Talk:Hazard (risk)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles

Please Read

I have created this new page to explain hazards with respect to risk and risk assessment. I would not oppose (and would support) merging it with the current Hazard page. I would, however, like a fresh perspective during merging. 570vca (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

At some point, someone included in this article the line "These chemicals become hazards when human activities, like constructing a home or digging a well, create the potential for exposure" when talking about naturally occurring chemicals. This is incorrect. The chemicals have always been hazards. The human activities only increased the exposure of humans to the chemicals. By increasing the exposure, these chemicals, i.e. hazards, now present a risk to humans, where they may not have presented a risk to humans before as they were isolated below the surface. 570vca (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vic, thanks for help with the references. i made changes to the biological hazard section and I was bold and took out the statement about vaccines, because it was a theme that wasn't revisted later in your article and it just seemed out of place. Carol570cjk (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vic, I would appreciate your help with my references (carol: 570:cjk). I added an example to illustrate that the hazards of chemicals are dose-dependent. Remove it if you don't like it.

The example for chemical hazards was a good idea. I edited it a bit to make it more clear. -Vic. 570vca (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vic! I like the information and how you presented it. If I could make one recommendation, it would be on the Hazard Identification section. There is information on how Biological and Chemical hazards are regulated (corollary of how risk is mitigated), but none for Physical and Mechanical. I would recommend adding an example using NOAA, DOT, Consumer Protection, etc. 570mpp (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Thanks -Vic 570vca (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vic, my only concern so far is why you'd add 'vaccine' as a hazard among all the possible examples? Maybe there is good reason you chose it but I'd suggest replacing with something more likely to cause harm. Just a suggestion - Wayne (user: 570wac) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 570wac (talk • contribs) 22:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I chose to include vaccine to show that everything is potential hazard. As we say in toxicology, the dose makes the poison, so even though vaccines are produced using dead or weakened microbes/toxins, there is still a hazard to using them, and thus, still a risk. -Vic 570vca (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I just think that with all the hysterics about vaccine use out there we don't need more of it, but I respect your decision. Aspirin could be a similar choice. (570wac (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

clarification in the "Biological" section

Hi! I wish I had a page like this to refer to when the course began! I feel like I am still using words like risk and hazard incorrectly, but at least I am thinking about them more! The last phrase in the second sentence of your biological section needs some clarification, but I wasn't sure how to reword it. The subject is plural, foodborne illnesses, but the last phrase "one the most avoidable hazard" doesn't make sense grammatically. You could say "one of the most avoidable hazards," but that is singular. ?? Maybe you could just say that "these are often avoidable by thoroughly washing and cooking foods?" 570ceh (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it a bit. Does it look better now? -Vic 570vca (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of GMO hazards

Vic: I find your discussion of GMOs somewhat conjectural, so make sure and use citations to support what you say. I do not think the concept of hazard (as something intrinsic to the stressor) is easily applied in the biological case, especially with respect to GMOs. For instance in Bt corn, the stressor is the expressed product (a protein) not the plant -- the protein has intrinsic toxicity and therefore is a hazard. The act of genetic modification may cause a change in plant composition (perhaps over-expression of an anitnutrient). The stressor again is the antinutrient which has intrinisic hazard (as a toxicant), not the plant. The GM plant might become invasive, but is invasiveness an intrinsic hazard we can identify or a harm manifested under a given set of environmental conditions? A large part of the diffculty with GMO RA is that we cannot initiate the problem on the basis of an identified hazard, but rather on the basis of potential harms that may accrue when released to the environment.570jdw (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed a few things up. Let me know if this addresses your concerns. -Vic 570vca (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added some hyperlinks. Also, from what I've read cry proteins have shown little to no effect on non-target organisms in soil... I know you cite a freshwater paper, but your sentence seems too generalized. I think readers would be better off with a reference to molecular farming which is more relevant and less researched. Here's a very thorough lit review on Bt effects to soil organisms Icoz & Stotzky 2008 Review. (570ajk (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Overall, good topic! I agree with the molecular farming recommendation and the recommended article seems very good. Paper seems good without it, but it may be a good way to improve. Nice work! -Joe 570jby (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Merger proposal

Hazard is the title that this article should have. The current article with the title is of poor quality, based on a single source, about the same topic as far as I can see, and should be merged with this one if there is anything worth merging, so the title can apply to the primary topic, which in my opinion, is this article. In effect, any content of Hazard that is worth saving should be merged into this one and this then be renamed. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion:

full ack. hazard (risk) is what hazard should have been. -- Kku (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- One month has passed with no objections. I will do the merge. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]