Talk:Dangerous goods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sorry for my english.

Remember that in Europe (and other countrys subscribed to European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road ) the labels are a few differents than USA. es:User:Patxi Aguado

Contents

[edit] 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 creat 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)