This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Biological background should precede 'prehistory'. Anologues of pollution in other species are discussed in the chapter on pollution in Townsend, Begon and Harper's Essentials of Ecology, for example. For a very early case, consider the formation of oxygen in the ocean and atmosphere, which James Walker (1986) describes as "the most severe pollution episode in the history of the earth".
Just a quick to note to better explain why I've removed the "Polluted places" section that was recently added. Nearly all of the developed world, and much of the undeveloped world, is polluted. I don't see any way of quantifying polluted sites to vet them for inclusion in such a list, and I think the section might quickly grow to be longer than the rest of the article. Depending on how one defines a "place", there are thousands or even millions of polluted places on the planet. Or consider non-point-source pollution sources, which contaminate air and water globally. It's just unmanageable to include such a list. Rivertorch (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I fully support your reversion. It would be hard to identify truly pristine places on the planet. Such an endless list would be of no value to readers and would distort the perception of pollution as only those places listed. Regards VelellaVelella Talk 20:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree at all with that. I didn't find so many Wikipedia articles dealing specifically with polluted places. Maybe I should have called this list "Most polluted places around the world" and could be restricted to good articles to avoid indigestion. The very problem of the actual article about pollution is that there's no example. If this list grows to be too big a specific article could be easily created to regroup them, ceasing immediately to "pollute" main article. I already spotted:
Some of these articles are very well done, and could serve as models for future works. It's quite a pity, they're not more visible. Nonetheless, I was also very surprised to read the one about Pollution in California : very short. And this state is the most polluted of the US. This list could be a resource for those who alert and fight against pollution. It would also stimulate wikipedians to contribute with articles such as Pollution in Texas or Polluted waters with fracking... Refusing to even try is similar to ostrichs burying their head in sand, refusing to see danger anymore. Pollutant industries (or military...) who pollute the most, would be also very pleased with Rivertorch or Vellela opinions. Are they working as PR for them ? ;-D Auto-censure will not drive us anywhere. And don't forget: pollutions make us ill. Pollutions kills. BTW I'm a physician... I guess Rivertorch and Vellela are still in good healthPraticien (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC) There're not so many WP articles dealing SIGNIFICANTELY with polluted sites around the world, Superfund sites regrouping the vast majority of american sites.Praticien (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Praticien (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Praticien (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
My edits to this page were recently reverted; they mentioned a fungi and bacteria which consume plastic and steel respectively. I believe they should be mentioned for there potential in environmental cleanup along with any other bacteria people can find that consume a major pollutant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 20:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Aside from grammatical issues, there were two problems that I identified with the additions. First, I'd have liked to see stronger sourcing, either from peer-reviewed journals or from highly reputable mainstream publications (e.g., Scientific American, major daily newspapers). One was sourced to a website that I found it nearly impossible to navigate; I have a faster than average Internet connection but gave up trying to load the home page, which froze my browser after loading more than 600 files. The other had better sourcing but still seemed inadequate. More fundamentally, I think that adding the content as written gave undue weight to something that is unquestionably interesting but of very limited relevance to the general topic of pollution. A brief mention, better sourced, would suffice for this article, if it's needed at all. A more specialized article might be better suited to covering this in any detail. (Inicidentally, neither of the sources provided mentioned steel, an alloy which in and of itself is not generally considered a pollutant.) Rivertorch (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Rivertorch, I think you should edit whatever you want, i will review and tell how much i agree with your proposed edits. Thank you. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean, Bladesmulti. I do edit whatever I want, and I'm always glad for constructive feedback. Rivertorch (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Never mind, you already understood. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of information qualifying pollution in this article without the accompanying statistics or estimates of local and global production and accumilation of specific pollutants. I came to this page in search of a metric or statistic for annual by-country production of pollutants, or a survey of the accumilation per-pollutant. These would be good statistics to include.
In the event these statistics do not exist compiled, what is the policy on extrapolating information from other wikipedia articles to include on an article? This article notes that pollution increased dramatically in response to smelting and refining activities, and though I might not have easy access to all the pollution information, I can find or extrapolate information for global and per country ore refining and metal recycling practices, their energy use, carbon footprint, what pollutants they emit and in what quantity. It would be nice to get the big picture in this article which would quantify the activities of man in terms of pollution instead of just 'pollution: history and molecules' -RR — Preceding unsigned comment added by RotogenRay (talk • contribs) 18:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
plz i request the writer to make the information bigger and better and add photos for each topic it helps us to understand the topic better........if u want to contact me plz mail in firstname.lastname@example.org .......... i am Rohan Agarwal so once again i request u sir to give a bit importance to my words ........ Thanking You .... 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)