Talk:Plenum

Plenum cable toxicity
"Plenum rated cable has slow-burning, fire-resistant casing that emits little smoke"

You should add a note that plenum-rated cable is considered toxic by some.

''The next time someone says that the job requires Plenum Cable, show them this article, and make sure you download the MSDS Sheet for Teflon, (the material that covers Plenum cable)... Confirm that they are willing to sign off on the job, using Plenum Cable, and the Liabilities therein... Also explain to them that the Plenum will cost them between $.75 and $1.00 per foot, and this may change their mind... This was in the Mike Holt new letter!!!'' Mike Holt newsletter


 * Before 9/11, most of us never thought of a passenger airplane as a weapon. With recent revelations from the MSDS for Teflon and the information from the United States Army Medical Research Institute about TOXIC TEFLON gases as a pulmonary agent (chemical warfare weapon), we have had to reappraise our thinking about the safety of the communications cabling workplace.


 * There is a new focus on abandoned cable removal in order to reduce the fuel load in the workplace. In the U.S.A., there is approximately 8 1/2 million miles of abandoned cable in the workplace. Most of that cable contains Teflon® FEP or Neoflon® FEP (approximately 11 lbs. per thousand feet of plenum cable). This material is potentially highly toxic and extremely corrosive. 500 million lbs. of FEP = a potential super weapon or threat to the U.S. workplace. What staggers the imagination is the fact that none of the testing protocols for communications cable (which is placed in the air systems) measure toxicity or corrosivity (both are extremely significant threats to life and property). The current tests measure fire and smoke but disregard toxic gases.


 * For the past 25 years, the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) has not addressed the toxicity issue in the development of the updated National Electrical Code. We have the technology to monitor for toxic gases and activate safety systems in the indoor air systems to protect the building occupants. This important step towards safety may not happen until the NEC recognizes the toxic properties of the materials that are allowed in the building air systems. Awareness is a critical first step to safety in the (electrical) workplace.


 * DuPont Teflon® FEP MSDS. (Please download and print this PDF file [1.25MB] and read carefully) This is a matter of the Public Right To Know & Public Safety


 * Important Note:
 * This information comes from the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense, Medical Management of Chemical Casualties Handbook. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/army/mmcch/PulmAgnt.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.99.182 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 July 2007

Disambiguation style
I don't believe my edit was "bad", nor that it merged different concepts (histlink). Disambiguation pages have a very particular style, with a well-thought-out rationale. In short, dab pages are signposts, not articles. They're intended to point readers towards the correct article. As such, they should be concise, with a single link per entry, and with the target term listed and linked first. Dab pages don't exist to host content for articles not written yet. (stubs can hold short content if needed.) •  As for the different concepts, it seemed pretty clear to me that most of the entries in the old version were just restating the same concept. The start of the second entry restates the first entry (positive pressure); the rest of that entry is the definition of a plenum chamber. The fourth entry is a restatement of plenum chamber in the context of organ bellows. It's not a different concept because it's on a different piece of equipment. The first sentence seventh entry gives the definition of plenum chamber. The second sentence gives examples of context and links, which are better handled in a target article. Likewise the third sentence. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)