Aside of these signs and the address numbers, the building is completely unmarked.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    As others have said, these are NFPA signs.

    What I want to know is why there are two different ones. What the hell does that mean?

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        But it’s just slapped on the side of the building with no indication of which chemicals the labels are for, I don’t think that’s how it’s supposed to be done. It’d be like mixing two chemicals into a bottle and then putting two labels on it.

        I think there should just be one label that combines the warning levels of both i.e. 3-2-2-W

        • Devadander@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Why are you assuming the chemicals are mixed together inside the building? Two separate chemicals, two distinct risks.

            • Cort@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              They’re required to be individually labeled/categorized. And supposed to be on 2 exterior walls, and any doors, and on the containers themselves

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Sure, but I don’t think the building should have two labels. I think it should have one label that reflects a warning for everything in the building.

            Imagine you have a crate with two different chemicals. The chemicals are in different bottles so they aren’t mixed, and each bottle has its own label.

            Should the crate have two unidentified labels like this, or one? There’s no indication what those labels refer to on the building.

    • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      Section 4.2.3.3 of NFPA 704 guides how to handle multiple chemicals.

      You can combine the worst of each category into a composite, list each individually, or do a hybrid option.

      The posts saying there are two chemicals are true but likely incomplete… There are probably several different chemicals and they decided to go with the hybrid method.

      My guess is that they combined the worst rating of everything that doesn’t need special handling, and have a stand alone for the chemical that is incompatible with water (or even combined for several chemicals that are incompatible with water).

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        That makes sense, but it’s still strange because it means in the case of a fire the entire building has to be treated the same anyway because there is something in the building that reacts with water even if its separate.

        I guess it is helpful to indicate that there are multiple substances that have different reaction profiles, but it still seems strange to me.

        • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yeah it’s really there to guide how fucked up it can be and not really be mega prescriptive. It’s not like quantities are on there, either.

          Ideally a fire department shows up, sees the signs and then gets in contact with the building owner to start being more specific about what’s ahead of them before they just start dumping a ton of water on the building.

    • spizzat2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m no expert, so I can’t tell for sure, but my guess is that they’re storing two different chemicals. The left one looks like it’s a non-flammable, extremely hazardous material that shouldn’t be exposed to water (maybe an alkali metal, like lithium or sodium). The right one is a hazardous material that is a fire hazard above 93°C (200°F), but otherwise stable (maybe some kind of diesel?)

      So… If I had to take a wild guess, diesel and lithium batteries?

      • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Reading this made me wonder how metallic lithium is stored and, guess what, it’s stored in oil. So, which label do you use for a container holding lithium and oil? I’m guessing you need two, one for the lithium and one for the oil. And here we are.

        No, I don’t think this building is filled with lithium and covered in oil, but I suspect there is more than one container containing metallic lithium covered in oil.