safyrejet wrote:No, those are still two distinct hazard classes. A biohazard would be something that has biological waste, toxins, or microorganisms in it where as a radioactive substance emits radiation. The destructive mechanisms of these are entirely different.
Well put. In essence, a biohazard is something that is infectious, such as a viral or bacterial sample (yes, there are other materials that warrant the biohazard label, but they stem from this base definition), whereas a radiological hazard is something that produces ionizing radiation.
safyrejet wrote:Are there substances which are both hazards. Possibly, I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of these hazard classes. radioactive blood or viruses perhaps?
Yup, of course there are things that can be both. And your examples would both be examples of such things. If you have a biohazard, such as a virus or some bacteria, and irradiate it, the process of irradiating can make that biohazard radioactive (i.e. some of the atoms in the virus of bacteria have now become unstable isotopes and will decay, releasing more radiation in the process). Thus, your biohazard is now also a radiological hazard. Such things would receive both hazard labels, not just one.
safyrejet wrote:I also am disappointed in the mislabeled dish hazard. Maybe there happens to be a biohazardous material that is fluorescent or something. Although I'd assume the hazard should be radioactive in order to linked to Schrodinger's cat.
I think it would have to be some kind of food that was laced with bioluminescent bacteria. In a sense, that's a better explanation of the glow than radioactivity, anyway, as the level of radiation need for something to literally be glowing from hazardous (i.e. ionizing) radioactivity would likely mean that the cat should be dead just from getting close that close to it...
safyrejet wrote:Now I want a MacGyver counter. That sounds epic.
Me too! :D