| Revision as of 23:53, 15 December 2008 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,411 editsm Signing comment by 70.108.45.71 - "→NIH BSL-4: new section"← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:37, 1 March 2024 edit undoPolinet68 (talk | contribs)4 edits →AI upscaled image: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| (116 intermediate revisions by 61 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header|search=yes}} | |||
| Note: The original version of this article consists of excerpts taken from the ] CDC page at http://www.cdc.gov/od/ohs/biosfty/bmbl4/bmbl4s3.htm | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| | |||
| {{WikiProject Medicine |importance=high}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Microbiology|importance=high}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{annual readership|scale=log}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 1 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |algo = old(14d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Biosafety level/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{press|title=Coronavirus: Is there any evidence for lab release theory?|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52318539|author=Paul Rincon|org=]|date=April 16, 2020|quote=Misplaced Pages lists over 50 around the world but there is no authoritative list.}} | |||
| == |
== Listing BSL-3 Sites == | ||
| Surely it is a fool's errand to include a list of BLS-3 labs, given that the start of this section indicates that there are over 1000 in the US alone. Why not make the list of facilities only those with BSL-4 facilities? This would be an actually possible task and would may resolve the factual inaccuracy complaint. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 2012-08-24T14:29:56</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| Terminology is inconsistent and as a result it is unclear if "BSL4", "P4" and "L4" and different names for the same thing or not. Please: | |||
| a) use one name to indicate "BSL4" or | |||
| b) indicate the meaning of "P4" and "L4" and the differences when compared to "BSL4" | |||
| :Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). BSL4, P4, and L4 are used synonymously; the primary difference is the context it is used in. The United States prefers to use BSL (Biosafety Level), however France and several other European speaking countries prefer P4: Protection (or pathogen) four. A terminology section would be helpful, although it would be a bit of a challenge to cite since few sources would discuss this small inconsistency. ] (]) 22:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I agree. This list would go on forever. BSL-3 labs are much too common to list. ] (]) 12:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == List of Biosafety Laboratories / Zoonotic disease reference laboratories / Human & Environmental health surveillance == | |||
| Have you considered the Microbiology Department of the University of Hong Kong and the work of Peiris, Guan, Chen et al. on RNA viruses to promote human and environmental health, their biosafety level, and impact of their work on the understanding of zoonotic disease outbreaks or the standard of journals where their publications have been accepted, to add to your lists? 06:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{agree|I agree too.}} After the COVID pandemic there was a boom of BLS-2 labs upgrading to BLS-3 in Brazil, it doesn't seem to make much sense to list it all. —] (]) 01:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Boston's inclusion on the list of existing labs== | |||
| == Plagiarism in the ] section == | |||
| The list of bsl4 laborotories includes one at boston, however the text states that the lab has not been constructed yet, and is only proposed, therefore i am removing it. <span class="plainlinks"> </span>] <span class="plainlinks"> </span> 19:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This section had blatant plagiarism. We cannot directly copy/paste what a report says like that. We must, instead, summarize and paraphrase. And where we quote, we must use quotation marks, and restrict ourselves to as little direct quotation as possible. Misplaced Pages is not simply a repository for quotes about stuff. An encyclopedia is much more than that. The relevant guideline is ].--] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 21:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Russian L4 Labs? == | |||
| == New(ish) source and more == | |||
| Are there no Level 4 labs in Russia? | |||
| is the most recent source I found about the number of high-containment biological laboratories (roughly meaning BSL-3 and BSL-4). It looks reliable, but mostly based on older sources that this article is already using (guess it can still be useful for finding other sources or filling up the BSL-4 list). The sentence about the USA Today report seems a bit misleading (in 2015 it was well known that there were far more than 200 BSL-3 facilities, their locaton/identity is what wasn't public or easy to find; 's the original artice, which may be a better source than the current one; the sentence about the GAO report also uses the verb "identify", but that's a number likely closer to the actual total number and the report doesn't disclose their location; the above linked more recent source uses 1,643, that looks like 1,362 with DSAT + 281 with APHIS, it's based on a slightly newer, but not much different GAO report, probably a lower estimate, not sure if some laboratories figure in both counts). Not sure what to do with this, so I'll just drop the links and leave eventual edits to other editors. ] (]) 21:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Or even China for that matter? | |||
| The list seems very incomplete. | |||
| ] 21:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *VEKTOR institute added. | |||
| == Orphaned references in ] == | |||
| == examples? == | |||
| Could examples of diseases be given for each level? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 10:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| I check pages listed in ] to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for ] in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of ]'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for ''this'' article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article. | |||
| : Diseases don't have biosafety levels, they have risk groups. Here are some examples of risk groups. | |||
| :: 1. ''Streptococcus pneumoniae'' | |||
| :: 2. Influenza | |||
| :: 3. HIV | |||
| :: 4. Ebola | |||
| : BSL is related to risk group, but there's really no direct correspondence. The BMBL (Ch. 3) gives HIV as an example of a virus suited to BSL-2, even though it's risk group 3. The St. Louis encephalitis virus is also risk group 3, but it's given as an example of something appropriate for BSL-3 instead of BSL-2. | |||
| : ]<small> (] | ])</small> 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <b>Reference named "feldman07":</b><ul> | |||
| :::] has a BSL-4 international reference laboratory at ] in Surrey. But haven't put it down because there are, I think, some differences to the BSL-4 spec. for human pathogens, which ought to be qualified. --] 11:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <li>From ]: {{cite journal |doi=10.1086/520539 |title=Dedication: Jim Orzechowski (1944–2003) and Michael Kiley (1942–2004) |year=2007 |last1=Feldmann |first1=Heinz |last2=Geisbert |first2=Thomas |last3=Kawaoka |first3=Yoshihiro |last4=Johnson |first4=Karl M. |journal=The Journal of Infectious Diseases |volume=196 |pages=S127–S128 }}</li> | |||
| <li>From ]: {{cite journal |doi=10.1086/520539}}</li> | |||
| </ul> | |||
| I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. <small>Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs.</small> ]] 14:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| yeah examples would be good. also, some of the grammar is rough. 'level 5' mentions not contaminating the sample itself - but this is something scientist do at levels 1-4 . . . maybe clarification? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == |
== AI upscaled image == | ||
| ] | |||
| ''Why is it all in italics? The article is almost painful to read, but i dont know how to change it back to normal'' | |||
| ] 09:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It seems as if in 2022 user Fargoh replaced the image in this article with a version that was upscaled using AI, attributing it as "Improvement of quality and resolution". The upscaled version features some artifacts telling of neural network-generated and "improved" imagery. Is there any reason for the higher resolution version to be kept or should the change be reverted? ] (]) 08:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == List of Biosafety Facilities == | |||
| The commented out text is dispuated between | |||
| <blockquote>The following is a list of notable biosafety facilities, levels 3 and 4 are automatically accepted because of the nature of their work</blockquote> | |||
| and | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| "List of Biosafety level 3 and 4 facilities" IS CORRECT; Since "List of biosafety facilities" (i.e., Levels 1-4) would be thousands of names!</blockquote> | |||
| I am defending the first name for the following reasons: the title of this article is "Biosafety level" from which it discusses all four levels of biosafety, the list should not be constrained to simply levels three and levels four—if the facility is notable, it should be listed. Please remember that the article, specifically the hidden comments are not locations to house discussion. ] (]) 03:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == NIH BSL-4 == | |||
| NIH has a BSL-4 lab, but it is not used. Can anyone confirm/deny? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Latest revision as of 08:37, 1 March 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biosafety level article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Listing BSL-3 Sites
Surely it is a fool's errand to include a list of BLS-3 labs, given that the start of this section indicates that there are over 1000 in the US alone. Why not make the list of facilities only those with BSL-4 facilities? This would be an actually possible task and would may resolve the factual inaccuracy complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.51.113 (talk • contribs) 2012-08-24T14:29:56
I agree. This list would go on forever. BSL-3 labs are much too common to list. Artur The Third (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree too. After the COVID pandemic there was a boom of BLS-2 labs upgrading to BLS-3 in Brazil, it doesn't seem to make much sense to list it all. —Arthurfragoso (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Plagiarism in the Safety Concerns section
This section had blatant plagiarism. We cannot directly copy/paste what a report says like that. We must, instead, summarize and paraphrase. And where we quote, we must use quotation marks, and restrict ourselves to as little direct quotation as possible. Misplaced Pages is not simply a repository for quotes about stuff. An encyclopedia is much more than that. The relevant guideline is Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism.--Shibbolethink 21:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
New(ish) source and more
This is the most recent source I found about the number of high-containment biological laboratories (roughly meaning BSL-3 and BSL-4). It looks reliable, but mostly based on older sources that this article is already using (guess it can still be useful for finding other sources or filling up the BSL-4 list). The sentence about the USA Today report seems a bit misleading (in 2015 it was well known that there were far more than 200 BSL-3 facilities, their locaton/identity is what wasn't public or easy to find; here's the original artice, which may be a better source than the current one; the sentence about the GAO report also uses the verb "identify", but that's a number likely closer to the actual total number and the report doesn't disclose their location; the above linked more recent source uses 1,643, that looks like 1,362 with DSAT + 281 with APHIS, it's based on a slightly newer, but not much different GAO report, probably a lower estimate, not sure if some laboratories figure in both counts). Not sure what to do with this, so I'll just drop the links and leave eventual edits to other editors. 109.119.248.146 (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Biosafety level
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Biosafety level's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "feldman07":
- From Canadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health: Feldmann, Heinz; Geisbert, Thomas; Kawaoka, Yoshihiro; Johnson, Karl M. (2007). "Dedication: Jim Orzechowski (1944–2003) and Michael Kiley (1942–2004)". The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 196: S127 – S128. doi:10.1086/520539.
- From National Microbiology Laboratory: . doi:10.1086/520539.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help); Missing or empty|title=(help)
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
AI upscaled image
It seems as if in 2022 user Fargoh replaced the image in this article with a version that was upscaled using AI, attributing it as "Improvement of quality and resolution". The upscaled version features some artifacts telling of neural network-generated and "improved" imagery. Is there any reason for the higher resolution version to be kept or should the change be reverted? Polinet68 (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Categories: