Talk:Hazardous waste/Archive 1

Untitled
This page has been repeatedly vandalized. I restored the page to a version from March of 2008 that appeared to be the least damaged. I've been researching some later versions of the page in order to try to recover some content that was lost. Ubikk (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This whole article about Hazardous waste is grossly inaccurate and was probably written by someone from the incineration / cement industry. It contains outrageous lies and misconceptions (for instance that hazardous waste can be "neutralized" by incorporating it into cement).

I suggest that it be deleted completely until a better (and more unbiased) version is put together. Mastercroft (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who originally wrote this page a while ago while I was studying this subject at Uni. I just copied it straight from a text book as there was nothing on the subject on here. Thought someone would have tidied it up in the meantime but I see that some of the original formatting is still here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.249.177 (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal
(See also related comments at Talk:Toxic waste.)


 * Support Hazardous waste includes toxic waste by definition. Furthermore, the Hazardous Waste article is of better quality than the Toxic Waste article, which includes large sections of non-neutral content in an unencyclopedic style.142.163.67.192 (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article (Hazardous waste) seems appropriately broad in its scope. Toxic waste is a subset of hazardous waste, but is important on its own right. That said, I agree with the sentiments of the prior comment that the Toxic waste article needs substantial improvement. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hazardous =/= toxic. Toxic waste is hazardous, but hazardous waste is not necessarily toxic. Toxic waste is waste that will cause biochemical harm, while hazardous waste is waste that has the potential to cause harm, by an unspecified route. Nitrogen gas, for example, has a low toxicity but a high hazard potential. 'Oppose' added purely for the record; this merger has actually been proposed since at least July 2006. There seems no overall consensus for the merge (in the seven years that it has been proposed, a total of 4 editors for, 4 against) and so I'm going to close it and call it status quo. Keri (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Problem article
Every few months I find myself looking at this article and experiencing heartsink. It is - as it stands - a terrible article. It is confusing, unnecessarily complex, written almost entirely from a US perspective and even contains direct copy/paste from US government sources. (I realise that US Gov material is not subject to copyright so this isn't a copyvio, but the laziness and the lack of attribution bother me.) The article needs to be completely re-written to present a more accessible and general overview of the topic. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, for example, are completely meaningless to a reader in Europe or Asia... or anywhere outside of the USA. The article Hazardous waste in the United States already exists, so, daunting as it may be, I am going to take a chainsaw to the page, and separate the wood from the trees. Keri (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal seems to be the best starting point for broadly defining "hazardous waste". Keri (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)