Talk:Air pollution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	This environment-related article is part of the Environment 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.

	This article related to meteorology and/or specific weather events is part of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] 4.6 million deaths ???

I would like some source about it. I searched the WHO website for a while, and couldnt get a clue about the numbers. The only reliable document I found from WHO tells that the number are rather 1.5M (indoor air pollution) + 0.9 M (outdoor air pollution) = 2.4 M This document can be read here : http://www.who.int/entity/quantifying_ehimpacts/countryprofilesebd.xls

Hephaestos le Bancal 09:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro sentence

"Air pollution is a broad term applied to all chemical substances, physical and biological agents that modify the natural characteristics of the atmosphere."

I removed "substances, physical" above since there are no physical substances that modify something yet are inert. Koyaanis Qatsi

But energy can affect the atmosphere (ie.: radiation) user:ChaTo Thursday, July 18, 2002.

Particulates damage lungs through their physical presence, rather than chemistry, and are a significant element of air pollution.Will McW 23:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ATTENTION: The only thing that I see when I view this page is the words "GOD WILL SAVE!!!!" I do not know how to fix this but figured that it was worth mentioning, seeing as probably no one can view this page.

[edit] Modify the natural characteristics?

I think that the phrase

modify the natural characteristics

is not what air pollution means. There is a connotation of making the air noxious, smelly, discolored; causing known bad side effects like death from humans inhaling poisons; or unpleasant side effects like smog; or theoretical disastrous side effects, e.g., ozone depletion or global warming.

The word modify just doesn't work here. Ed Poor, Friday, July 12, 2002

Good point. "Damage the atmosphere" seems a little strong, though. Maybe a link to pollution? Vicki Rosenzweig, Saturday, July 13, 2002

I disagree. We can't know if the changes we are making to the atmosphere are for good. For instance, if we talk about water pollution, and i throw sugar on a river, i'm not damaging the water, i'm making it sweeter!. Maybe the sugar is harmless, maybe it's not, but i have polluted the river. Polution comes from the latin "pollere" meaning "soil" and "defile". On the other side, From The Longman Dictionary of Environmental Science, as "any harmful or undesirable change in the physical, chemical or biological quality of air, water or soil . . . ". I think there is a strong controversy here, some definitions include harm made by humans and by nature (ie: the explosion of a volcano), and some definitions accept changes to the environment that are not harmful (for instance, aesthetic changes, or ) as being non-pollution. Maybe we should put both views here. user:ChaTo Thursday, July 18, 2002.

its not the point whether we are making changes for the good or not. any change from prehistoric times is simply a change and de facto pollution of the atmosphere. we are not smart enough to judge what effect these changes will have on people and ecosystems. our job is to factually record in wikipedia what these changes or pollutants are. maybe the phrase is "materially alter the content of air". its a mouthful though and someone can come up with a better wording Anlace February 17, 2006

Hey. I disagree with ChaTo on the sugar part, when you add sugar on a river or water, there's no way you will have water again. You anticipated a product from the mixture, which is "sweet water" but not water. And yes it does damage the water because it natural flavor isn't there anymore, and sugar isn't a safe substance for human due to the fact that we do have diabetic agents within our enviroment. And to continue with the main subject, I think that air pollution is an enormous issues, and i indeed appreciate the effort done by the engineers, scientists, enviromentalists, and all those that volunteer to put an end to this matter. The French, Russians, Japonese, and many more are contributed on that behalf by operating their vehicle with water, hybrid and diesel instead of gasoline. which are steps that prove that they are working to reduce the chances for "Global warming", and many incidents to come. User:nikel81ex Tuesday, March 20, 2007

But still, what is a "natural state" of the atmosphere? When the first leaf plants began to produce oxygen (a poison from some perspective) a mass extinction followed. IMHO, pollution definitions are very atropocentric - if it harms the human body, it is a pollution. Also, pollution is not only man-made: think about a volcano, even if its natural, we call it a polluter. --Oderbolz 06:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon dioxide

Carbondioxide is not air pollutant. CO2 is essential gas for photosynthesis. Whole life on Earth depends on that. Siim 21:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

True. A better example in this context would be carbon monoxide.Will McW 23:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid it all depends what you mean by 'air pollutant'. There are natural sources of carbon monoxide as well as of carbon dioxide (especially natural wildfires). Ozone is also essential for life as we know it - without the ozone layer levels of ultraviolet light would be huge. However there is no doubt in most people's minds that low level ozone is a pollutant. The point about CO₂ is that its levels are substantially elevated above the levels observed in recent geological time and is now believed by most scientists to be changing the climate. A good definition of air pollution is that from the state of Maine:

"Air pollution" means the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more air contaminants in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics and duration as to be injurious to human, plant or animal life or to property, or which unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life and property throughout the State or throughout such areas of the State as shall be affected thereby.[1]

Although I would extend that to be global rather than one state and to also include indoor air pollution. Still, in the context of the article, CO is probably a better example. This is probably also relevant to the above discusion as well.--NHSavage 09:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

any substance can be a pollutant ...the notion is material alteration of any chemical. oxygen would be a pollutant if it became 100 percent of our air :)Anlace 14:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Atlanta parking garage settled particulates.jpg

This image was removed with the rationale "these particuates are from concrete & road dirt, not air pollution." I have replaced the image. I agree the the particulates may be mostly from concrete and 'road dirt.' However, according to the article, these are in fact sources of air pollution. The point being, if the particulates arrived by air (which I assert they did), they were air pollution. -SCEhard T 18:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether the particles are from concrete or road dirt they are > 100 microns. Unless they're under 2.5 microns, EPA doesn't consider them to be air pollution because they settle out so quickly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghosts&empties (talk • contribs) .

I'm not entirely sure what the EPA has to do with this. Are you saying the Dust Bowl wasn't air pollution? -SCEhard T 17:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not correct. Dispersion aerosols are > 2 microns. Dust from breaks and tyres are mayjor sources of PM10 (if you look at a Diesel vehicle, about 60% of its PM10 emission comes from Tyres and breaks).

--Oderbolz 06:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Dust storms obscure visibility, but unless the dust is respirable (0.1 - 2.5 microns) the health effects aren't particularly a concern with some exceptions (e.g. cattle in a feedlot). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghosts&empties (talk • contribs) .

Particulates are the chief form of air pollution in many communities, especially those engaged in agriculture, and can be a major health problem. I'm not sure how we know the particulates in the photo were of a certain size, but I'm sure we can find a better photo to illustrate the concept, like a dust storm or dust devil. -Willmcw 21:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The other question is what one means by pollution. Particulates with a diameter greater than 2.5 microns may not be considered pollution by the EPA (the standard in the UK actually has an upper cut off at 10 microns) but they may still have harmful effects. Some examples of this could be the soiling caused by the particulates or the radiative effects. Many people would feel that reduced visibility itself is undesireable. Not all pollution is simply about effects on human health. I agree we might find a better picture though. I'll have a think.--NHSavage 23:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: establishing PM2.5 guidelines (vs. PM10) doesn't mean that what was pollution before no longer is. The definition has only broadened. Onceler 03:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Hello all. This formatting monstrosity, quite possibly a copyvio, just came up on Special:Newpages, I think its pretty clear that it should be merged here. Thoughts? Jdcooper 17:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the merge. Because it's information from the EPA, it's not actually a copyvio, but it is terribly redundant and should be merged. TomTheHand 17:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Air pollution is a broad term. there are several fields under air pollution. Air toxics is in itself a big field of study. There is a seperate section at USEPA office which is working on Air toxics. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/index.html I am a graduate student in atmospheric sciences working on Air Quality issues at NC state university and currently working on a project to develop a full fledged course on air toxics. I think we should not not merge Air toxic in Air pollution, though we can put a link in air pollution topic.

In theory I would agree that air toxics could be a separate article, if it actually had content and wasn't just a copy of one of the EPA's web pages. As it stands, though, it has no original content and should be merged. TomTheHand 18:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an opinions on the merge. As Naserke (please sign your edits :-)) is the graduate student in atmospheric sciences I am not going to argue either side, there seems to be an overlap, but if there is potential for separation then thats fine. However, the Air toxics article needs considerable formatting work done, especially wikification, its still a monstrosity! And as you pointed out TomTheHand, its not particularly useful solely as a copy of another site, it might as well just be an external link on this page if we're going to keep it like that. Basically, it just needs to be brought into line with the stern hand of Wikipedia :-) Jdcooper 18:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with JDcooper on this one. Having the article as solely a copy of another site doesn't make sense when a simple link will do. CleanAir 15:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia and don't know much about formatting and how to sign my edits. sorry for this. I am trying to learn this Naserke

I have placed external link on this page. Naserke 18:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ace, thats good for now, but if you actually do think a distinct topic can be covered under the Air toxins article, then absolutely go for it, Be Bold! Jdcooper 04:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding sugestions that this article is redundant, I should mention that air pollutants and air toxics are two totally different terms. Like, ozone is an air pollutant but not air toxic. Naserke 04:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The EPA page on "Air Toxics" refers to "toxic air pollutants",[2] which seems to blur the distinction, and their final list of air toxins includes ozone. [3] -Will Beback 04:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Merged - such as it consisted only of a couple of EPA links. Restart the page (now a redirect) when and if there is some real content. Vsmith 04:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Will Beback http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/188polls.html This is list of 188 air toxics listed by EPA. I couldn't find ozone in it. I will update when i will write some material on it. Till then its ok to be redirected to air pollution. Naserke 05:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Air toxics should be linked to air pollution not merged. the notion of toxics is clearly separated from air pollution in general. for example CO is not a carcinogen, but radon is. air toxics is an important topic in itself and should not be redirected or merged here. Anlace 14:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The term 'air pollution' is an umbrella term and encompasses a wide range of topics including both criteria pollutants such as ozone and particulates and also air toxics such as benzene. I believe criteria air pollutants are those which EPA has set national ambient air quality standards for, and air toxics do not have standards. I think the air pollution page should have an air toxics subsection with general overview and a link to a separate air toxics page which contains more detailed information. 'Same thing for criteria air pollutants'. Thomaslambert 13:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Higher atmospheric CO2 leading to ocean acidification?

I happened to hear mention about this on one or another NPR program, perhaps Science Friday, about a couple of weeks ago. I don't know how controversial it is or what the quantitative dependencies are understood to be (how much more CO2 would cause how much of a lower pH). Also, I haven't heard mention about how much ocean pH would need to lower by in order to have an effect on marine life. As I understand it, the greatest effects would be on the more primitive or "lower echelon" life forms such as coral and plankton and these would in turn affect things which feed on them, which indirectly means everything in the water. This sounds like a pretty important consequence of something happening in the atmosphere. I mention it on this talk page because it would be one effect of an increase in the level of carbon dioxide in the air and believe this would probably justify a brief mention with a link to any more relevant existing article about the ocean or ocean pollution, such as may exist. I was thinking I would add such info if/when I can find more references. Perhaps I am just not looking in the right place. If anyone else knows more about a wikipedia precedent for this feel free to pipe in. I don't want to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. -Onceler 01:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the bother! I forgot I had docked my preferences the other day to tailor my searches. I found what I was looking for: Ocean acidification. -Onceler 10:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Onceler. Feel free to pipe in. Be bold. Yes, find references, and add what they say. All we should be doing here is verifiably summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Indeed, certain kinds of water pollution may be a consequence of certain kinds of air pollution, and so it's a relevant topic. Cheers, -Will Beback 11:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primary and secondary pollutants

On a cautionary note, reference to primary and secondary pollutants does seem to be common elsewhere and as such might have had a place in the article--I base this only on a google search. As I am not familiar with them, might I ask, what are primary and secondary standards? Could both senses (re pollutants/re standards) be used if they are properly defined? -Onceler 15:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As I was not aware of these terms with respect to standards myself, I'll mention this for future reference. Regarding

standards:

The EPA ranks regulations in accordance with who or what they are intended to protect as primary ("human health, including sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals suffering from respiratory disease") and secondary ("public welfare" such as "building facades, visibility, crops, and domestic animals"). This is per the article National Ambient Air Quality Standards as sourced from the EPA website. Does anyone know if these terms are based on any other more general or universal regulatory framework outside the EPA?

pollutants:

Primary and secondary had formerly been used in this article to refer respectively to pollutants which are released directly and those which form after the fact from some combination of primary pollutants and/or other substances. It would be worthwhile knowing whether there are alternate formal or more appropriate terms to indicate the same thing.

Again, my comment is to weigh in on the relevance of primary/secondary distinctions in both senses and that there need not be confusion within the article as long as references are made clearly and appropriate caveats noted. Something like the above bullets might be worthwhile putting in the article itself. Unless more appropriate terminology is found, it would be better for this article to include and clarify multiple-sense terms which might cause confusion instead of ducking the question for the sake of convenience. -Onceler 02:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USA-only photos?

Any thoughts on the USA-only photos on this page? I believe that there may be air quality issues in other nations. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hu Gadarn (talk • contribs) .

I think this is because only people in the US have contributed photos. Do you have relevant photos from Canada? -SCEhard T 19:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have photos of: (i) marine vessel emissions; (ii) "beehive"/"tee-pee" burners; (iii) gridlock in Vancouver, BC; (iv) outdoor burning (e.g. agriculture); (v) household emissions (e.g. lawnmowers, wood stoves, smoking BBQs; (vi) degraded visibility... I didn't want to simply remove some else's photo and install my own but if there's any interest in any of these then I'll upload. Hu Gadarn (talk • contribs) .

I'd suggest that you check out commons:Air pollution and commons:Category:Air pollution. Upload any of your photos that you think would be useful additions (there doesn't seem to be anything covering marine vessel emissions, for example). Even if they aren't used in this article, they'll probably be used in other articles or on other language wikipedias in the future. After that, pick out the best photos from the group and use them to illustrate the issues covered in this article - I wouldn't worry about who added the current images since everyone's goal should be to make the best article possible. -SCEhard T 20:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donora

I've sat in on presentations where Donora-type incidents were said to have happened in New York City and in London during the 50s and 60s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.19.209.172 (talk • contribs) .

For those people like me who had not heard of Donora see [4]. London's equivalent was Great Smog of 1952. As for NY there is nothing mentioned in Timeline_of_New_York_City_crimes_and_disasters#20th_century but I am sure smog was a problem and remains (albeit now photochemical not winter).--NHSavage 20:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a nice summary page of summary of historical international AQ episodes & issues (e.g. 900 BC Egypt, 61 AD Rome) and another of key US AQ episodes, including St Louis, NY, Donora and LA.--Hu Gadarn

[edit] Clarification requests

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (July 2007)

In the "Deaths" section, the phrases "many" and "linked to" are vague, and should be replaced with more concrete terms. -- Beland 03:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Indoor air pollution" has a litany of things which make it sound like practically every household object is constantly emitting deadly gases. Some context should be provided about the amount of pollution generated, the amount of ventihilation needed for safe co-existence, relative risk, etc. - - Beland 03:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text

These natural radon emissions can be blocked by a layer of aluminum foil under the carpet (according to the U.S. Department of Air Quality Management).

A quick check couldn't find evidence of any such department, making the entire claim somewhat dubious. -- Beland 03:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air pollution control systems

I think the wet scrubbers should not point to the more general scrubber page, but created a new page. This is because scrubbers are not only wet! The Vindictive 12:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to create such a page, but it should have much more information than what's in the current general scrubber page to justify a split. Until then, wet scrubber (and now dry scrubber, thanks) should point to the general page. --Spiffy sperry 14:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do so. Thanks. The Vindictive 08:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The wet scrubber page is ready. Feel free to have a look at it. I don't know who included heat exchangers in the air pollution control technologies category? It should be removed. What do you think? The Vindictive 15:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon Dioxide

I have reverted the prevous edit to include a counter-comment about CO2. It has been known for at least a century that CO2 is part of the respiration cycle in animals (see JS Haldane, Respiration, 1935 for example), and it is a vital part of photosynthesis in plant life. By any definition of "pollution", it cannot be regarded as a pollutant. Wikipedia must try to give a balanced neutral view, and not one dictated by political expediency.

Peterrhyslewis 08:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many substances which are beneficial in some circumstances but harmful in certian places or concentrations. Ozone is helpful up in the stratosphere but unhealthy in the troposhphere. Likewise, CO2 is harmful to the climate in high concentrations, even while being a natural part of the environment in lower concentrations. That's not politics, it's science. -Will Beback · † · 02:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The case against CO2 being harmful at 0.038% concentration is unproven. By the same argument, water can also be "harmful" snce you can drown in the liquid. Thats the science and the reality. Most people would not think of water being a pollutant, or being harmful. I do not see CO2 being classified as a "pollutant" in any of the sub-sections of the article where various national policies are discussed.Peterrhyslewis 09:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, not a pollutant. The Vindictive 19:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that CO2 is a pollutant, and must be regulated by the EPA. The greenhouse effect is one negative impact which qualifies it as a pollutant rather than a neutral or beneficial byproduct. -- Beland 00:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding an AQ conferences page?

Any thoughts about providing links to recurring/upcoming AQ conferencers on this page? Hu Gadarn 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Observational Database

A large observational database of many different atmospheric constituents including radicals from a host of platforms is available. This was created as part of ESA Envisat and NASA Aura validation. It is of general use. Do you think it should be added to the article text? Dlary 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispersion Modeling

It would be appropriate to move the section on dispersion modeling to a separate article.

68.216.90.16 23:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The topic of dispersion modeling is absolutely central to Air pollution and this section must remain. As you can see there is also a substantial subarticle to carry the bulk of the material, but we need the substantive summary that is now present. Anlace 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I am quite new to editing Wikipedia. I wish I had time to do more. (Some day I will).

Recently I had added an external link to a site I control (bad, I now know). I should have suggested it here and let you all decide whether it merits inclusion.

iwantcleanair.com is primarily a public service to let people know about air quality. The most important aspect is a daily air quality forcast for the United States. This information is available at: http://www.iwantcleanair.com/index.cfm?catID=10

On a regular basis, there are parts of the United States where the air quality is projected to be either Code Red (Unhealthy - everyone will experience health effects) or Code Orange (Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups - people with lung or heart disease, the elderly and children will experience health effects).

If wikipedia can host a script to include this information on a daily basis, I would be happy to help write it. If not, please include a link to the Air Quality Alerts at http://www.iwantcleanair.com/index.cfm?catID=10

Thanks. --IwantCleanAir 00:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air pollution article without... pollutants???

If we have created an article about air pollution, besides the description of air pollution and the sources of air pollution, shouldn't we also have a section describing the... pollutants??? The Vindictive 17:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Since added, apparently. -- Beland 00:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graphics

If anybody wants to figure out the licensing involved...

[5] has some historical charts for various world cities.
The European Space Agency has world NO2 maps (terms of use, similar to Image:NO2 pollution europe hires.jpg)

[edit] A request for sources

Hello,

I would like to ask for refernces and sources of information confirming this statement: "The World Health Organization thinks that 4.6 million people die each year from causes directly attributable to air pollution", and this one: "Published in 2005 suggests that 310,000 Europeans die from air pollution annually". If you can just insert the exact link where these facts were taken from, it'll be really good. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.62.119 (talk) 09:36, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative spellings

Wikipedia policy regarding words that have alternative spellings is that the spelling used in the earliest chronological introduction of such words in an article shall be used in that article from then on.

Since the originator of this article used U.S. English spellings rather than British English spellings when choosing to use the words desulfurization, sulfur dioxide and sulfur in creating this article means that U.S. English spellings are always to be retained in this article. This does not mean that either spelling is "right" or "wrong". It simply means that it is Wikipedia policy. - mbeychok 15:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Night Time Air Pollution

In the two cities I have lived, I have noticed a pattern, that night time air pollution can turn dramatically worse. In common with both cities is the fact that the air pollution control authorities are 9-5 M-F employees. So, in effect the laws are enforced 9-5, with bio/chemical terrorist monitoring departments getting tons of money, but they do not look into any real changes in air quality (least they interfer with regular commerce). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.163.55 (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon dioxide again

To keep its NPOV status, carbon dioxide cannot be referred to as a pollutant since it is vital for all plant life. If I am wrong about this bit of schoolboy science, please correct me! Peterlewis (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

CO2 is not only vital for plants. Any moron depends on it. Still it may become a pollutant in various ways. If your cubicle is filled with CO2 you die (while your plant may hang in a bit longer). When the outdoor concentration generally rises and in consequence alters the atmosphere's radiative properties, that substance is a pollutant. This is a repetition of what was discussed on this page in 2004. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose water by the same token is also a pollutant (since you can drown in it). The term "pollutant" has thus lost any reasonable definition. The use of the term has become a political statement rather than an objective scientific term. Peterlewis (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter, reason and logic will not prevail with those who close their minds to whatever they have decided is "the truth". Especially those who have only been on the Wikipedia about 3 months and have yet to read or learn about Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV) or most other policies for that matter ... such as the Wiki policy on civility (WP:Civility). Perhaps that is why he uses phrases like "weasel worded" and "any moron".

You might try informing Gabriel that that Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Science (USA), thinks that global warming theory is based on flawed ideas (See http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm). In fact, he has sponsored a petition to have the United States government reject the Kyoto Protocal ... and the petition now has 19,000 signatures.

If he needs hard, scientific evidence that the global warming theory is flawed, ask him to read this article:

A.B. Robinson, N.E. Robinson and Willie Soon, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 78-90. A copy is available online at http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf

Keep the faith and keep trying. I thoroughly agreed with the sentence that you added to Air pollution which was deleted by Gabriel - mbeychok (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep the faith and keep trying. What is this, religion? And Frederick Seitz as your science source, no disrespect to him, but his is rather a minority position quite at odds with active climate scientists researching the global warming problem. Vsmith (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't religion. Keep the faith is just a saying that means keep hoping, keep trying or don't give up. As for Frederick Seitz (past president of the National Academy of Science) and many others who agree with him, I thought the whole idea of democracy and NPOV was to allow the hearing of minority opinions.

This whole issue is about Peterlewis having added one sentence that read Other scientists recognise carbon dioxide is essential for plant life and should not be classed as a pollutant ... which was deleted by Gabriel Kieland in a rather rude manner. Peterlewis did not delete any of the content stating otherwise ... he merely pointed out that many of us simply do not agree. Is that not the very essence of the NPOV policy? Please read all of the background on this discussion. - mbeychok (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The current article notes the dual role of CO2. It's not the only chemical that has a dual role - beneficial and pollutant. With CO2 it is the increasing concentration in the atmosphere that makes it a pollutant - and yes that increasing concentration may well be beneficial to plant life while producing serious problems for humanity (and polar bears...). With that Other scientists recognise carbon dioxide is essential for plant life ... he was implying that the climate scientists didn't recognize that basic truism and therefore must be blind or dumb.

And keep the faith means a basic religious attitude of ignore the evidence - all you gotta do is believe. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The entire sentence is a straw man argument - saying that somehow, classifying anthropogenic CO2 as a pollutant means you don't believe it is essential for life. Furthermore, the clause "other scientists recognize... that it should not be classed as a pollutant" is very POV, since it implies that "CO2 should not be classed as a pollutant" is an inarguable truth which merely needs "recognition". Obviously, if human-released CO2 alters the climate of the earth negatively, it can reasonably be classed as a pollutant, quite independent of its beneficial / necessary roles. Making this into an argument about the validity of global warming is asinine, since the fact at issue - climate scientists now class CO2 as a pollutant - is not disputed. <eleland/talkedits> 01:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The statement now reads: "(CO2 ...) have recently gained recognition as pollutants by climate scientists." This is a severe understatement. The recognition is currently with every OECD government except that of USA. Sad really. Also the unsigned hard scientific evidence above is only saddening stubbornness. This article could however benefit from a paragraph on beneficial side effects of pollutants. Nitrogen fertilizes. Sulphur deposition acts to raise production in some exotic ecosystems. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing with me that labelling CO2 as a pollutant is a political rather than scientific doctrine. What is really sad is attitudes which fail to recognise rational scepticism as the way to keep politicians in check. That and the ballot box (when we are allowed to vote). Peterlewis (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Gabriel Kielland: This is a quote from your above resonse: the unsigned hard scientific evidence above is only saddening stubbornness. What unsigned response are you talking about? As far as can see, every response in this posting has been signed. You know, it is possible to respond on a Talk page without denigrating a prior response. Your inability to do so is what is really saddening stubborness. - mbeychok (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies to Mbeychok for not having recognized that the two references above are within his entry. Both are unrelated to this discussion. Peterlewis has however a point that air pollution is a political topic. The link between scientific recommendations and political response is not well described in the article. A rather random selection of policies are hidden under the title Air quality standards. A separate article Air quality (rather than the current redirect) would be an improvement. Also a section Air pollution#Policies. The very last section on Greenhouse effect and ocean acidification actually explains about water in relation to air pollution from CO2. This could clearly be improved upon. Gabriel Kielland 23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use easier words please!!!!

Please use easier words, this website is for everyone, including kids —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiddleswith (talk • contribs) 13:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Although articles shouldn't be unnecessarily complex, Wikipedia isn't designed to be easy for kids to read. -SCEhard T 01:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Errors

There is a major error in the list showing CO2 emissions in tonnes for a number of countries. These figures are way, way off. I followed the footnote back to the source, and sure enough, whoever wrote this section misunderstood the meaning of the data. The data actually show only emissions from the electric power generation sector of each of the listed countries. This needs to be fixed asap. An excellent source of data for developed countries (and some developing nations) is the website of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convestion on Climate Change). (Steve S). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.127.118 (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the there is also a major error in the data showing carbon dioxide emissions per capita. All these figures are way off. For example, from UNFCCC data, US per capita emissions are well over 20 tonnes of CO2 per person. Perhaps whoever wrote this section got carbon dioxide and carbon mixed up (sometimes, CO2 emissions are given in tons of CO2, and sometimes they are given in tonnes of Carbon). In any case, someone needs to review this entire section. (Steve S.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.127.118 (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many charts and tables on that website. http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/items/3800.php Can you provide a link to the table you're talking about? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This part needs to be cleaned up : then language is convoluted and fails to articulate what it is attempting to say :

"2002 at least 146 million Americans were living in areas that did not failed to meet at least one of the “criteria pollutants” laid out in the 1997 National Ambient Air Quality Standards."

"that did not failed to meet" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.80.98 (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review Air pollution#Health effects

Hi there

I'm not an expert in this field. I merged the apparently good-faith attempt to start an article at Air Pollutions Effect on Pulmonary diseases and Children into the article because that "article" was a non-starter. I've cleaned up the section headers and refs, but I'm not sure if there is any undue weight or POV issues. I hope those who can, can run a critical eye over these contribs. Thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC) what will happen if we stop polluting? we ill save nature and not kill our planet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.156.101 (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories: Articles to be expanded since July 2007 | All articles to be expanded