any difference it is the way the podcasts is written. No need to change it. -- GB fan 22:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 February 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move, but it may be worthwhile to write subtopic articles for at least some individual categories of dangerous goods, specifically including hazardous materials. bd2412 T 17:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Dangerous goods → Hazardous materials – WP:COMMONNAME The article says that "in the United States, United Kingdom, and sometimes in Canada, dangerous goods are more commonly known as hazardous materials (abbreviated as HAZMAT or hazmat)." Needforspeed888 (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  22:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The sources say strong and plain, "dangerous goods". Hazardous materials are a subset of dangerous goods, albeit a large group. Dangerous goods includes things like machines, which may have freely spinning parts that can resonate, or things containing partially fluid-filled compartments, thinks that are not hazardous materials but are dangerous in a plane or even a truck. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    That is quite an important disinction. It should be explained in the article, and mentioned in the lead. Hazardous materials has potential as a standalone article when someone has the time, inclination, and sources to write it.
    I guess that comes over as an oppose for the move per SmokeyJoe. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is about chemicals and other materials. Also, the portal is already called Portal:Hazardous materials with a redirect from Portal:Dangerous goods. There should probably be a second page for dangerous goods which aren't also hazardous materials. Danielklein (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. This article's content is about hazardous materials, so that's what the title should be. If someone wants to create a separate article on dangerous goods, they can. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, SmokeyJoe has a valid sounding objection, but after looking over the article I have to agree with others that the article is about hazardous materials, not about the broader "dangerous goods" topic. So, I support the move per common name, but moreso simply because it's the more accurate title for this article's topic. Hazardous materials is already a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article, so there is no primary topic issue either. --В²C ☎ 21:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I think. At any rate as В²C notes these are two different topics. Hazardous materials are not even a subset of dangerous goods, because materials can be hazardous even if they are not "goods" for consumption or trade ("goods are materials that satisfy human wants and provide utility"), e.g. Hazardous waste or Biological hazards, both of which already have their own articles. Dekimasuよ! 21:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Dekimasu, I agree with what you're saying, but, again, if you look at the content of the article, it is about hazardous materials (whether they are waste or not, whether they are biological hazards, or not). Unless I'm missing something, although I agree dangerous goods is a separate topic from hazardous materials, this article about hazardous materials is not about dangerous goods, and the title should be changed to correct that. There may be an argument to be made for transforming this article's content so that it is about dangerous goods, but that's not happening at this time, and I suggest it would be too major a rewrite. Instead, I suggest renaming this one as proposed, and starting a new article on dangerous goods that is really about that topic. --В²C ☎ 21:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The article needs work, to properly cover the scope of Dangerous goods. It is a very broad topic of particular importance to transport. https://www.fedex.com/en-us/service-guide/dangerous-goods.html https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/hazard-labels-dangerous-goods.
Hazardous materials are more relevant to stores, plants, and firefighting. Arguably more important, you are probably more familiar with seeing HazMat signs on the street than DG labels on packaging. Depending on your perspective.
Fixing an apparent scope-title mismatch by changing the title is the wrong way to fix. DG is the broad topic. Hazardous materials immediately breaks down to subtopics, extremely dissimilar subtopics. Handling and response to different hazardous materials, eg explosives, radiative, dry ice, are of negligible similarity. Handling of them as Dangerous Goods, on the other hand, is very similar, similar legislation, responsibilities, packaging and labelling. Reviewing the page again, it has very strong emphasis on transport and international aspects, and this is clearly to do with transport, not storage.
I don’t think there even should be a separate Hazardous materials page, because collectively they are better covered as DGs. They HM subgroups should be important pages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC). E.g Explosive#Classification_of_explosive_materials is the main page of substance on explosives as a hazard. I think maybe is should be spunout. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Is this an ENGVAR issue? I note this opening in a version from 2007:
Dangerous goods are substances which pose risk to health, safety, property or the environment during operation and/or transportation. (In the United States, the equivalent term is Hazardous Material. [2]
--В²C ☎ 23:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No, it is not ENGVAR. HazMat and DG are not synonymous, similar, but different, with most of HazMat representing the dominant subset of DGs, but the intentions of the terms are different. HazMat is a local authority issue of storage, DG covers everything. It is internationally defined and agreed language. I think Fedex is a good US centric example. Not ENGVAR. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I noticed someone altered the two first sentences to distinguish between dangerous goods and hazardous materials, and I applaud that. However, as mentioned a few times in this discussion, this article deals much more with the materials than the goods. As such, I still think the article title and the lead sentence should accurately reflect what the bulk of the article covers. The intro could read as follows:
Hazardous materials (abbreviated as HAZMAT or hazmat) are substances, solids, liquids, or gases that can harm people, other living organisms, property, or the environment. Dangerous goods, abbreviated DG, are items or substances that when transported are a risk to health, safety, property or the environment, more specifically.

I just began with the more general term and then introduced the more specific term. Needforspeed888 (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Hazardous materials are a subset of dangerous goods. Any material that is hazardous in storage has a DG classification in transport, but some DGs are not hazardous materials.
"as mentioned a few times in this discussion, this article deals much more with the materials than the goods"? But that is obviously wrong. Read the article. Let's go through the sections:
1 Handling
the main purpose in "handling" is transport, and for transport DG applies, not HazMat.
2 Global regulations
Global regulations apply to transport, not to storage. DG not HazMat.
3 Classification and labeling summary tables
Information is common to DG and HazMat.
4 Other hazardous materials labels (CHIP)
No content, section should be cut.
Sections 5-8 inclusive
All international considerations, applies to DG not HazMat. Not sure why this article has a strong Five Eyes bias for coverage.
9 Packing groups
Packing groups are for packing considerations that are for transport considerations and is a DG issue over a HazMat issue.
10 Transport documents
Transport documents are squarely a DG issue, not a HazMat issue.
11 See also
n/a
12 References
Replete with "Dangerous Goods"
13 Further reading
Appears to imply that Shipping is the dominant perspective
14 External links
DG.
Template: Template:Hazardous_materials. Templates should follow their parent articles, the template needs renaming, not the article.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Needforspeed888, what do you think of my idea that this topic would be improved by spinnout subarticles for each of the nine classes of hazardous materials? These classes are very diverse, it is awkward to think of trying to cover them collectively. Spinning them out would help remove the confusion between the nine classes and the multiple other ways of classifying, such as: "Division" of explosive; and Packing Group. I think it makes little sense to try to explain packing groups across the multiple classes. When talking of explosives, it makes little sense, and hurts clarity, to need to use language consistent with the other classes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that's worth a try. Needforspeed888 (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Placard Images not consistent with text description

So, I noticed in the section with the hazard placards "Classification and labeling summary tables" it says "The graphics and text in this article representing the dangerous goods safety marks are derived from the United Nations-based system of identifying dangerous goods."

But the graphics are all of United States Department of Transportation placards. I've been doing some editing in these templates recently, so I'm pretty comfortable with changing out images, and can locate suitable UN placards images.
Is there an argument against changing the images out? I think making it consistent with the text makes more sense, given the UN placards represents a broader perspective than the USDOT placards which are only used in the USA.--The Navigators (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so nobody's objected to this, so I'm going to start changing them over, but it will take a little time, due to the way the templates are set up.--The Navigators (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Aspects regarding developing countries?

I have just added some information about what SDG 3 and SDG 6 say about targets on hazardous chemicals. Overall, I am wondering: is the article too focused on wealthy countries? Should we include some information on issues in developing countries (or is that in another sub-article already; if so, we could just link to that more prominently)? I am thinking of issues around lack of regulation, lack of enforcement, perhaps more dumping, dangers to public health etc. EMsmile (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested split 25 April 2021

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus Only 1 reply has been made and therefore it is invalid (non-admin closure) MoonlightVectorTalk page 17:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The article mixes up the general description of Hazardous Materials ("HazMat") with Regulations on the use and storage of chemicals as regulated in the GHS[1] (Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals) and Regulations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods[2] (DGR). These two regulation systems have different purposes, different "labels", and require description in separate articles.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ United Nations (UNECE) (ed.), Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals
  2. ^ United Nations (UNECE) (ed.), UN Model Regulations, UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods - Model Regulations

Third Paragraph

The third paragraph is a mess because it's conflating the NFPA 704 4-color diamond (used in fixed facility settings) with the diamonds used for hazard classes in transportation. The description of why certain colors are used is interesting, but questionable as it contains no citations. Michael pirrello (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, information specific to one country shouldn't be in the lead of an article about a global subject. And most of what is claimed about the US (i.e., diamond-shaped signs and the colours) isn't actually specific to the US anyway. Dricherby (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Removed a section on synthetic chemicals

I have just removed this text block as I don't think it fits there in a Level-1 category (it also seemed outdated to me): "Synthetic chemical production has escalated following the stimulus it received during the Second World War. Chemical production includes everything from herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers to domestic chemicals and hazardous substances.[1] Chemicals of particular concern include: heavy metals, nuclear waste, chlorofluorocarbons, persistent organic pollutants and all harmful chemicals capable of bioaccumulation. Although most synthetic chemicals are harmless there needs to be rigorous testing of new chemicals, in all countries, for adverse environmental and health effects. International legislation has been established to deal with the global distribution and management of dangerous goods.[2][3] The effects of some chemical agents needed long-term measurements and a lot of legal battles to realize their danger to human health. The classification of the toxic carcinogenic agents is handled by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. EMsmile (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Emden, H.F. van & Peakall, D.B. (1996). Beyond Silent Spring. Berkeley: Springer. ISBN 978-0-412-72810-5.
  2. ^ Hassall, K.A. (1990). The Biochemistry and Uses of Pesticides. London: Macmillan. ISBN 0-333-49789-9.
  3. ^ Database on Pesticides Consumption. Statistics for pesticide use around the world. Retrieved on: 10 March 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dangerous_goods/Archive_1&oldid=1171267571"