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

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours 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
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

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

        • brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          6 hours ago

          First responders need to know that there are two chemicals inside so that they don’t stop taking precautions when they encounter the first one.

        • Cort@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 hours 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
        6 hours 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.