
Beyond Biohazard: Why Danger Symbols Can’t Last Forever - misnamed
https://99percentinvisible.org/article/beyond-biohazard-danger-symbols-cant-last-forever/
======
Kelbit
I've always thought the concern of future generations finding a radioactive
waste disposal site is overblown and is one of the weaker arguments advanced
by the anti-nuclear movement.

If civilization remains on an upward trajectory of technological development,
or even stays flat, we will continue to understand the risks of radioactive
waste. We won't go poking through waste disposal sites for no good reason.
Barring a major collapse, we are unlikely to forget about them, either - we
will either reprocess the waste down the road when breeder tech catches up, or
we'll continue to make risk-appropriate investments in maintaining the
perimeter fence and keeping the sites secure. Now, one could argue that 10
millennia of site maintenance is an expensive endeavor to foist upon our
descendants, but that's a different discussion.

The only scenario where we forget about these sites and the dangers of them is
some hypothetical future collapse of civilization, where records are gone and
the survivors have regressed to a pre-industrial understanding of the world.

If you're an optimist, you don't expect that scenario to happen. But suppose
it could - doesn't it make more sense to invest in carbon-neutral power
technology like nuclear and maybe help stave off a potential collapse, rather
than worry about a small number of the survivors dying of radiation sickness?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _We won 't go poking through waste disposal sites for no good reason_

We don't need a global collapse to make disposal sites problematic. Imagine
the total dissolution--think post-Ghadaffi Libya or Iraq and Syria at the
height of ISIL's power--of a state containing nuclear waste. Keeping nearby
civilians, who could have forgotten or never known of the hazard, from harm
seems like a good enough reason to give this some thought. (I agree with your
general sentiment, however.)

~~~
u801e
> Imagine the total dissolution

Even that doesn't have to happen:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident)

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
Perhaps more relevant are the accidents in Tamiku (Estonia), and Lia Lilo
(Georgia), that followed shortly after the dissolution of the USSR and involve
the inappropriate handling or complete abandonment of radioactive sources:

[1] [http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/4738/The-
Radiologica...](http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/4738/The-Radiological-
Accident-in-Tammiku)

[2] [http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEAbooks/10602/The-
Radiologic...](http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEAbooks/10602/The-Radiological-
Accident-in-Lia-Georgia)

[3] [http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/5968/The-
Radiologica...](http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/5968/The-Radiological-
Accident-in-Lilo)

------
tetha
This reminds me of a striking example during our UI design class, which
eventually led me to conclude that there is no intuitive design of anything,
unless you can make specific assumptions about the users.

You have a steering wheel, and turn it to the right. What direction do you
turn? It's such a simple question. And if you're used to a car, or a bike,
it's so easy to answer. Turn right, go right. Well except every captain with
his boat will tell you they will go left.

And there are so many examples of this if you look at them. Our monitoring has
a lot of graphs, but why would a rising or a falling graph be good? If it's
latency, you want it low but not 0, because 0 would be weird. If it's
available capacity, you want it high, but too high is right out as well, since
it's a waste. In some cases, we need ports open because we kinda need to
answer productive HTTP requests, in other cases, it would be rather silly to
expose elasticsearch to the internet.

Intuition and intuitive meaning is such a hard thing.

~~~
tjohns
And then there's motorcycles, where the direction you'll turn will change
depending on how fast you're going. :)

At very low speeds, a motorcycle behaves like a bicycle. Turn the handlebar
right, go right.*

However, once you get up to normal vehicle speeds, it reverses and
countersteering takes over. Turn the handlebar right, go left.*

It's one of the things they spend a lot of time drilling into your head if you
take a motorcycle safety class, because a lot of folks get it wrong or
incorrectly think that you turn by leaning. It's a UI problem that can very
easily get you hurt -- but I'm not sure how you'd make it any more intuitive.

(*: Technically, countersteering is still in play at low speeds, even on a
bicycle... but it's very subtle and most folks don't notice it, because you
quickly correct the other way to re-balance the bike.)

~~~
travisjungroth
> It's one of the things they spend a lot of time drilling into your head

Which is why most training for practical things is pretty bad. You can't shove
physical skills into student's heads. Tell them once or twice, then create a
drill where they get to learn it themselves.

In this case, I would have the student do low speed turns from straight.
Ideally on a bicycle.

~~~
tim333
Also I find a lot of instructors are bad at physics, especially in skiing.
'Copy me' tends to work better than trying to follow a somewhat off
explanation.

------
rdiddly
This whole time I thought the biohazard symbol was supposed to be abstractly
evocative of a microscope with three lenses, seen as if you were looking up
from the slide/stage. Indicating, I supposed, something dangerous that you
need a microscope to see. I thought "Hey that's a cool way to convey that idea
graphically."

Well, come to find out they were trying to have it not refer to anything. So
it becomes just another example of how we (well, I) love to find meaning where
there is none.

Examples, none of which is from the right angle:

[http://www.scienceprofonline.com/images/science-image-
librar...](http://www.scienceprofonline.com/images/science-image-
library/microbiology/equipment/microscope-40x-objective-SIL.jpg)

[https://abm-website-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/pharmpro.com/s3f...](https://abm-
website-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/pharmpro.com/s3fs-
public/featured_image/2016/04/Lens-of-microscope.jpg)

[https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/232/512560597_fa29e4d5a4.jpg](https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/232/512560597_fa29e4d5a4.jpg)

This one's closer to the angle but has four lenses:

[https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/detail-
microscope-3429613.jp...](https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/detail-
microscope-3429613.jpg)

~~~
scrumper
I always thought it was deliberately designed to invoke beetle pincers, or bug
jaws.

~~~
abecedarius
Yeah, spiky evokes sharp and maybe poisonous.

------
gumby
> Linguist Thomas Sebeok, for instance, proposed creating an atomic
> priesthood, where an exclusive political group would use its own rituals and
> myths to preserve knowledge of radioactive areas, like a church.

Minor spoiler alert: this is a side element in the wonderful novel "Anathem"
by Neal Stephenson.

~~~
emodendroket
Not sure a spoiler alert serves any purpose if I have no idea what work is
being spoiled until I read it.

~~~
gumby
good point!

------
DonHopkins
Don't lick Mr. Yuk!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Yuk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Yuk)

Don't touch Mr. Ouch!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Ouch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Ouch)

~~~
IntronExon
From the link

 _At least two peer-reviewed medical studies (Fergusson 1982, Vernberg 1984)
have suggested that Mr. Yuk stickers do not effectively keep children away
from potential poisons and may even attract children._

~~~
DonHopkins
You're just not putting enough stickers on your children. It takes several
layers to safely seal their mouths from poison and fully insulate them from
shock.

------
gumby
> Even now, the power the biohazard symbol once had to inspire awe and fear
> has begun to diminish. Today, it appears on everyday clothing and products,
> slowly becoming more ordinary than extraordinary.

This always annoys me, though it's a form of linguistic change. The worst
example of this, IMHO, is the stickers and accessories you can get for guns to
make them look like children's toys (e.g. red cap on the end) -- specifically
subverting something designed to make children safe. I do think people who do
this have a first amendment legal _right_ to do so, but just because you're
allowed to do something doesn't mean it's a good idea (there's no law to
prevent me from drinking bleach if I want to, but that doesn't make it a good
idea).

~~~
jetrink
Disguising a real gun as a toy sounds very similar to the famous example of
unprotected speech of falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. First, it is
a type of falsehood. Second, it is likely to cause real harm. I would be
surprised if disguising guns would be viewed as constitutionally protected
speech.

~~~
logfromblammo
Popehat wants you to stop saying "fire in a crowded theater".

[https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-
ha...](https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-
apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/)

------
Animats
The article references someone worrying about the problem of marking future
radioactive waste dumps, but doesn't mention how real ones are marked. Here's
a real one.[1]

That's the marker at the SL-1 reactor burial site in Idaho, from 1962. It's a
stone slab, etched with a "no pedestrians" road sign symbol, a radiation
trefoil, and a bottle with a skull and crossbones. Already it looks dated.

[1]
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/SL-1Buri...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/SL-1Burial.jpg)

~~~
avocad
I think the skull and bones will be a good symbol for millions of years,
unless evolution takes a really weird turn.

------
Godel_unicode
I think their Jolly Rodger example is a poor one. It didn't mean "danger", it
meant "pirates". It still means that, it's merely our belief about whether
pirates are dangerous which has changed.

I suspect if you are in the water off e.g. Somalia you'd feel very different
about a ship flying the Jolly Rodger than if you're on a Disney cruise...

~~~
rexaliquid
I was skeptical. But there is also a difference between coming across people
flying the flag and a desolate place marked with the symbol. In both cases,
the symbol means pirates, but in the first case pirates mean danger and in the
second case pirates mean abandoned treasure.

------
mattigames
Thinking 2D for lasting symbology its not smart; the best symbol for danger
will always be realistic corpses sculptures (at least for as long humans
exist); If you see a corpse down your path, then later on see 2, then see 3, a
few neurons is enough to realize you may become the next one if you keep
walking that path.

~~~
mattigames
Of course, physical deterrents are much better than psychological deterrents,
so if you gonna make an underground deposit of radioactive materials you
better surround it with (non-lethal) spikes, so at least whoever opens it has
to be really smart to be able to do so.

~~~
dharmab
A physical deterrent often means "Valuables within."

~~~
mattigames
If they are motivated enough to bypass it they are probably motivated enough
to ignore any symbol even if they understand 100% what it means ("oh they put
a radiation symbol here? I don't believe it, its just scaremongering, this
cave must be hiding a treasure")

~~~
dharmab
So an alternative might be to try to hide the danger, rather than announce it.
Bury the waste as deep as possible in an area with few natural resources, and
then restore the site to a natural state. This carries other risks, of
course...

------
throwaway7312
It would seem like the likeliest scenario for a future dark age is neighboring
towns (or tribes, I suppose) tell tales about how everyone who goes into area
X eventually dies not long after.

Every few generations some brave, ballsy kid shrugs off these old wives tales,
goes and camps out in area X, and gets ill and dies not long after. The
legends endure... at some cost.

Of course, it depends how strong the radioactivity/toxicity is. If it leads to
cancer 30 years down the road, and no immediate signs, then it gets a lot
messier.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _how everyone who goes into area X eventually dies not long after_

Nuclear waste generally isn't this scary. Exposure causes death years, maybe
even decades, afterwards. Enough time for cause and effect to get muddied.

------
hateful
Too bad that symbol has recently come to mean "contains a multitude of fidget
spinners"

------
YeGoblynQueenne
Radiological accidents caused by people picking up radioactive sources,
because they had no idea what they were, are a bit of a hobby of mine (and in
general radiological accidents).

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) is normally called to help local
authorities deal with such accidents and of course the first thing they do
afterwards is compile a report. Unfortunately they don't have those reports in
one place- you have to trawl through their site and their yearly publications
to find it.

So I've taken the liberty to put all the reports I could find on my server,
here:

[http://www.goblinopera.com/iaea_reports/](http://www.goblinopera.com/iaea_reports/)

These include the most well-publicised cases, like Goiânia, but also more
obscure ones, including my favourite ones, the three accidents in irradiation
facilities in San Salvador (El Salvador), Nesvizh (Belarus) and near Soreq
(Isral).

Apologies that these are just on my (rented) server- I understand people might
consider it a non-trusted source. I'll try uploading the lot on github if
enough people are interested.

Btw, the IAEA copyright gives premission for copies to be made and distributed
over web pages:

[http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/rights-and-permissions](http://www-
pub.iaea.org/books/rights-and-permissions)

------
mannykannot
I thought the article too quickly dismissed the skull-and-crossbones. Sure, it
has been trivialized, but if you came across a door with a skull-based symbol
on it, I would guess you would give that more thought than an abstract shape
that you did not recognize, and words in a language you do not know. My guess
is that skulls and skeletons will hold up better as warnings than abstract
shapes, in which case the desire for a meaningless and abstract shape was
counter-productive.

Similarly, the symmetry criterion strikes me as unnecessary, as people are
good at recognizing shapes regardless of orientation, especially when the
shapes are figurative.

On the other hand (literally), the corrosive substance symbols (not shown in
this article - [1]) are figurative, asymmetric and, IMHO, pretty clear.

The one other figurative symbol in this collection is the postal one with a
snake, but it could be mistaken for a caduceus as long as that symbol is
known. There is also the possibility that we might drive snakes to extinction.

There is a need for distinct symbols for different types of danger, but
perhaps they should all include a skulls-or-skeleton generic danger motif.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrosive_substance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrosive_substance)

------
diabeetusman
That's partially why I like the idea (if not the implementation, apparently)
of Mr. Yuck and his friend that I just learned about, Mr. Ouch [0]. To me, it
looks like he gets the point across pretty well-- come near here and die.
There's no need for left-to-right reading and the cause and effect are in one
clear image.

[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Ouch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Ouch)]

~~~
fermienrico
The semiology of such a graphic, Mr. Ouch symbol, may be adequate, but its
utility and practicality is severely lacking. Imagine if you were to put
instructions together to be able to reproduce Mr. Ouch; or, imagine if you
were a construction worker trying to follow instructions to mark this logo on
a hazardous surface -- Simplicity and reproducibility are the hallmarks of an
optimal graphic symbol. Mr. Ouch fails at this. Furthermore, rather
subjectively, Mr. Ouch does not convey sophistication nor a professional
aesthetic -- it looks like someone made this up using Clipart, and it does not
convey a sense of seriousness and an authoritative tone.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> Simplicity and reproducibility are the hallmarks of an optimal graphic
> symbol.

The primary goal is to communicate something. Simplicity and reproducibility
are always secondary to this - and it's difficult to have something simple and
reproducible that clearly communicates danger.

~~~
fermienrico
There are lots of options to communicate clearly. To be able to communicate
clear _and_ have simplicity/reproducibility is what makes a good graphic
symbol.

Further reading:
[https://books.google.com/books/about/Semiology.html?id=kZXCQ...](https://books.google.com/books/about/Semiology.html?id=kZXCQgAACAAJ)

------
cbr
I wonder why we didn't go for stronger legal protection for these symbols?
Water bottles with the biohazard logo on them and other gratuitous uses reduce
how much caution it induces and diminish its value as a symbol.

------
bootlooped
There is a 2010 documentary called "Into Eternity" about building an
underground nuclear storage facility in Finland. It also covers the problem of
how to warn people very far into the future.

~~~
askvictor
Is it not sufficient to blow up the access tunnels, such that any civilisation
capable of digging it up will can be presumed to have the technology to detect
radioactivity? This presumes a stable geology and no asteroid impacts.

~~~
bootlooped
If I remember right, the plan was to fill the tunnels with concrete when the
facility is full. I think drilling is a lot simpler than detecting
radioactivity though. The most plausible scenario is that a future
civilization tries to drill in the area and brings a bunch of waste up to the
surface inadvertently.

~~~
askvictor
If wonder if when our civilisation digs (deep holes), do we test for
radioactivity?

------
TipVFL
At my last job they were constantly asking me to create symbols to represent
abstract concepts. They wanted them to be instantly, universally recognizable
at 24 pixels by 24 pixels with no text.

This is sometimes easy, often impossible. I ended up finding a simple rule of
thumb to cut through that work quickly, if I couldn't think of one clear
symbol for the concept in 10 seconds then I would never find one that fit all
the requirements.

I passed that rule on to my project manager and he got a lot better at not
making impossible symbol requests.

------
__s
The comic that's suppose to demonstrate the meaning of the radioactive
symbol.. I viewed it as a story about how symbols lose their meaning: guy
finds box with weird symbol on it, makes a t-shirt with the symbol on it,
walks off to lay around in the grass taking a nap, the symbol now some random
thing sold on t-shirts. Like the three-armed-spiral icon that represents some
part of a turn table my father has a shirt of. Most don't know what the is
shirt of

------
dsfyu404ed
The article begins by saying the jolly roger has lost it's original meaning.

I doubt the author would be very successful getting people to interact with an
unknown substance of unknown origin if it's in an old unfamiliar container
with a skull and some text in an unknown language on it.

