Talk:Environmental engineering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PLEASE use the above + tab to enter a new comment. That provides you a form in which to first enter a Subject and then enter the new comment. Please sign the comment with four tildes like this ~~~~. That automatically signs it with your user name, the date and the time. The form automatically provides subject headings like those below and enters them in the table of contents which will appear below after four comments are posted.

The first responder to someone's new comment should enter the response just beneath the new comment (instead of using the above + tab) and indent the response by starting with a colon like this :. Any second responder, indent further by starting with two colons like this :: and any third responder, start with three colons like this ::: and so forth. If we don't follow these practices, the result is jumbled mess.


This article is part of WikiProject Technology, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to technology. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This environment-related article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.



[edit] This article should also be in the Chemical engineering category

It may also be considered a ramification of Chemical Engineering. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.158.253 (talk • contribs) 24 June 2003 (UTC).

I agree and it is now so categorized. - mbeychok 00:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from article

"Two of the principal current environmental problems are

  • the increasing number of humans on Earth. Along this line, one of the first applications of environmental engineering is the removal of sewage from cities, which became increasingly important as population grew. There were (and still is in many countries) initially no treatment : wastes are for example simply brought to the nearest stream. However, since sewage disposal eventually cause damages to natural waters, methods of treating wastewaters prior to discharge were developed.
  • the second major factor is the rising standard of living in many nations, such as in Europe and Australia. A higher living standard generate more consumption of natural resources and more pollution."

I buy part of the the first and not the second, there is lots of evidence that developing nations pollute more capita than developed nations because of lack of pollution control.

At any rate, these belong in discussion of environment more than environmental engineering which is not really concerned with either population control or standard of living, but rather more narrow engineering issues. dml 13:52, 24 June 2003 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I was trying to give to environmental engineering a historical perspective. These engineering techniques are not only about environmental issues, but also about health issues. I think a topic gains at being properly introduced, rather than giving links to other topics and letting the reader try to envision for which reasons env. eng. was developped.
Env. Eng. developped much sooner than environmental issues were ever raised up. And they developped primarily because some production of waste generated by a growing population could not be managed by environment natural clean-up services quickly enough to avoid human health issues. Typically, european cities began to suffer from accumulation of wastes, and decrease of water quality in middle ages. Before that, cities were small enough that it did not cause any major health issues. Then at some point, the wastes began badly accumulating in the street, that water carried microorganims which caused the huge epidemics, then env. eng. was set up. It was essentially then, setting up pipes to move dirty water out of the city. Napoleon building Paris sewage system. Only later, in the early 1900 did env. eng. techniques began to take care of cleaning the waste water.
This does not mean there were necessarily environmental damages then. There were health issues mostly. That is why I think *this* does belong here, and not in the environment article which is a different topic.
As for the second paragraph you don't buy, please then rephrase it. There is nothing wrong with it. It only states obvious points. Right now, developped nations consume more than before, and the more is consumed, the more wastes are generated. It does not matter that regulations are set up. A regulation alone won't lower the amount of waste. Only more (or different) clean up techniques used by industries (for example) pushed by regulations will.
It may be insufficient for the whole article. But, what I mostly wanted to refer to are the historical reasons why env. eng. originally developped. It is true that now, with pollution control, situation is different, but I see not why we should not put historical context under the reason the situation may be different now.
I intend this article to be more than two poor paragraphs, and not to be only about modern env. eng. in the modern states. There is more to say about it than just that. So, please edit instead of removing. I will try to improve later. anthere 22.56 24 June, 2003

[edit] Merged the "Environmental engineer" article into this article

I have just completed the merging of the "Environmental engineer" article into this article. I have deleted most of the resulting redundant Wiki links ... but there are probably still some that need deleting.

The "Environmental engineer" article, after merging into this one, was converted into a redirect to this article.

I am not sure that the "Other applications" sub-section in this article serves any useful function. Personally, I think it should be deleted. Perhaps some of the links in that section could be re-located into the "See also" section. What do others think? - mbeychok 00:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)