Talk:Incineration
|
|
|
Pending tasks for [[Template:Articlespace:Incineration]]: (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Incineration&action=purge) | edit (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Incineration/to_do&action=edit) - watch (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Incineration/to_do&action=watch) - purge (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Incineration&action=purge) | |
|---|---|---|
This article is a steaming pile of feces. Someone with some knowledge about the subject needs to do some serious work here. CranialNerves 21:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hmm thanks for the festive message :) made me laugh -- well its def. not the worst page on wikipedia. I think i will delete some of the more dubious claimes. --Davelane 20:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
there is certainly much more in incineration than just combustion
- There is certainly much more in Farm than just Agriculture, but that one doesn't seem to bother you.
Hmm, well ive made quite a lot of changes i better explain --
Firstly thanks for writing this article and i hope you don't mind it being edited
I'm still not at all happy with the npov of this article, but as usual I only like to make a few (in this case major) changes and see what other wikipedians think about it
Due to my lack of American dictionary I've made most of the article British English, feel free to change it back...
Ive tried to split the article up into sections as this makes it easier to read/edit -- there are a number of sections that need rewriting in part because of this
Ive not attempted to check any of the facts -- I am sure some are dubious eg. sarin
You will notice ive added the npov tag -- this article needs to explain the benefits and disadvantages in much more neutral language IMHO
by no means is my edit complete -- just a hand waving exercise
--Davelane 20:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
---
Hello,
I am the author of most of this controversial article, and I am very grateful to the Critics for educating me. I am a newcomer in Wikipedia, but quite an insider in the subject of thermal processes, chemistry and physical chemistry (Ph.D and thirty years experience). Additionally, I have had a professional training about Sarin, and everything I am saying about Sarin is quite close to being objective.
But my Critics are right: as a newcomer in Wikipedia I was following my strong and well-grounded convictions, and only now I realized that I should have followed the NPOV policy instead. I am going to edit my part of the text accordingly.
I apologize, but I do not know how to follow your recommendation: "Improve some of the sections so they don't duplicate content on other pages so much". Can someone help in this part?
My fresh committment to equal presentation of the conflicting viewpoints does not mean that in this debate the truth is in the middle; how can it be, when we dump millions of tons of hazardous wastes into the soil, because of the fear of practically-harmlessly burning them? I do see the Opponents' viewpoint, but I have little hope for them to reciprocate the "Audiatur et altera pars!" approach. The fanatic blindness stemming from hatred seems to be quite common attitude worldwide. theodoreroosevelt2005
---
Hello again -- thanks again for you work and understanding of my comments
What i mean by duplication is that content included on other waste pages should not be duplicated across articles so you might want to move/summerise parts of this and other articles where needed.
While I understand your views on Incineration what we need to do is try and create a balance between views. What I suggest is more of a compare and contrast method where you take each point you wish to make and present both sides of the argument.... these can then form short sections rather then the essay like form that we had to start with -- remember people don't necessarily want to read all the article. Also the language you use should not be emotive or American centric. If you want an example of this balance i suggest you look at George W.Bush... Another much better option might be to create a separate article on Incineration Controversy. This might enable the rest of the article to become more balanced.
I'm pleased with the way this is developing anyway
--Davelane 14:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not at all pleased. The current version is an absolute travesty. Just one of many examples: 'Experts in the United States Environmental Protection Agency are fully aware that incineration is a much "lesser evil" than all its alternatives, but they can not overcome the political pressure due to public opinion, and especially the "Not in my backyard!" thinking.' This version gives the impression that all the experts are on one side, with the opposition to incineration coming solely from selfish ignoramuses. It's so bad that I scarcely know where to begin in fixing it.
- One method that's helpful in other articles on controversial subjects (such as John Kerry military service controversy) is to insist that partisans provide sources for their assertions. For example, "If a laboratory or factory has a small flask of hazardous waste, to dispose of it legally $1000 must be paid to someone who will transport it to one of the few remaining incinerators" sounds like someone venting. Is it alleged that no one in the U.S. can dispose of a single flask of hazmat for less than $1,000? If so, what's the source for that statement? Giving a source in the text will let the reader find more information. There's quite a bit in the current version of this article that's nothing more than ranting against restrictions on incineration. All that material should be removed if it can't be sourced and, where appropriate, attributed. JamesMLane 03:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just attempted to clean-up "Cement Kilns"
Hello. Just to let you know, I went through and tried to clean-up and NPOV the "Cement Kilns" part (It was particularly irritating with poor writing.) I can't vouch for the factual status of the information there (I tried to keep the purported facts intact for someone who can make that verification), but I removed the agonizing advocacy for this ("Cement Kilns - the best incinerators", "(the "acid rain gas")", and the really annoying wordiness ("Now, let us explain the connection between cement kilns and the "no-byproduct" incineration:", and "This is where cement kilns shine").
Also, for the original author, does the process used by the Cement Kiln actually "dispose of something unwanted", as the postulated definition of incineration at the top of the article states? If not, please give the Cement Kiln it's own article. - 4.11.203.88 03:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(omg this article is horrible. i wish i were an expert in the field...) - Omegatron 03:05, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely. It is a garbled mix of incineration of household waste, sarin waste, unrelated (Portland) cement manufacture and there's also some environmental remediation in it. Incineration can be a good method with no adverse effects if the incineration temperature is high enough and if there is adecuate filtering of exhaust gasses. 213.236.117.2 12:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
ok, I cleaned some of it up and started a better skeleton. but what's the point? is this just a waste, so to speak? HG
TDP inacuracies??
The information in the section about thermal depolymerization seems to be contrary to what is said in the article and the referenced articles for TDP. If I understand correctly thermal depolymerization has only non toxic output. I might not be fully grasping the subject though. --Dave