Talk:Persistent organic pollutant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At Champion Middle School some of us are learning about National Parks and I was reading something and it was talking about POP or persistent organtic pollutant.

[edit] Long range transport

The section on LRT seems to be self-contradictory. Satyrium 13:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rational Skepticism

Not withstanding the scientific nature of POPs/PBTs and the need to expand this article, I'm intrigued by the attention of the Rational Skepticism Project in this article. Is there concern that article itself is biased or is this an attempt to attract someone qualified to revamp? Is this tag being applied to every scientific topic? A comment by Pustelnik who posted the tag would be welcomed. Kmarkey (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

While agree that this article is dire need of improvement/expansion, I do not think the Rational Skepticism Project tag is warranted, and I have removed it. Yilloslime (t) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trends

move here from article space, not clear what this is saying and no references (it was tagged as section for cleanup) RJFJR (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The general trend of POPs is the following:

• Synthesis and development.
• Increased use over large areas in Europe and North America.
• Concerns over their persistence, bioaccumulation, and bioconcentration.
• Restricted use.
• Reduced emissions, as well as bans and controls.