Talk:Chemical accident

Requested move
Withdrawn Parsecboy (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if the page name is American speak, however in Europe the word "accident" suggests that the event was unavoidable. In practice, virtually 100% of chemical incidents could have been prevented Ronhjones (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not according to the OED: "Anything that happens without foresight or expectation"; note the current colloquial usage: an accident waiting to happen. n. a situation which is potentially hazardous, esp. one resulting from neglect or carelessness; someone or something considered liable to cause such a situation.


 * Incident is, by contrast, a bureaucratic euphemism, suggesting that whatever has happened is neither serious nor dangrerous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Pmanderson. Besides, OECD, which is not an American organisation, uses the term accident. older ≠ wiser 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Accident seems better and wins at Googlefight. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - as per dictionary usage already explained above. --DAJF (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK people. I see your point. Maybe I'm 10 years early with this one. The general public still need to be educated in this. For myself, and others I know in Chemical Safety field, we only use the term "accident" when there is no way the event could be avoided. So in fact no one has "accidents" where I work, we only have incidents - the reporting system insists on cause(s) being identified (mainly because it's the only way that safety can be improved). So if I drop a flask or blow up the lab, it's still an incident - one minor and one major. In deference to your comments, I suggest we kill the move idea. I've made a re-direct of chemical incidents to chemical accidents, so that will do for now. Ronhjones (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Chemical accident. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080531162320/http://www.oecd.org:80/about/0,3347,en_2649_34369_1_1_1_1_37465,00.html to http://www.oecd.org/about/0,3347,en_2649_34369_1_1_1_1_37465,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050910005754/http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/ to http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071202023703/http://www.oecd.org:80/topic/0,3373,en_2649_34369_1_1_1_1_37465,00.html to http://www.oecd.org/topic/0,3373,en_2649_34369_1_1_1_1_37465,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070622111345/http://www2.oecd.org/guidingprinciples/index.asp to http://www2.oecd.org/guidingprinciples/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)