Talk:Biological hazard

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is it just me or this article a stub? Tar7arus 14:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

symbol

How does the symbol relate to this neo-pagan symbol? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.40.143.115 (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It doesn't. The Biohazard Symbol was developed in the 1970s without reference to obscure religious symbols. Its was influenced by the Radiation Trifoil, which also used a tripple symetry. Pzavon 04:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're wrong. The Symbol originated in the time of Feudal-Age Japan as a family crest which in turn originated from a chinese character. File:Page 195 - Chinese Characters.jpg --Arima 04:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost anyone can create a graphic like this these days. Show me a credible reference that confirms the biohazard symbol originated in Feudal Japan. THEN show me documentation that such a symbol had any influence on on the people who proposed the design for the current biohazard warning symbol or was even known to them.
My four year old drew a symbol like that once. I'm now convinced he's the reincarnation of an anceint Japanse lord...or perhaps it was chance that some obscure symbol from a thousand years ago looks kinda like something my 4 year old drew...go figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.6 (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this constitutes documentation of the usage of this symbol in Feudal Japan, but in the samurai movie "When the Last Sword is Drawn", the "biohazard" symbol shows up very prominently as the mon (clan crest) of one of the characters. (See 33:02 into the movie.) Since the movie is based on historical characters, I'm guessing that the mon is historical as well. I'm inferring from the movie that the crest was for the Ono clan, but I can't seem to verify it by any cursory searches on Google images for the Ono mon. Also, a Google image search for the term "Hagakure" returns a lot of hits with this "biohazard" symbol. It does actually seem to be a Japanese crest from the feudal era. --Berkana (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a similar Japanese family crest known as "三ツ大" or "Mitsudai" that predates the Biohazard symbol by (I believe) at least two hundred years, and is worn by the holders of the Kabuki name "Bandō Minosuke". The Wikimedia-hosted 三ツ大 image is used on several Japanese entries pertaining to the Kabuki franchise and the family it borrows the crest from. I believe "三ツ大" roughly translates to "three '大's"— as in, "arrange three '大' glyphs in a circle". People who live in places where both symbols are seen sometimes point out their similarities, which is relevant, because the biohazard symbol's design process called for it to be "memorable but meaningless". The broken image link to "Page_195_-_Chinese_Characters.jpg" added above by user Arima in 2007 seems to reference Page 195 of "Japanese Design Motifs", an exhaustive collection of Japanese family crests published by Dover Publications in 1972 (but was originally compiled in 1913). The page in question depicts a 三ツ大 that is (in my opinion) easily and immediately mistaken for the biohazard symbol. Without further research, we can't be sure whether the crest in the '72 book took its shape from the biohazard symbol, or whether the biohazard symbol took its shape from the crest, but the odds that their similarities can be attributed to coincidence is slim. --Rezmason (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


"similar in most respects to modern precautions against everyday viruses (i.e.: washing one's hands with anti-bacterial soap"

-- antibacterial soap does not kill viruses. Antibacterial soap kills bacteria... --HGHSTROJAN (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific explanation is that water kills viruses because it suffocates them, just like drowning a mammal or a fish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.32.143 (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging?

I think this article should be merged with Biosafety Level. Both articles contain almost the same info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.35.0 (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has the potential for expansion much beyond the topic of Biosafety levels. Any merger should result in the survival of this article and removal of the BioSafety Level article. Pzavon (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

isn't Y. pestis a bacterium?

I just wanted to throw out there that Y. pestis is a bacterium and the class 4 biohazards has it listed and states that class 4 is only for viruses. Aliasxerog (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YES it is

Just logged in to mention that ... glad to see you aready have, I'll correct it ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szekely janos (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Word order

Is there a reason why, for Levels 1-3, the first words are "Bacteria and viruses", and for Level 4, the first words are "Viruses and bacteria"? It's the tiniest of issues, but I skimmed over the four levels to see if, for example, 4 had only viruses, and it took a moment to see what happened. ALTON .ıl 04:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Paragraph

What does a woman from Modesto and her decomposing neighbor have to do with ANYTHING? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.123.118 (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expert verification

Hi. I'm an expert, and I verify this article. 67.249.232.42 (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really were anything like an expert you would have an account and use it instead of posting anonymously. Thnidu (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge symbol section

A lot of the information in Biological hazard#Symbol is duplicated in Hazard symbol#Biohazard sign. The latter could be pared back with a link to the former for further information. Oktalist (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

response: Removing the biohazard symbol from the list of warning symbols doesn't make any sense - if anything, it should eb the other way around, with the detailed information about the symbol there and a link from the page on biological hazards as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.167.84 (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Biological hazard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{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 to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Biological hazard. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Biological hazard. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is one of the images incorrect?

The main black on yellow image has sharp points, but the symbol with dimensions has points that are squared off according to dimension C. I also feel that the main image should be an SVG not a PNG as recommended here. Elkfoot (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly include and elaborate about Plant pathogens

Plant pathogens are necessarily biohazards. They include a versatile kind of slime-moulds, fungi, bacteria, viruses, viroids. They are hazardous because

  • Plant pathogens can spread and destroy food crop plants and agricultural fields. (See also: Famine )
  • or can destroy or even wipe-out vegetation and biodiversity (See also : Forest_dieback)
  • or can deteriorate stored food grains/cereals, vegetables, etc. that makes the food inedible or toxic and/or distasteful. That can cause financial loss as well as hunger. (See also: Food spoilage , Post-harvest_losses_(vegetables))
  • Some plant pathogens and even plant beneficial microbes (some benificial endophytes that promote the plant to grow, without no appearent visible lesion) infect the live plant can make the plant toxic to human and cattle, such as some ergots.
  • Some plant pathogens can cross infect human or cattle, and can be deadly. such as Aspergillus spores.
  • Some plant pathogen spores can survive for prolonged period, so after a prolonged period of unfavourable condition to the micobe when the optimal environmental coditions match the plant pathogens can multiply exponentially and can cause plant disease or famine.
  • Some bacteria such as some rhizobacteria are able to transfer DNA into plants, which get integrated into host plant's DNA.

So I request to elaborate on plant pathogens as biohazards, and their safe handling methods and regulations.

2409:4060:2017:F88E:A5E0:8244:A65:A7F2 (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed misinformation about COVID-19

As of 17:56, 14 April 2020, Pbsouthwood added COVID-19 to the list of "Bacteria and viruses that can cause severe to fatal disease in humans, but for which vaccines or other treatments exist" in §Levels of biohazard. This was not supported by the cited CDC reference: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) > Lab Biosafety Guidelines,Updated March 31, 2020.

I removed the mention and reference.

--Thnidu (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol graphic with dimensions

I've moved the orange symbol graphic with dimensions from the lede paragraph, where it is redundant with the main graphic and its level of detail is excessive, to the Symbol section.

--Thnidu (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SARS-COV-2 and caption: BRD

SARS-CoV-2 usually causes mild illness in humans, but is capable of causing severe illness that can result in death, particularly among the elderly, pregnant women and those with a weakened immune system or certain medical conditions.

With this diff, Captain Cornwall made a bold edit by adding the image and caption at the right. The caption not an accurate summary of the SARS-COV-2 and COVID-19 articles, and frankly reads to me as wp:advocacy for the view that the efffect of COVID-19 is overstated for the large majority of people. The image has the additional problem that an isolated virus does not come with a biohazard warning, such as might be found on bags of clinical waste: it really is not a relevant image for this article.

Rather than revert it straight away per wp:Bold, Revert, Discuss, I tried to tone down the POV-pushing caption to read "SARS-CoV-2, the cause of COVID-19". The wp:Short description at SARS-Cov-2 reads "Virus strain that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)"

Captain Cornwall reverted this compromise, saying that [this short description] "is debatable", insisting on their version. Consequently I am now reverting the original change per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. An argument must be made (a) whether or not this image is useful in this article, recalling that "images are to inform, not to decorate" and (b) [if it is] what caption is appropriate, recalling WP:FORK. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Biological_hazard"