User:Russovidal/sandbox

Outline/Areas of Improvement
Expansion of the current article:

The “Natural Burial” article currently on Wikipedia can be further expanded to include the sustainable practice of burial known as biodegradable burial pods. Parts to be included for a burial pods section include: Sourcing of current material:
 * 1) Economic advantages/disadvantages
 * 2) Environmental impacts in comparison to Western burial practices (i.e. ground/casket burials, above ground burial, cremation, etc.)
 * 3) Religious obstacles
 * 4) Inclusion of "burial pods"

Some information currently on the “Natural Burial” is missing citations. The following pieces of the article needs to be sourced.
 * 1) “Some glues that are used, such as those that contain formaldehyde, are feared to cause pollution when they are burned during cremation or when degrading in the ground.[ citation needed]”
 * 2) “Billy Campbell, a rural doctor and a pioneer of the green burial movement in the USA, opened the first modern "green cemetery"[ clarification needed] in North America at the Ramsey Creek Preserve in South Carolina in 1998.”
 * 3) “Coffins are used, however, in countries such as the UK, where the law requires it.[ citation need]"ed
 * 4) "Natural burials can take place both on private land (subject to regulations) and in any cemetery that will accommodate the vault-free technique.[citation needed]

Sourcing Repair:
The information that was missing citations were found and sourced. t.williams (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Billy Campbell, a rural doctor and pioneer... at the Ramsey Creek Preserve in 1998."

Repair Citations:

The article “Natural Burial” has 74 citations, some of which are dead links. Further, the current sources need to be verified against the material presented to confirm the source is relative to the material.

Include Visuals:

The talk page requests images to be added to article. Russovidal (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

="Natural burial" Draft=

Consumer Options
A traditional funerary service in the United States can cost a person on average $6,500. This price reflects the fee for the embalming of the body and a metal casket and does not include additional service fees charged by the cemetery. The funerary industry is a consumer market protected by regulations under “The Funerary Act,” which was implemented under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The rules set forth by the FTC provide people with an understanding of their right to choose or deny services provided by funeral directors. A person has the right as a consumer to choose a burial container of their choice and can make their selection outside of the funeral home. Natural burial options include biodegradable caskets and urns that may be bought elsewhere. [need citation] A person in the United States wishing for a natural burial may do so in accordance with the rules set forth by the “The Funerary Act” and their local and state laws. [need citation]

Land Use
The appropriation board for Arlington National Cemetery has estimated that by 2041, the cemetery will have reached its capacity producing a problem for veterans who live to their life expectancy from the time of the Gulf War forward. As plot spaces become filled, the board reports that to continue honoring the lives of veterans, they must implement “physical expansions and/or changes to eligibility." A problem associated with land expansion or increasing the number of cemeteries is that unlike other forms of development, the social value of cemeteries makes them difficult, if not impossible, to convert to another means of land use. Land for burial is set upon narrow criteria, like well-drained, loose soil, making the placement for a cemetery even more troublesome. Ecological cemeteries help to reduce the number of problems posed by traditional cemeteries by maximizing the uses of land.

Eco-Coffin Industry
Natural burial practice has become a market industry, one that has aided in securing water resources and implementing employment in South Africa. South Africans face water supply limitations because of the invasive eucalyptus tree, or “gum tree,” brought by Australian colonists. The tree requires a significant amount of water intake for their life cycle and has caused for water depletion in KwaZulu-Natal province. The South African government has implemented a project dubbed The Invasive Alien Species Programme (IASP) that aims to solve the water scarcity problem created by these trees, implement jobs in the community, and reduce burial costs for residents (SA Forestry Online, 2015). The IASP use invasive plants, like the eucalyptus tree, to construct sustainable caskets otherwise called “eco-coffins.” The caskets are made out of natural, biodegradable fibers, and manufactured in a manner that has a low-environmental impact. In 2015, KZN Dept of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs (DAEA) estimated that the manufacturing of eco-coffins has since reduced the cost of coffins for citizens by as much as 16 times and created 60 employment opportunities. The eco-coffin business has extended the practice of using alien plants in other wood manufacturing businesses such as furniture, further demonstrating how the use of invasive plants provides a means for sustainable living.

Russovidal (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Russovidal (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Environmental Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages On Burials: https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/green-burials-bring-awareness-to-environmental-concerns Cremations: https://greenburialcouncil.org/home/what-is-green-burial/ https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17232879
 * 1) Not only does Natural burials help the environment but it is also proven to help diminish individuals pain for their loved ones.
 * 2) Affordable (Everyone's pockets won't hurt as much).
 * 3) There are three requirements in order to consider a 'green' burial.
 * 4) no traditional embalming fluids
 * 5) no man made vaults
 * 6) biodegradable material must be used
 * 7) Burials are safe for workers
 * 1) Burns tons of fossil fuels
 * 2) Carbon emissions
 * 3) Compared to newer cremation facilities, older facilities use way more energy on cremation.
 * 4) "One cremation uses as much energy as a 500-mile car trip and releases 250 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, according to the National Death Centre, a Britain-based funeral consulting group." ( Allyson Chiu, 2016).
 * 5) Cremations are also environment friendly if they would recycle medicals parts and by being part of a carbon fund.

Nbf14 (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Source #1:

Green Burials Bring Awareness to Environmental Concerns

By: Allyson Chiu

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/green-burials-bring-awareness-to-environmental-concerns

Natural burials are another method of burials but it is different than the other methods in the sense that it is eco-friendly. Other burial methods such as cremation, mummification, ground etc., do not provide many advantages to the person who is grieving nor to the environment itself. In addition, natural burials also known as green burials, have been used and practiced for many years even before the Civil War era. After some time, the popularity of the natural burials began to slow down due to some of the requirements that makes it ‘green’ or eco-friendly. There are three major requirements whom were given by the Green Burial Council in order to create green burials. First, the individuals body must not have embalming fluid which contains: formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, methanol and other types of chemicals that are added to the body once the individual dies. Secondly, vaults are prohibited which are used in burials to keep the body’s remaining’s. Lastly, instead of using human made vaults; biodegradable containers are recommended which are more natural. To include, green burials are extremely different than ground burials because green burials are open to everyone at any time so that individuals can enjoy their day without tombs being in the way.

Source #2:

Burials and Cemeteries Go Green

By: Cheryl Corley/ Heidi Glenn

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17232879

Green burial is a natural way of being laid to rest and it is also chemical, wood, and metal free which allows the process of an individual who died to return to earth in a natural way. Additionally, green burials main points are to allow the grieving family to let time and/or nature have their loved individual return to earth in another shape or form to be remembered and viewed for a longer period of time as to just being buried and eventually forgotten. Furthermore, green burials argue that ground burials are a waste of resources and are very contaminating to people who work for funeral practitioners. Moreover, embalming is not required by the federal law and it is stated that there is no actual proof to determine that embalming provides any type of health benefits. Instead of using any chemicals, green burials go about the process naturally by leaving the body in a cooler for about three to four days. In add, there have been many arguments that claim that natural burials pollute or damage water. Natural burials do not pollute water but for safety they are kept far away from any connection to a stream or a lake. Also, any viruses or bacteria and suspended and no longer active after the person has been dead for a couple of hours. All in all, green burials are much more simpler and safer for the environment in many different aspects.

Source #3:

The Environmental Benefits of Natural Burials

By: G.P. Thomas

https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=264

Natural burials are the most natural form and the closet form of being put to rest and then later being returned to earth through a flower, grass, or even a tree. Furthermore, many natural burials are held in a forest or somewhere around the countryside which is great because it doesn’t take up any space nor is it filled with tombs. Instead of using caskets or vaults, natural burials use biodegradable coffins which will eventually break down with the body and turn into soil. There are many ways to make biodegradable coffins from cardboard to sustainable willow which is much more expensive. The best part about biodegradable vaults is that they all have the same outcome, they are very natural and are excellent for the environment. As stated before, embalming is not the best option to go about because it does harm the ecosystem but natural burials do not incorporate embalming in their burial process. Embalming a body and placing it into the ground will prevent the body from breaking down due to all the chemicals that it contains therefore it will not allow the body to recycle. Although, there is a method of embalming that is good for the environment which would exclude the formaldehyde chemical. As oppose to ground burials, green burials have more than enough space to accept as many bodies while ground burials fill up relatively quickly due to the amount of space caskets and tombs take up. In addition, natural burials are very cheap compared to other methods of burials and provide many positive aspects to nature. Natural burials allow the body to break down then recycle back to earth which will make the dead person’s family and friends content that they will be a part of them still, just in another form.

Nbf14 (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Various types of Natural Burials
The article fails to mention alternative green burials methods. In the first sentence, the author wrote “Natural burial is the interment of the body of a dead person in the soil in a manner that does not inhibit decomposition but allows the body to recycle naturally.” In their discussion of the locations of Natural burials, under Canada the author listed Biodegradable burial pods separate from green/natural burials. Burial pods are constituted in the ‘soil’ and allows decomposition. By definition, these pods are one of the methods of green burials. Furthermore, the labeling “Tree planting” eliminates the explanation of the capabilities and advantages of the pods.

The organic burial pods allows trees to benefit from the decomposed nutrients and leads to the preservation of the planet.

Next, under the heading “Alternative methods of burial,” the author mentions three methods, Coral Reefs, Sky burial and Burial at sea. He fails to include other alternatives such as Space burial. Coral Reef Ball burial, Space burial and Burial at sea (not as much) requires cremation. In conducting these alternative burial practices, dangerous gases are emitted from the cremation of the body. Toxins like mercury and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs) enter the environment from these crematories. These toxins are not Eco-friendly. So, while these alternatives are useful for the environment, to execute them require a practice people are trying to stray from. t.williams (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC) =Article Evaluation: Environmental Dumping=

This article could have more in depth subsections that examine the cultural history of environmental dumping, specifically ocean dumping. For example, ocean dumping that occurred in the northern Atlantic waters off the coast of the tri-state area, could be discussed in terms of the supposed solution it provided to the ever expanding consumer population. The “solution”  turned out to have had detrimental effects on marine biodiversity and public health. The article discusses current international policy on ocean dumping, but fails to provide insight to a society that allowed for such a (fact based) atrocity in the first place. If to remain as is, the article may be better titled “Environmental Dumping Policies.”

There is a link to the “Marine Debris” page which offers slightly more information about sources of ocean trash. The “Marine Debris” page covers a wide array of debris sources, but like “Environmental Dumping” it fails to discuss how active dumping was once perceived by a vast population as an acceptable disposal method. A history subsection page may sufficiently fill this void.

The following links provided where dead links:

Canneman, Willem. "Riding the waves Shipping waste from Europe to China." Waste-Management-World.com Dec. 2008. 6 Feb. 2009 [1]

https://waste-management-world.com/display_article/321570/123/CRTIS/none/none/1/Riding-the-waves-Shipping-waste-from-Europe-to-China

"EU waste-shipment rules tightened". EurActive.com. 12 July 2007. Web. 6 Feb 2009.

https://www.euractiv.com/en/environment/eu-waste-shipment-rules-tightened/article-165495

* Additionally, the citation source is incorrectly referenced as “EurActive.” The source is “EurActiv” without an “e.”

"Ocean Dumping Grounds." MarineBio.org. 5 Feb. 2009 http://marinebio.org/oceans/oceandumping.asp

"Transfrontier shipment of waste." Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Web. 4 Feb. 2009.

KS - you can remove the citations if you find them dead links or inadequate. all team members need to contribute and I see only Tamra and Navil doing so. Karina Schafer (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

http://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/resource/hazardous/tfs/