Talk:Water pollution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Maps

fuck all this .gif]]

Mercury in zooplankton (copepods) in the open ocean off New York and Atlantic City USA New Jersey
image:oxygenk.gif
Oxygen depletion as a consequence of too much nutrient input
Vsmith 17:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The maps are given here:

--Shreshth91 30 June:09 (UTC)

The entry was as follows: "The Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) is the concentration (in mg/mL) of a chemical contaminant in water that is deemed safe (in other words, the risk of poisoning is 10−6)." I am deleting this from the basic Water Pollution article rather than trying to clarify and correct the entry. Perhaps someone can do an aricle on Health-based contaminant limits and an entry on DWEL specifically that can be linked to.
WCFrancis 20:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification on this. I have seen it as both mg/mL and mg/L. WaterGuy

[edit] Graphs

Can anybody please give me some sources where I can get some graphs relating to rise of water pollution?
Shreshth91 18:43, 29 Jun 2005 (IST)

Google is always a good start :S
Otherwise try Health Canada page on water, USEPA page on water, European Commission page on water, European Environment Agency page on water resources, World Health Organization page on water, UN water page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjamjak (talk • contribs) 12:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] need human health impacts section

i will try to get to this in next month....its very important....im exhausted now from all the copy edit and new material this article needed two days ago :) Anlace 04:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC) this not useful

Human health impacts of water pollution are extremely varied depending on what kind of water we are talking about i.e. the risks and potential impacts associated with microbially contaminated drinking water are very different to those of chemically polluted sea water. In addition, many of the impacts are distinctly secondary: polluted riverwater may lead to increased concentrations of pollutants in riverine animals, which form part of a food chain for a certain population e.g. mercury in fish in the Amazon etc. I think that it could be difficult to harness the variety of such impacts under the Water pollution heading. I would suggest that to attempt to present anything other than an idea of the scope of potential health impacts may lead to a reductionist and oversimplified account of many issues, in which case a very brief statement should suffice, perhaps linking to pages on Contamination of drinking water and health, Persistent organic pollutants, Heavy metals etc. Jimjamjak (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] also needs description of sensory impacts

needs nonhealth section on odor , color, taste impacts...i will get to this too :) Anlace 04:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am keen to know what you mean by impacts here. I would assume that for something to be considered an impact, there must also be a target or affected entity. In the case of aesthetics of water, we are presumably referring to drinking water. Ultimately I would argue that poor aesthetic quality of drinking water is a property of drinking water. The impacts of this are economic (people shifting their water consumption habits away from supplied drinking water), political (pressure is subsequently put on providers or policy-makers to improve the quality of this water), environmental (if people begin to drink bottle water, for example, there are a number of external environmental costs), and health (since low aesthetic quality of water may reduce the amount of drinking water consumed).Jimjamjak (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs water pollution indicator section

Discussing the creature that live in different concentrations of pollutants, and how they indicate the level of pollution. Like mayfly lavae, fish, bloodworms, nothing etc.See [1] for examples. Also this [2] - Jack (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "The Rise of Slime" (See La Times, Altered Oceans Series" issue needs to be discussed as well, but I think both of these are stubs, rather than main topic item, due to their complexity. Please feel free to start a stub and lend us some of your knowledge.FOK SD OA 06:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regulatory framework

There is an open discussion on the Water Quality (WQ) page that touches on merging the topic with a page called safe water. Since WQ is the industry term for understanding water how clean the water is, I would cry foul if it were to be eliminated. I'm counter proposing that we make the safe water page into the discussion centered on water law or as you have termed it Regulatory Framework. Since the Safe water page is based upon the USEPA Safe Drinking Water Act it seems to be a natural transition. Since water law is large and expansive it needs to be its own sub topic, else it may eclipse any topic it is spawned in. Discussion?? FOK SD OA 17:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources of water pollution

It seems to me that the article focuses very strongly on contamination from anthropogenic sources/actions. I am not sure if this is owing to the predominantly US-legislative framework within which the page was conceived, or through geogenic contamination just not being recognised as a hugely important factor in water pollution. I added geogenic sources to the list of sources of water pollution. Jimjamjak 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The third image on the page, showing what looks like eutrophication around an outflow pipe, is not very useful without a description of what it depicts. I think that unless the person responsible for the image (or someone who can verify what the image shows) writes a meaningful caption, the picture should be removed/replaced. Jimjamjak 14:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unmentioned Information

In the "Sources of Water Pollution" category, you fail to mention that in general, littering is a large cause of water pollution. Thank you.207.69.140.24 11:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. In future feel free to make your own edits. And make yourself a user to make your edits and discussion threads clear to others. Jimjamjak 15:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Does anyone actually know how much of Earth's water is pollution? It would make a nice addition as a fact somewhere in this article if someone were to unearth the answer. 24.15.53.225 02:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you were trying to ask for. I assume that you wanted to ask: "Does anyone actually know how much of the Earth's water is polluted?" In my opinion, there is no sensible way of approaching such a question. All water contains some amount of impurity. If levels of these impurities are measured and compared against statutory norms or guideline values, it is possible to classify that particular sample of water as 'polluted', but this kind of classification is completely relative. In addition, if the water is not in contact with humans (e.g. very deep sea water around geothermal vents could be extremely 'polluted' with metals), then the 'pollution' of the water is essentially irrelevant. In addition, the water on the Earth is continually cycling through different phases - it is not static. Any attempt to answer your question would be in the realm of fantasy. Jimjamjak 10:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change name of page

I am beginning to wonder if it would make sense to rename this page as Surface water pollution and Drinking water pollution, maybe adding pages on Pollution of groundwater and Pollution of the marine environment etc. Any thoughts? Jimjamjak (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No one cares about water pollution 76.228.69.101
Time on your hands - get yourself a username 76.228.69.101 and maybe you'll find yourself even contributing to the discussion. Jimjamjak (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with separate pages for discrete topics within Water pollution. However, I do believe that the main page Water pollution should remain with significant content on all aspects. In many ways it is difficult to tease out the different strands however; drinking water pollution is intimately linked to surface water pollution and to ground water pollution. It is also the case that the causes are very much the same irrespective of the receiving environment and there is a risk of very significant duplication of text across several articles. My preference would be for no change, but if change is needed then I would opt for some subsidiary articles picking up detailed aspects. Velela (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No change. I agree with Velela. Water pollution is a major topic that is labeled as such in much of the scientific & technical literature, news media, textbooks, etc. Many people will search for that term. As an encyclopedic reference, Wikipedia must have a major entry for "water pollution," with cross-references as appropriate. I have no objection to having other pages on related topics, such as drinking water. However, you should look at some of the existing pages on those topics--they need work. There is overlap & confusion between drinking water, tap water, water supply, domestic water system, etc. I would prefer to see all of those existing articles organized and edited before we create similar additional pages on related topics. Moreau1 (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No change. Thanks for the suggestions: you have both persuaded me that splitting the page is a bad idea. I'll try and concentrate on the pages that you mention, Moreau. You are quite right that the majority of people would search for "water pollution". Jimjamjak (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)