Category talk:Hazardous air pollutants

Articles are not linked -vs- Criteria are political
At first it seems to make sense to put every chemical mentioned in the lists (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and National Ambient Air Quality Standards) into this category, by adding category links.

The lists seem to apply common sense, given that everything can be toxic or objectionable. They seem to include air pollutants that are regulated BECAUSE they have a direct toxicity AND are commonly produced, thus omitting CO2 and ethane because they are not toxic, and Tellurium and TNT because no one emits them.

However, I feel uncomfortable when I contemplate adding all those Category links. This category is general, and its criteria are official. The lists are published by a national government agency (US EPA), which is non-neutral (the whole world breathes air) and more prone to political bias than an international scientific organization.

I can't think of a way to rename the category to make it make sense. (Regulated Hazardous air pollutants)?? (USEPA Hazardous air pollutants)??

If someone links the listed substances into this category, I would not remove them. I'm just not comfortable enough to systematically add all of them -- someone might rename the category or change the criteria again. I might link in the most "obvious" or "universal" pollutants. Whiner01 18:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)