From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Scuba diving (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Conversion from disambiguation[edit]

I have now turned this page from being half article, half disambiguation in to entirely article. It still needs expansion, but i think it's a good base to start from. All the previous dab content can now be found at Hazard (disambiguation). Any comments welcome Owain.davies 05:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC) /.m.>?>?>Lk;#][o#hopholkjjlklllkloil;p'[=#]

ioupp;o' [=9-#=  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC) 

I have been following the little drama presented this past couple of days in the contributions and reversions of an attempted third classification of hazard. It appears that the (two?) contributor(s) had in mind utterly preventable catastophes which result from ignoring the obvious danger at hand and/or the clear warnings of what will happen if the clear warning is ignored. Figures of speech which occured to me are "an outraged Nature rebelled against the assault", "the fruits of their own arrogance came down upon them with a vengeance", "they brought this upon themselves".

Examples that come to mind immediately are the sinking of the Titanic and the loss of so many lives in spite of the warnings of experts, slumlords failing to spend money to eliminate "firetraps", the AIDS epidemic (preventable with abstinence from promiscuous sexual encounters and avoidance of illegal drug use), the Exxon Valdez disaster and the current gulf spill, the refusal of totalitarian regimes to distribute food and medical supplies to the people they dominate, the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1930's Germany and the failure to use abundant opportunities to stop them before the annexation of Czechoslovakia followed later by the invasion of Poland--classic examples from history are the Deluge, the sinking of Atlantis, the plagues of Egypt, the burial of Herculaneum and Pompeii, the Crusades, the Black Death, the Dust Bowl, the Great Depression, which have been historically attributed to Divine Retribution for presumptuous corruption and evil in human culture.

The reader may not agree with the assessments of various cultures past and present that presumptious arrogance of the individual, or of business leaders, or of governments, actively provoked "Divine Judgment", but the results of human arrogance even without adverting to the existence of God or of the gods is a real hazard as history has neutrally reported. What has been called the Wrath of God and Punishment for Sin has always manifested itself physically, in nature and in society (Conquest, Tyranny, Oppression, Socio-Economic Meltdown, Bloodshed, Famine, Plague, Volcano, Earthquake, Flood, Violent Storms, Wild Beasts, Insect Devastation, Blindness, Deafness, Accidental Mutilation, Incurable Long-Term Disease, Madness, Death). What has been called "Defiance of God" has traditionally been fraught with grave peril--"You do so at your own risk!" The first two kinds of "Causes..." set forth in this article (Natural, and Human Mismanagement) do not include this danger (denial? "blind spot"?). I rather suspect that this is what was on the mind of the contributor(s). But this is as far as I myself am willing to enter the argument. I hope this has been useful. Hermitstudy (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not even slightly. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

New Article: Hazard (risk)[edit]

I have created a new article Hazard (risk) that is geared more towards risk assessment. I would not oppose (and would support) merging it with the current Hazard page. I would, however, like a fresh perspective during merging. 570vca (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


The topic is "Hazard". The content includes material on risk, risk assessment, disaster, disaster management and quite a lot of listings and discussions of specific hazards and responsible organisations which would better fit into articles such as biological hazard, chemical hazard etc. This article should focus on the concepts and only provide summary sections and links to main articles on the associated concepts. I intend to do some work in this direction. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)