Talk:History of waste management

--Alex 08:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment 22 September 2014
The opening paragraph could use some revision. Ancient Romans had dumps http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/06/110623-ancient-rome-human-waste-herculaneum-science-diet-excrement-italy/ and this is a problem urban areas have had for millenia. Large cities like Edinburgh would throw waste into the street and let it run downhill into a lake or put it in a barrel and deliver it to a lake. http://www.scotlandmag.com/magazine/issue46/12009416.html. Waste management has always been a problem for large cities even dating back to the native americans: http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~ernesto/S2014/SHWPCE/Papers/SHW-Introduction/Crowell-HistoryofWaste.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.21.145.13 (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Questionable emphasis on efficiency of private 'dust-yard' system
Recent research has shown that the first occurrence of organised SWM system appeared in London in the late 18th century, namely more than 50 years before the Public Health Act. A waste collection and resource recovery system was established around the 'dust-yards'. Main constituent of municipal waste was the coal ash (‘dust’) which had a market value for brick-making and as a soil improver (‘soil’ and ‘breeze’ products). Such profitability encouraged dust-contractors to recover effectively 100% of the residual wastes remaining after readily saleable items and materials had been removed by the thriving informal sector in the streets ('rag-and-bone men'). Therefore, this was an early example of organised, municipal-wide solid waste management. The dust-yard system had been working successfully up to middle 1850s, when the market value of ‘dust’ collapsed. It was important in facilitating a relatively smooth transition to an institutionalised, municipally-run solid waste management system in England. —

I am concerned that this passage relies too much on primary source material (WP:PRIMARY), putting undue emphasis on gives undue weight (WP:WEIGHT) to the supposed efficiency of this 'thriving' system whilst omitting the social context, i.e., the crushing poverty and miserable working conditions of this occupation in the 19th century. This undue weight may also be reinforced by 'weasel wording' that disguises the true significance of a single study behind the phrase 'Recent research has shown' (WP:WEASEL). Thoughts?

— Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with you. Have made some small modifications but perhaps you can edit it further to make it less "shining", e.g. mentioning the work conditions. But would need anothe reference then, perhaps? Or maybe the other reference does cover that, too. EvMsmile (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

First sentence of the Article
The first sentence not only has a broken reference link, but seems quite out of place and peculiar to me. However this is my first time using a talk page, and I've not much experience editing, so I thought I'd leave it to more sure hands. It reads:''

"This is useless!!!, waste has been generated by humans.[1]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfick (talk • contribs) 18:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)