Talk:List of environmental disasters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Types of environmental disasters 2 Nuclear bomb blasts 3 Environmental disasters versus Natural disasters 4 Imagine: the 2 atomic bombings NOT disasters, (READ(short&sweet) 5 I think you need a different approach

[edit] Types of environmental disasters

This section comes across as rather confusing. Compare with Natural hazard and Category:Natural hazards and Natural disaster and Category:Natural disasters and also Category:Disasters. I've been cleaning these categories up, and I'm trying to fit this article in somewhere. I've created Category:Environmental disasters to put examples of environmental disasters, and put this article in there. I may also try and rewrite the first section to give an idea of when a normal natural event becomes an environmental disaster. It may be POV, but I've always thought of an environmental disaster as being man-made. Carcharoth 04:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC) Carcharoth 04:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear bomb blasts

Where do the nuclear bombs the US dropped on Japan come into play? --12.220.198.186 00:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

it was awful for human and environment, why just put on accidental nuclear pollution and not "explicit" ? --Ayanoa 20:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental disasters versus Natural disasters

I have edited the page so it only contains disasters that are due to anthropogenic effects on the natural environment. Alan Liefting 06:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imagine: the 2 atomic bombings NOT disasters, (READ(short&sweet)

Note: obvisouly, I wanted to edit, but didn't...

There are 2 sides to these bombings, the American side, and the Japanese side.

For the American side, they were not disasters, but actually blessings, and fulfillment of plans that went perfectly.

For the Japanese side, your gut may tell you to quickly say "yes, they were great disasters". OK, go learn some about how they brought the Emperor to surrender, and then by him, the Empire. AND THIS is the key, making it a blessing for both sides. Obviously so for the American side of the issue: it ended the war, and prevented a conquering (raizing) of Japan that would have cost ~3mil. American lives.

But ALSO A BLESSING FOR THE JAPANESE EMPIRE! How?! read: Aprox 3 mil(maybe more) Americans (not to mention casualties of other Allied nations) would have died before Japan capitulated otherwise, but that would have meant, with the Japanese need for suicide in case of anything but victory that, at the very least, 80% (& probably more like 90%) of their population would be wiped out before surrender would have been offered sans the atomic bombings.

Now Japan has a population of some ~125mil people today, I'm ging to venture it was 33-38mil. at the time the allied invasion was to occur.

Simple conclusion: The bombs were a godsend for the Japanese, surrended would not have come ANY OTHER WAY beside obliteration of their people, they suffered only some several 100k dead (perhaps 1+mil. since due to radiation) instead of 20+mil..

20,000,000>1,000,000

Do some research, and see what you think.

Cordially, -Later

apart of the political point of there are environmental disaster (for the soil, fauna and flora) with the radioactivity. point. no need to extrapolate or give economical etc point of view; I think these are irrelevant arguments here. --Ayanoa 11:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think you need a different approach

Whether or not you list nuclear attack on Japan as an environmental disaster has nothing to do with the question if it was a blessing or not, and has nothing to do with the question of whether it was a dissaster for both people and the environment (obviously, it was). The question you should be asking as an editor is what is the objective of this list.

In my opinion, as an editor and as a reader, the objective is to learn about the history of environmental disasters, which brought about and later improved societies understanding of how to continue and live in a productive modern society without damaging the environment in which we live: our planet. Clearly warfare has a huge detrimental impact on environmental systems, and I would say the so far, overall, conventional warfare has and is currently causing more damage than the two atom bombs. I would not list every large war event as an 'environmental disaster', for two reasons:

1. As an editor, this does not archive my purpose and it would be impossible to list even just the big events.

2. As a reader, if I'm on this page -- that's not what I'm looking for.

Also, I would add that some of the other 'items' on the list don't fit, like 'EPA superfund sites' -- it's much too general. I think this should be a chronological list of major events that either captured public and/or political attention, or were of such a scale that they impacted public opinion, policy, and/or scientific understanding. Otherwise, you'll need to include the industrial revolution, every disease that ever plagued humanity, every war and conflict, every single industry, humanity,...

I understand your point of view, and that's why I try (to "improved societies understanding of how to continue and live") in the french wikipedia with important dates of ecologism (and sure it's not the same list here). we try to put the things who really have modified the perception of the human impact on the environment. in a documentary with hubert reeves, he explains how the "reality" of the bombing have shaped and changed the mentality of physicians, (his colleagues) and furthermore the perception of american people (perhaps later)about the importance of "nuclear power". it was first hand documented. --Ayanoa 00:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)