A building of this sort would likely use Halon or a similar fire suppression system. This type of fire suppression is commonly used in data centers, communications hubs etc.
I like data your pulling, would there be any justification for a chemical that reacts with water being at a data center?
edit: Could just be the company trying to keep fire fighters from using water (which would damage their tech).
The last question left to answer is the health hazard rating.
Fire rating 4 = Propane for back-up generators
Instability Rating = Propane
No Water = Save the Drives
Health Hazard of 3 = ?....where is this coming from?
Likely the case in my opinion. Using water would not be the most effective way of extinguishing an electrical fire. Other collateral damage would also be caused when using water for electrical fires including residue, oxidation and possible damage to otherwise healthy equipment. Halon or "like" products have no oxidation nor residue left behind and simply starves the fire of oxygen.
In regard to health hazard 3: if Halon is indeed used, while in use, it can potentially cause a major health hazard to humans because like fires, humans also require oxygen to live.
True. It's just there's something off about it. NFPA diamonds are meant for fire fighters, who wear oxygen tanks. Halon can be deadly to humans when it interacts with fire which could warrant the rating. Thing is, there's the oxygen tanks. Every other time I've seen a health rating of 3 was with benzene compounds which are carcinogenic, or highly corrosive compounds.
I think looking at other data centers NFPA diamonds could be helpful. I'll try and find some on google street view tomorrow. If they are similar, it's probably nothing, if they aren't then somethings up.
A health hazard rating of 3 is usually reserved for compounds that contain a benzene ring (which is carcinogenic), so I would guess there was some form of benzene compound. One that could fit some of the numbers is Benzoyl Chloride which would react with the aluminum of any hard drives destroying the data. Then I would assume some explosives were also present to create damage/fires and account for the fire rating of 4.
Additionally Benzoyl Chloride reacts with water as well.
True, I'm working under the assumption there were more than one chemicals/compounds in play. In example:
You need time for Benzoyl Chloride to destroy data on hard drives (the chemicals eats the metals/plastics everything). However, that might take a couple minutes.
So, what do you do? Play over a loud speaker that it's time to evacuate with a 15 minute countdown.
Then you detonate the explosives with the higher flammability rating of 4. To burn anything left.
Voila, chemical destruction followed by physical destruction. This would almost guarantee the data isn't recoverable.
What sort of chemical would this be? Unstable if heated, flash point below 73°F, extremely dangerous, don't use water? And in an alledged telecommunications hub? Maybe some sort of coolant for electronics?
A Google search for chemicals used in telecommunications facilities turned up OSHA 1910.268(b)(2)(ii), it talks about mixing electrolyte for batteries. If there's sulfuric acid (3,0,2,W) being stored in battery cells there it could be a factor. I can't imagine they'd just have jugs of it sitting in storage though.
The rating of 2 for reactivity would have been shown. Anytime I've seen a health rating of 3, it's usually associated with benzene rings (carcinogenic). One chemical that fits a lot of the bills is Benzoyl Chloride. It eats pretty much anything that tech is made out of plastic, copper, aluminum...
I've been in a DC where there was a fairly large room completely filled with daisy chained car batteries, about 2-300 hundred in all, to provide UPS for critical servers in a power outage.
Has lead acid battery backups and either a halon or CO2 fire suppression system. Could also house backup generators powered by nat gas, propane, or a large diesel tank.
Just a guess, Google censors those so people can't just sit on their laptop in Bungholestan, iran browsing for targets to bomb without ever having to set foot near the place and case it out. Somebody would sue over it and all that.
I think the photo wasn't censored until recently (otherwise we wouldn't have this post). I think they censor things they want to censor, which leads to the question, "Why did they censor it?".
anyone familiar with NFPA 704? specifically the type of fire supression system inside that would warrant a 3-4-1-W?
A building of this sort would likely use Halon or a similar fire suppression system. This type of fire suppression is commonly used in data centers, communications hubs etc.
I like data your pulling, would there be any justification for a chemical that reacts with water being at a data center?
edit: Could just be the company trying to keep fire fighters from using water (which would damage their tech).
The last question left to answer is the health hazard rating.
Fire rating 4 = Propane for back-up generators Instability Rating = Propane No Water = Save the Drives Health Hazard of 3 = ?....where is this coming from?
Likely the case in my opinion. Using water would not be the most effective way of extinguishing an electrical fire. Other collateral damage would also be caused when using water for electrical fires including residue, oxidation and possible damage to otherwise healthy equipment. Halon or "like" products have no oxidation nor residue left behind and simply starves the fire of oxygen.
In regard to health hazard 3: if Halon is indeed used, while in use, it can potentially cause a major health hazard to humans because like fires, humans also require oxygen to live.
True. It's just there's something off about it. NFPA diamonds are meant for fire fighters, who wear oxygen tanks. Halon can be deadly to humans when it interacts with fire which could warrant the rating. Thing is, there's the oxygen tanks. Every other time I've seen a health rating of 3 was with benzene compounds which are carcinogenic, or highly corrosive compounds.
I think looking at other data centers NFPA diamonds could be helpful. I'll try and find some on google street view tomorrow. If they are similar, it's probably nothing, if they aren't then somethings up.
Interesting analysis
https://srcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/4455/NFPA-704-Placard---Chemical-Hazard-Ratings-Standard-PDF?bidId=
Should give us a start.
A health hazard rating of 3 is usually reserved for compounds that contain a benzene ring (which is carcinogenic), so I would guess there was some form of benzene compound. One that could fit some of the numbers is Benzoyl Chloride which would react with the aluminum of any hard drives destroying the data. Then I would assume some explosives were also present to create damage/fires and account for the fire rating of 4.
Additionally Benzoyl Chloride reacts with water as well.
Benzoyl Chloride: Flash point 162°F
True, I'm working under the assumption there were more than one chemicals/compounds in play. In example:
You need time for Benzoyl Chloride to destroy data on hard drives (the chemicals eats the metals/plastics everything). However, that might take a couple minutes.
So, what do you do? Play over a loud speaker that it's time to evacuate with a 15 minute countdown.
Then you detonate the explosives with the higher flammability rating of 4. To burn anything left.
Voila, chemical destruction followed by physical destruction. This would almost guarantee the data isn't recoverable.
What sort of chemical would this be? Unstable if heated, flash point below 73°F, extremely dangerous, don't use water? And in an alledged telecommunications hub? Maybe some sort of coolant for electronics?
https://srcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/4455/NFPA-704-Placard---Chemical-Hazard-Ratings-Standard-PDF?bidId=
Should give us a start. The sign is cumulative for all chemicals in the building so it could be more than one.
A Google search for chemicals used in telecommunications facilities turned up OSHA 1910.268(b)(2)(ii), it talks about mixing electrolyte for batteries. If there's sulfuric acid (3,0,2,W) being stored in battery cells there it could be a factor. I can't imagine they'd just have jugs of it sitting in storage though.
The rating of 2 for reactivity would have been shown. Anytime I've seen a health rating of 3, it's usually associated with benzene rings (carcinogenic). One chemical that fits a lot of the bills is Benzoyl Chloride. It eats pretty much anything that tech is made out of plastic, copper, aluminum...
https://www.valtris.com/product/benzyl-chloride/
I've been in a DC where there was a fairly large room completely filled with daisy chained car batteries, about 2-300 hundred in all, to provide UPS for critical servers in a power outage.
Has lead acid battery backups and either a halon or CO2 fire suppression system. Could also house backup generators powered by nat gas, propane, or a large diesel tank.
a large diesel tank.....that sounds interesting, but still not flammable enough.
https://images.mysafetylabels.com/img/lg/L/Diesel-Fuel-Oil-Label-LB-1591-048.gif
Propane on the other hand...could fit the bill...
https://www.safetysign.com/products/10781/danger-propane-nfpa-rating-2-4-0-sign
Just a guess, Google censors those so people can't just sit on their laptop in Bungholestan, iran browsing for targets to bomb without ever having to set foot near the place and case it out. Somebody would sue over it and all that.
A nice thought, but easily disproven. See link.
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@35.119702,-89.939677,120.76h,9.69p,0.76z
I have noticed in my own browsing that Google's censoring is very inconsistent and sometimes doesn't seem to make sense.
I think the photo wasn't censored until recently (otherwise we wouldn't have this post). I think they censor things they want to censor, which leads to the question, "Why did they censor it?".