Talk:Hazmat suit

Photo is inappropriate

 * The photo with this article is identified as a "flash suit." While it provides some protection from hazardous materials, as I understand it this is primarily a firefighting suit.  It certainly does not match the description of a Hazmat suit implied in the introductory paragraph of the article.  I am inclined to remove it.  Comments?  Pzavon 01:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but don't remove the photo before finding a new one. --seifip 12:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The level A suit typically provides fire protection as well. Fuzzform 04:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * According to NFPA, Level A, B, C and D *protection* are relate to chemical protection, and not fire protection. Normally, a level A protection includes a vapor-tight suit and SCBA. Manu 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This picture is correctly identified as a HazMat suit. This is a single-skin NFPA 1991 certified Level A suit(Vapor tight)as manufactured by Kappler(or DuPont).
 * Also, the article does not imply that it provides protection from ALL the named dangers. MadMaxDog 11:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am adding a photo to the article showing a typical Level B suit. Dragomiloff 03:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A, B, C and D levels
The article refers to suits as Level A, B,C and D "suits". It is actually "Level A, B, C and D *protection*, as defined in NFPA 471 (Chapter 7). Manu 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * right. i thought that had been fixed.  Pzavon 04:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Picture of level C suit, from the Department of Justice website. Not sure where in the article it should go, so I put it here instead. Fuzzform 04:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Its a good picture, but I feel at the moment, having three images would clutter up the article. Maybe later when it has grown somewhat more? Won't get lost, sitting here in the talkpage. MadMaxDog 08:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

NBC - Proposed merger
Does the NBC suit article means the same thing? Just pointing out 201.51.71.179 19:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed that NBC suit be merged into this article. Both cover much the same material, but the concept of a "HazMat" suite is a bit broader, as well as older. Pzavon 02:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this idea: that article says little this doesn't. Platte Daddy 05:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I oppose the idea. A NBC suit is a special suit worn by soldiers and the chemical protection suits by largely civilians. They have quite different design constraints. The charcoal felt suits are fine for soldiers at low to intermediate threat and allow the wearer to fight. A full HazMat suit may protect at high concentrations with all the sensors and precautions that a civilian can use but the wearers are more dainty in their actions. A slight hole in this argument is the Soviet NBC suit that is rubberised canvas but with a charcoal respitator; is that a NBC suit or a HazMat? I would argue that whilst the body cover is high the respirator is lower spec and the purpose is that the wearer can fight. 07:07, 7th Sept 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.148.117 (talk)

```` I also oppose this as it now is "much the same" and by leaving each different it allows you to make additions to one or the other as research and technology progress, keeping uses and future uses different and making additions that may be quite expensive to one and not the other etc. Things change. If they are merged, more definitive explanations should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger A. Newman (talk • contribs) 22:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. I slightly changed the NBC article to make clear that it would be the military version of a hazmat suit. Ingolfson 07:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made a similar change to the introduction of this article, indicating the Hazmat suit as a civilian device and adding a wikilink to the NBC suite article. Pzavon 02:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

MOPP suit
I was thinking wouldnt the mopp suit go in this catagorie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.116.200 (talk • contribs)


 * Nah, that should stay a different article, not all should be merged. But thanks for the pointer, I added it to see also. Ingolfson 10:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hazmat is an American English word
I am quite sure that Hazmat is an American English word and not used elsewhere. Please use a more universal English word. Hazmat is not a word at all but an acronym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.198.34 (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In Denmark we use the word 'hazmat' as well. I.e. "Det er en hazmat-dragt" which would translate to "It is a hazmat-suit". --Heb (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide View
I agree that the article seems to be more about US applications of hazmat suits, but ¿how would you suggest it be edited to be universal? I’m not really sure it can be.97.120.230.36 (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON
 * The content as such is pretty standard I believe, but the wording in a lot of cases are American. To make it less US, would IMO require a complete rewrite. --Heb (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"In Fiction" superfluous as usual
For one thing, all claims made in the "In Fiction" section of this article are conclusions made by whoever's been writing the section and is not from a source that can be cited per Wikipedia policy.--60.43.34.23 (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Personal protective equipment
I suggest this remain as a separate article with an overview and link in the personal protective equipment article; I think this is a suitable topic for its own article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At the very least each article needs to discuss their relationship; right now neither is mentioned in the other. Looking at it again, this should probably be approached by restructuring the PPE article to provide a proper overview of the whole bunch of articles in the see also sections. Also, Hazmat seems to be a specifically North American term. What would be the proper scope for this article? --Paul_012 (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

History needed
The article currently has little or no information about the history of these suits: when and how were they developed? It would be great if information about that could be added to the article. —Lowellian (reply) 23:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)