Incoroporate ng-directive for GHS symbols DEADLINE:

[canismarko]

Based on this e-mail conversation:

Hi, Gene.

Short answer: yes it's possible, but maybe we're thinking about it wrong.

Long answer: Yes, but aren't those already covered in the other three NFPA ratings: health, flammability and instability? W, OX and SA are the only three official NFPA special hazards. Perhaps a better approach would be to add a section for GHS pictograms since that's more relevant to researchers whereas NFPA is more for emergency responders. I think we should still include the NFPA ratings in the form but emphasize the GHS symbols.

Thoughts?

Mark

On 04/22/2016 04:41 PM, Gene Nolis wrote:

Hey guys,
Would it be possible to add

• corrosive
• flammable
• toxic
• carcinogen
  to the "special hazards" section?
  I think it is important to have these hazards in the database because we have to separate chemicals based on these hazards. Oxidizer is another hazard that can be separated, but it is already in the list.
  And... would it be possible to change the special hazards label to "primary hazard" since this is how UIC EHSO likes to divide chemicals.
  Best,
  Gene

Gene Nolis
Graduate Student
Dr. Jordi Cabana's research group
Univ. of Illinois at Chicago

[canismarko]

After talking with Gene, let's just drop NFPA and, for now, have users pick one GHS "primary hazard" by pictogram.

[canismarko]

Changed this to be multiple GHS hazards, since they're all important. These now show up in the forms and on the chemical detail page but don't yet have a nice picker.