Talk:Night soil

Assumption of western superiority

In Collection: "This system is used in isolated rural areas and is important in developing nations or in areas that lack the adequate infrastructure to have running water."

This statement assumes that disposing of human excreta in running water is a good idea. In fact, it assumes that the disposal of human excreta is primarily a problem of dealing with a waste product, rather than a component of the natural cycle of land fertility in which humans participate and which they modify. Many societies throughout history have understood the clear connection that human excreta must make with our continued food supply if human societies are not to rely on ever new sources of soil fertility. Because of this understanding, disposing of human excreta is not dealing with waste, but with a valuable (or at least useful) resource. In this view, the reason so called "developing" nations use night soil on their farmland is not the lack of supposedly more developed infrastructure such as running water; it is the application of knowledge about the fertility of land. The modern West regards water-borne waste disposal as preferable 1) because it has invested in other forms of soil fertility (ie, agrochemicals), 2) because water resources are assumed to be limitless, and 3) because raw human excreta can cause disease. The last of these points has and always will be a problem; but the first and second may prove to cause much, much larger problems for society in the long run. In water limited areas especially, including many "developing" countries, disposing of human excreta in water otherwise usable for drinking, bathing, cleaning and irrigation is already a clear problem. 142.103.92.50 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre sentence

"Choosing between starvation and ultimate death due to low crop yields or the possibility of serious illness due to disease is easy."

Not really! Is this a typo ("not easy" would make more sense). On the other hand, if the risk of serious disease is negligable compared to starvation, then this sentence needs to be changed to reflect this.

--163.1.176.254 00:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

"This is sometimes used as a political football to further an agenda. For example, some on the right of the political spectrum in the United States have used the fact that people have gotten sick from vegetables imported from Mexico to argue against NAFTA and even illegal aliens, although the latter relationship is tenuous." - I am removing this comment, I don't know the specifics of the cases the author of this comment mentions, but the way he injects a political dimension into this article without any context seems inappropriate. The comment also reflects the author's bias.

- As the author of the above, I can categorically state that I have no such biases, but I have heard such biases expressed, particularly on talk radio. I'll go through the logic. Many on the right think NAFTA is a bad idea. Because E-Coli outbreaks from human feces make people sick and create news and because night soil is used for fertilizer in developing nations, the idea is therefore floated that NAFTA is a bad idea because it impacts the health of Americans negatively. Despite the fact that I personally think NAFTA might not be the best idea in the world, this is an incredibly weak argument. I won't edit the comment back in because politics isn't particularly encyclopedic. KellyCoinGuy 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like a neutral point of view, nor does it really sound like it's appropriate for this article: "It is contrary to the principles of sustainability to dispose of human waste byproducts in landfills. It is irresponsible to dump sewage into rivers, lakes and oceans."

Furthermore, it is not really coherent. It first says that Night Soil is the practice of using human waste as fertilizer. Then it says Untouchables remove Night Soil. Are they removing the practice? --SVTCobra 00:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've redefined the scope of the article. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

what it is

Anyhow, I was reading this interesting page by a museum on toilets [Internation Museum of Toilets] which makes frequent references to Night Soil or nightsoil. Not knowing what "exactly" was meant, I naturally came to Wikipedia. For now, I will assume that it means "human shit" whether produced at night or day. --SVTCobra 01:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I think night soil is the substance, not any practise of using or disposing of the substance. I think it can be put in other words eg night dirt dirt from soiled or dirty. The dirt was and is still removed at night at places where development has not progressed that much.. Gregorydavid 06:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's called "night soil" because "night" is a good euphemism for anything that is necessary but needs to be discreet...(plus the fact that the coolies collected the night soil at...night, not a good idea to be carrying feces in the street in the hustle and bustle of broad daylight, you know). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

heavy metals

If heavy metals in our doo-doo are bad, then how did it get into us in the first place? Explain!

They're probably more heavily concentrated as fertilizer. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

They mostly come from industry. Big sewage plants are more necessary in cities, and cities have factories in them too. Tweeq 06:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The citation does not support the assertion that human waste contains heavy metals in any significant proportion. It relates strictly to sewage - which contains far more than just human waste.

Sanitation issues

This section really needs some scientific data. Feces as fertalizer is dangerous and harmful. To claim otherwise you need scientific studies and citations. (Posted by 146.96.81.162 to article.) -- Paleorthid (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Tudor Britain

Is this really appropriate? The Tudors ruled England, not Britain. 86.21.225.156 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. I've fixed it. JIMp _talk·cont 08:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

manual laborers

I'm deleting the silly tautological phrase at the end of the sentence, "This was an unpleasant occupation and was predominately done by manual laborers" (emphasis mine). Having an occupation involving manual labor is what makes someone a "manual laborer." So if this job is a matter of manual labor then anyone performing it is by definition a manual laborer. If something else was meant by this phrase someone please re-add it in a better phrased form.--Ericjs (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)