|
sorry but this page is mostly about 'conservation', not about waste.
Removed from page
- "Waste is the only reason that life and human civilization do not violate the second law of thermodynamics."
I would have thought that thermal effects alone were enough for this, without waste matter being needed. Think solar energy in at 9000 K or so, and being radiated back out again at 300 K or so. Plenty of entropy flux for life to work with. -- The Anome 23:14, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- this following fails completely to make it's point; if both apples are in the same shop, then the method of aquiring is irrelevant (unless home grown apples are so appetising that you buy more and have to take the car rather than the bicycle :-) Azikala 01:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sustainability
Sustainable use requires a system view of environment issues. Let's suppose a consumer has a choice between apples coming from his own country, and those imported by ship. Which apple would consume the most energy to acquire? It depends on the consumer: if he goes by bicycle to the shop, the homegrown apple requires less energy. However, if he goes to buy the apple by car, it might be that the energy requirement of the car from home to the shop is higher than the energy required to import the apple to the shop, not even counting CO2 emissions--see also The Natural Step.
Need for rewrite
This page currently doesn't flow well and isn't well structured. Fundamentally it isn't like an encyclopaedia article, more like a discussion or educational tract. It needs to be very much rewritten and structured clearly into related segments. For example, the section Solid wastes and emission wastes actually discusses methodology of measuring hazardous waste, and doesn't describe what "Solid wastes and emission wastes" are. This page critically needs a more or less complete rewrite, but at the same time, large amounts of the ideas and even material should be conserved and probably moved to places where it could be more valuable.
More examples of unencyclopaedic material
- "only uneducated anti-industrial fanatics can use such a meaningless category"
Azikala 01:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Good that you have taken this on. I agree with your comments. I would like to add that there is need for a section that addresses sustainability. Waste treatment in the industrial model is hugely expensive and, well, *wasteful* (of energy). There are alternatives--some very ancient, some new. An alternative view is waste as resource. Technologies such as composting toilets and solar aquatics [1] (http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/imquaf/himu/buin_031.cfm) (aka The Living Machine) for wastewater treatment, that use natural systems to process waste might be looked at as a first wave of the new technologies. Scaleable natural systems such as Biolytix [2] (http://www.biolytix.com/index_html) take alternative wastewater treatment to a new level. Sunray 17:51, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
- I've done some work on this, but there needs to be more done. Also, it seems like alot of this belongs more on pages about environmentalism or pollution. 68.39.174.205 02:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I removed like ½ the article because I just can't see how to encorporate it into this article without encroaching on pollution, now it seems to be just basics and if someone wants to slowly add it back then OK good. I think it's in a better state then before. 68.39.174.205 00:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
|
