Talk:Waste management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Waste management is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This climate change-related article is part of WikiProject Climate Change, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wikipedia related to climate change and global warming. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page. We are focusing on Waste management.

--Alex 13:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Incineration and NPOV 2 Disambiguation link to Waste Management, Inc 3 Map 4 Alternative technologies 5 Green Bin Program 6 Recycling is not reuse 7 Reverse Polymerization 8 Waste Management In Popular Culture? 9 Waste Management Concepts

[edit] Incineration and NPOV

I think that the section on incineration needs a certain amount of editing to maintain a NPOV. This section was always going to be controversial, but at the moment the POV is negative and needs reworking. For the record, I'm not a fan of incineration as a waste management tool but it should be acknowledged as a common and legitimate practice. I'll have a go in a day or two and see what people think. ropable 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ropable, I did a lot of reworking of the main incineration and waste to energy articles but didn't get round to doing the section in this article. I have tried to keep a NPOV as possible, whilst diambiguating waste-to-energy and energy-from-waste which I feel can be misconstrued in a encyclopedia article. I welcome any comments.--Alex 10:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a simple copy-and-paste from the main Incineration article over what was already there, with a couple of minor wording changes. I didn't realise that it was so good! I think that this topic really only needs the basic info regarding different waste management techniques, with appropriate links to the main articles (which are now looking a whole lot better than they used to). ropable 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation link to Waste Management, Inc

Just checking - you moved the link "For the corporation, see Waste Management Incorporated" from the bottom to the top. It seem to give a disproportionate emphasis on a single local company over the who field. Is that simply to be in line with standard Wiki practice? (by Beineix)

Yes, moved to be "standard location" - after all, if you happen to be looking for a secondary link, you don't want to have to scroll thru and entire article to find it, and you may not know to, since the vast majority of thses are at the top of pages. Zotel - the Stub Maker 14:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And also, it is not a "local" company, it covers the US and Canada and is a fortune 500 company. I didn't know how large it was until I looked at their site and wiki entry. Bigger than I thought they were Zotel - the Stub Maker 15:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

More importantly, the company has the same name as this article. - Centrx 22:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I was actually looking for the company, and I couldn't find a link or notice for the company anywhere on this page. Good thing I visited the talk page, huh? Can we replace the "For the corporation..." link at the top of the page? UNDATED

Any views on the link at the top of this page? Personally I think it's a little too favourable for the company and this should be moved to the bottom of the page with "see also". If there are no objections I will move it.--Alex 16:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No objections so I have moved the link to the bottom.--Alex 09:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I believe it should be at the bottom of the page. I accept that WM is a major US company however I think it acts to publicise the company and integrally links it to the topic whenever the subject is typed. Other companies such as Veolia, and Onyx are arguably larger and do not get the same promotional benefit, from not linking their names to the subject. I vote keep the link at the bottom as this is primarily an encyclopedia and I believe companies are secondary to the main subjects.--Alex 10:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it ironic that there was no disambiguation link on the Waste Management, Inc article related to waste management this is now inserted.--Alex 11:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should there be any disambiguation links there since any search for waste management will lead here. Plus a link for waste management is already in the first sentance of that article.--Chrisdab 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont see the reason for debate on this. Its pretty standard to have a top page link to other articles with same name. Especially when the only search link leads to this page and not a disambiguation page. With WM commercials on TV people will search for the company, like I did.--Chrisdab 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Besides if you search for Onyx, you get a link to a disambiguation page which lists the company, likewise if you search for Veolia, you get its company webpage. Like I said, there is no debate, if you do a search, you need to have quick links to all results for that search name.--Chrisdab 23:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Greetings from Harrisburg Pennsylvania! I am looking to do a map of all the resource recovery facilities in the US.

I am hoping someone there can help me:

Greeting for the City of Harrisburg Pennsylvania!

The City of Harrisburg is preparing to retrofit its Waste to Energy facility, where we burn trash-make\sell steam, the steam powers an 8 MW electricity generator-whereby we sell excess electricity to Pennsylvania Power & Light [PPL]

Does your state website have a web page that shows a map of your state with such facilities? Or is this available through your GIS? I appreciate your reply. Thank You,

Lou Colón Mayor's Office of Special Projects City of Harrisburg 10 N. 2nd St. Suite 405 Harrisburg, PA 17101 www.harrisburgcity.com

[edit] Alternative technologies

I believe I have now addressed some of the issues raised in the old posts shown below. I have spent some extensive time linking in alternative technologies such as anaerobic digestion, mechanical biological treatment, amongst others. Included with this is list of alternative waste treatment technologies. The articles on gasification and pyrolysis remain very scientific and I do not have the relevance experience to update these.

Extra work is required on the composting technology side of things for areas such as windrow composting, in-vessel composting and tunnel composting.

--Alex 16:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This page needs topics on alternative technologies such as:

Mechanical Biological Treatment MBT (Systems such as ArrowBio (Israeli), Herhof (German), Ecodeco (Italian) Pyrolysis Gasification Anaerobic digestion Composting (Aerobic digestion)

I'll try and do this for you Supposed 05:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This work has now been largely completed --Alex 10:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Bin Program

As far as I remember, Etobicoke and Scarborough, former municipalities of the amalgamated Toronto had Green Bin programs several years before Markham. Why is Markham being mentioned, implied as a pioneer in this program?

[edit] Recycling is not reuse

"Recycling means to reuse a material that would otherwise be considered waste"

Just to point out that if you recycle a product you are not really reusing it. Reuse is a different thing. --Supposed 05:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I definitely see where you're coming from on that, yet recycling is "destroying the product and reusing its material," as opposed to reusing, which implies "reusing the product as-is". Just wondering if you think the wiki page should be clearer about this distinction. --georgeperson 17 June, 2006

This article also makes the unverified and contentious claim that recycling programs result in a net environmental benefit. I say unverified because the quote and citation refer exclusively to aluminum, one of the few materials that it is agreed is cheaper and safer to recycle (and also one of the few with actual market value second-hand). That government-mandated recycling is environmentally or economically good is much disputed, thus this section is POV.Atripodi 01:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse Polymerization

Why is there no mention of reverse polymerization as a waste management tool? As I understand it, the process can be used, for example, to recycle old tires and other petroleum-based waste. Pacific1982 14:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read about a couple of different methods of breaking down long-chain polymers (e.g. waste plastics, poultry carcasses, etc) into simpler hydrocarbon products. There are a few companies with proprietary methods out there (Ozmotech, CWT Ltd). This is probably a generic enough process to belong under 'Alternative Technologies', but it's not a very common method of reprocessing waste material yet. ropable 03:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ozmotech seems to be a good system concept. Represented by www.cynarplc.com in the UK. This originated from widely proven Japanese first generation systems.--Alex 16:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waste Management In Popular Culture?

Would it be appropriate on Wikipedia to include a reference to waste management as a euphemism for organized crime (i.e. The Sopranos)? Or is that more appropriate for Wiktionary? Akira 03:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would think it best either as a wikitionary article or if there is enough information background for a new article and it to be used as a "other meanings" section.--Alex 10:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waste Management Concepts

It seems to me that this section would benefit from some vigorous editing - the subheadings of Recycling and Consumer vs Machine Waste Separation (as they currently stand) are inappropriately detailed for the section. I believe that this section should briefly touch on the broader concepts relating to Waste Management in general, and leave the detailed descriptions of processes and techniques to separate articles. Examples would be 1-2 paragraph descriptions of EPR, Product Stewardship, etc. I realise that different countries/regions might have different names and definitions for things, but there must be some broad concepts in common. Anyone else got any thoughts? --ropable 00:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ropable, it sounds logical to me. I'm not so keen on the concepts part of waste management, more the practical and logical, which in this industry doesn't always seem to follow. Zero waste springs to mind!--Alex 16:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)