Talk:Water pollution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Maps

Agreed,also very nice removed to here. If they are to be used, should be in context and reduced in size or thumbed.

image:mercuryk.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:

• Mercury in zooplankton (copepods) in the open ocean off New York and Atlantic City USA New Jersey
• Oxygen depletion as a consequence of too much nutrient input

--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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No change I guess the issue is decided. I agree no change, most people worldwide will search on a thematic title rather than one relating to a national law of the US MBTuser1 (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Hello, I would like to see that the types of pollution have a better categorization as well as an expansion of approximately three or more specific examples of pollutant per category. for example VOCs: toluene, benzene, oil, gasoline, etc.; Toxic substances: mercury, dioxins, etc., also what is the composition of industrial runoff or other runoff in general? anyways thanks for creating the page I have sited some of it for a project, regards Paul 10:12 pm, 11/9/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.198.42.247 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Organization

The article needs some more structure and organization. This is a large topic, and currently some aspects of water pollution are covered in great detail, while other major areas have little or no coverage. I am working on an outline in an attempt to better organize the current material and encourage other folks to contribute in their areas of expertise.

• Introduction
• Water pollution categories (Surface water: point & nonpoint sources. Groundwater.)
• Materials and phenomena contributing to water pollution
  • Chemical contaminants
  • Pathogens
  • Physical changes (temperature, discoloration)
• Transport and chemical reactions of water pollution (Existing section.) Comment: Some of the current text in this section is rather specialized. It may be appropriate to create a separate article for this.
• Measurement of water pollution
• Regulatory framework

Comments are welcome. Moreau1 (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I implemented the outline described above, and added a section for Control of water pollution. This section links to other articles, but an overview on water pollution control should be added to this article, including stormwater management (which is not well covered in other articles). More work (text & references) is needed in various sections, including Pathogens; Sampling (separate article also needed); and Biological testing (including microbiological). External links is a random hodgepodge. Also, we still need a separate environmental/human health impacts section. Moreau1 (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

kontol of water pollution

I have added some material in this section, for each of the major pollution classes. Some more material is needed, esp. agricultural wastewater--and the main article it links to needs major expansion itself.

As per WP:SOAP, this article is not a place to advertise or promote commercial products for pollution control. (Nor is any other Wikipedia article.) Descriptions of generic classes and types of pollution controls and techniques are appropriate. Moreau1 (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the text in Agricultural wastewater, Thermal pollution and Urban runoff in this article, and in related articles: Agricultural wastewater treatment, Nonpoint source pollution and Thermal pollution. More detailed explanations are needed on these related pages. Moreau1 (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

External links

I have organized the external links into "Overview Information" and "Analytical Tools and Other Specialized Resources." In keeping with the Wikipedia style guide at WP:LINKS, I have retained links for sites that provide general information on water pollution or analytical tools that are useful to a wide audience. Links to articles, case studies, etc. about pollution at specific locations should be placed on pages about those locations (lakes, rivers, countries, etc.). (I moved one such link to a more specific locational page.) Descriptions of links have been edited to one line each. Moreau1 (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

effect

this needs a part about the effect on the aquatic community-Sorcerer123 (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientists listening to algae detect pollution

The following contribution was put into Drinking water where it is inappropriate. It may however be more appropriate here (although it sounds like research to me).

In 2009, Israeli researchers from Bar Ilan University developed a method for locating and measuring contamination in water by 'listening' to the sound that algae releases into the water. By analyzing the rate of photosynthesis of plants growing in the water, the scientists are able to discern whether the plant realizes its full photosynthesis potential. When a plant does not reach its potential, this indicates that something is wrong in its growth environment.

• Is that water safe? Ask Israel's talking plants

 Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   16:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Saver bottle

Could people here who know about water purification of the poor please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Saver bottle. jbolden1517^Talk 16:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of redundant and off-topic text

The text added on point and nonpoint sources was redundant with an existing section in the article--just a few paragraphs above! So I deleted the new text. Please read the article completely before editing. I also deleted text on lead supply pipes. Discussion of drinking water supply is covered by several (overlapping) pages: Drinking water, Drinking water quality in the United States, Safe Drinking Water Act, Lead and copper rule, etc. Some history about lead supply pipes would be welcome on one or more of those pages. Moreau1 (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Torixmicah, 18 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} One trillion people die of water pollution because of dirty toilets and dirty water each hour.

I hope this helps you.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Rescued text from Water Management

The following text was added to the Water management article. However it seriously unbalanced that article and seems much more appropriate here. I hope that knowledgeable editors can assimilate appropriate parts into this article (perhaps striking through incorporated parts might assist later editors).

Water pollution regulations

Some nations are already encountering water scarcity, suffering from various diseases and even death caused by contaminated water use. Water is a vital and limited natural resource, which availability varies in different parts of the world. Unfortunately, harmful human activities tend to constraint access to safe water even more intensively. For this reason well planned and successfully adopted regulations are essential for sustainable water resources management. There is a range of water pollution control policies – ‘command-and-control’ regulation, economic instruments, which adoption may vary according to the particular country. Water pollution may be regulated locally, regionally within a country or internationally, if it is transboundary water sources (such as river, sea, aquifer, etc.).

The predominant direct environmental regulation – the ‘command-and-control’ approach – is based on prescriptive regulation creation, monitoring of its implementation and compliance, and penalising those who failed to comply with it . In case of water pollution control, ‘command-and-control’ approach requires an appliance of specific technologies to regulate quantities of pollution emissions, so called ‘end-of-the-pipe technologies’ (filters, water cleaning installations, etc.), which is operative mostly in ‘point source water pollution’ cases. Furthermore, it determines allowable emission standards for particular industry units or companies. Notwithstanding, the prevailing ‘command-and-control’ approach is often being criticised for its prescriptiveness, costliness, inefficiency and inflexibility, which does not encourage “efficiency-oriented adaptive individual behaviour” . So it is not engaging individuals and not promoting the change of their behaviour, although such initiatives could prevent pollution from happening.

According to the environmental economists, ‘command-and-control’ regulations could be complemented by economic instruments such as taxes, charges and tradable pollution rights, which are more cost effective, flexible and more attractive for business. For instance, the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ (PPP) could be applied in order to internalise the external cost of industrial, agricultural or private pollution costs. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is encouraging the use of economic instruments in its member countries in order to tackle water pollution issues more effectively, although sometimes OECD also recognises difficulties to design specific policies or regulations, which could directly address the exact problem. The reason for such challenges is that in some cases it is complicated to identify the exact sources of water pollution (non-point source pollution or diffusion). Public involvement into water resource management and its pollution regulation processes is becoming more and more important, because it may be a contributor to tackle pollution. Therefore, OECD is promoting public information and education about possible harm of contaminated water, methods helping to reduce water pollution, etc..

For instance, in European Union (EU) the environmental policy is a distinctive combination of a “country-specific and EU-wide measures”, where regulations and policy instruments are created for all member countries, but they may be adopted and adjusted à la particular countries’ regulations. Additionally, EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and its designed Common Implementation Strategy endeavours to unify water management and regulation forms in all member countries minimising the risk of disputes or even fails in WFD implementation. Furthermore, the decission forum involves experts not only from EU Member States, Accession Countries, but also industrial and environmental NGOs; involvance of environmental Non-governmental Organisations(NGOs)and public actors may ensure more transparency in decission making process and to create incentives for public water pollution control.

 Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

water pollution are mostly cause by factories. In order to stop this matter, in the future there will be an invention that could help the water clean. for those chemcials will not be dump in sea, water,etc. it will uses for fuel such as car, truck, air plan, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.203.159 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You probably mean that persistent water pollution is mostly caused by multiple industrial sources rather than just factories. For example, coal burning is the main source of mercury pollution which ends up as mercury in fish such as salmon and herring yet the mercury is not from a factory proper. PCB and dioxin contamination of water which then ends up in fish such as herring is from factories though.AnimeJanai (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that this isn't the main article space here but I think it worth clarifying that although chemicals such as PCBs and dioxins are all manufactured, their role as pollutants can come from releases far distant from any factory. For example dioxins can be released from poorly managed garden bonfires burning waste plastics. PCBs can be released from disposal of old cables, lipstick, paints etc. Thus such chemicals can be pervasive at very low levels in the air and can arise from domestic waste stream, recycling operations and many other non-point sources. I would incidentally also like to see an authoritative reference for Mercury in fish originating from burning coal. Mercury in fish flesh seems to arise as methylated mercury there would need to be a methylation process for elemental mercury and the quantities involved in that process would need to be linked to the quantities released from coal burning. It is easy to make conjectures when dealing with pollution, much more difficult to be demonstrably correct.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

P.S: dont change what it says here it is really important — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.151.197.42 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Seeking info on groundwater contamination by pesticides

Hi folks. I came here looking for information on groundwater contamination by pesticides. Most importantly, is it okay to spray the yard with commercial synthetic pesticides if we get our drinking water from a local well? ('local' as in backyard, probably; i dont know the specifics but it's hooked up to the house's plumbing). I understand that a proper answer would need more specifics, perhaps. I checked the article on pesticides first (and asked this question at the talkpage there, too). I'll look over the related articles on drinking water and water wells. I believe other readers might like to know, too. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an advice service but in most environmental issues the precautionary principle is generally applied. I.e if you think that a problem might, even remotely might, occur then don't even think about doing it. As an environmental biologist I might also comment that spraying your backyard with pesticide is a very very bad idea as even if it doesn't get into your own drinking water it will inevitably go somewhere and cause pollution there, and depending on the pesticide the pollution could be severe and long lasting.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Framing my question like that was merely an anecdotal way of saying this article could cover something along these lines, and I didn't see it here tho I may have missed something. I know WP is not Ask Jeeves. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Transport and chemical reactions of water pollutants section of this article would be the appropriate place to explain or summarize the effects of pesticides on water quality, but unfortunately we have not seen any contributions here on that topic. This is a rather specialized topic with extensive ongoing research. It would be helpful if someone familiar with the current research could select some of the most significant recent reports and summarize them in a style that works with this article, or add to the Environmental effects of pesticides article. A number of technical journal articles & reports on pesticide fate & effects have been published in the last few years, but only a few of these are reported by newspapers and other mass media and get "translated" for the general public. (Here's one in the New York Times from 2009: "Debating How Much Weed Killer Is Safe in Your Water Glass.") I asked for some help on this topic back in 2008 (above). More discussion of pesticide effects should also be added to the Groundwater and Nonpoint source pollution articles. Moreau1 (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Does polluting water and polluting air have any connection? 62.150.172.93 (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead image

I don't think the article should lead with File:Pollution in Maracaibo lake.jpg. Only one sentence in this article is concerned with "trash" as a form of pollution. It may be a high quality photo but that is only one factor and no necessarily apparent that the thumbnail size images are presented at. -- Colin°^Talk 11:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. One photo is sufficient for the lead section, and the trash photo is unnecessary. In general, this article has enough photos for its present length. Moreau1 (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Solid waste , although significant, is relatively trivial in its impact compared to other forms of pollution.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Trash is real and a problem, but the significant pollutants are not usually so visible and a visual focus on trash is misleading. Vsmith (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Conversion of river water in to saline and or alkaline water

Hi, Velella, Will you please elaborate here how the wiki articles Alkali soils and Soil salinity control are not connected to this article "Water pollution" as the placed Wiki references were reverted / deleted by you. Irrigated lands are becoming less productive due to salinity and alkalinity when river water and ground water are used repeatedly which is pollution to water and land caused by human activities. It may not be case in UK due to temperate climate but extensive in arid and semi arid regions. River water and ground water quality is changed drastically effecting the river basin vegetation and aquatic flora and fauna when most of river water is used for evaporo-transpiration and evaporation needs in agriculture, industries, etc. If you have any genuine observations on this subject please state here after reading the content in the articles along with the quoted references.Kwdt2 (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I am very well aware of water process in arid climates and I wholly agree that salination of soils through ill-judged irrigation is a major problem affecting large tracts of land as for example in Western Australia. The current definition at the top of the article is "Water pollution occurs when pollutants are discharged directly or indirectly into water bodies without adequate treatment to remove harmful compounds.". The processes described in Soil salinity control and Alkali soils do not fit within this definition. The second issues I have is that these were inserted as main page links under Agricultural wastewater . By convention there is only one main page link to each heading and I don't believe that it can be argued that these are the relevant main pages in this context.

Personally I would have no problem if links to these pages were included in the See also section. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

to include: Anti-anxiety drug pollution example effecting animal behavior

• Antianxiety drugs affect fish, too; Perch swim more and eat faster when exposed to concentrations similar to those in rivers March 23, 2013; Vol.183 #6 Science News

99.112.212.232 (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before September 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We can start by listing topics or sections in the article that need improvement. Perhaps the most important need is a new section on Effects/impacts of water pollution. This section should address both human health and environmental effects. (There is a brief discussion in the Introduction section.) Also, many of the references, while still valid sources, have broken links. Moreau1 (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Moreau1! Please feel free to involve other interested editors if you want. Best, --151.42.16.103 (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC) - Elitre (WPS) logged out

Globalize

Most of the sources and too much of this article is referring to the context in the USA, whereas water pollution is clearly an international issue. It is not appropriate to have so many references to the EPA, US legislation etc in an international article. Cleanup urgently needed, please help to make this more international. JMWt (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's not too bad or perhaps I didn't read it carefully enough yet. Some sections seem quite general and only some sections are U.S.-centric in my view. Which parts exactly do you have in mind? - And also there is this section: "Water pollution by country" although I don't think such a list is really conforming with Wikipedia style - but I am not too sure how to do it differently. In general I think this article should not go into too much depth on any issue but to provide an overview and then link to all the various pages where more details are provided. EvM-Susana (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I was working through the references the other day - the majority are for the USA (and, actually most are broken links). I removed these but the edits were reverted, so we're left with a lot of references which apply only to the USA and which are broken anyway.JMWt (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Water pollution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060423172532/http://finance.yahoo.com:80/columnist/article/trenddesk/3748 to http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/trenddesk/3748
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130512231350/http://www.inclentrust.org:80/uploadedbyfck/file/Diarrhoea-Pneumonia/Lecture%203_1%20Burden%20of%20diarrhea%20in%20children%20in%20India%20-12th%20dec.pdf to http://inclentrust.org/uploadedbyfck/file/Diarrhoea-Pneumonia/Lecture%203_1%20Burden%20of%20diarrhea%20in%20children%20in%20India%20-12th%20dec.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Water pollution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060427093431/http://www.epa.gov:80/npdes/sso/control/diseases.htm to http://www.epa.gov/npdes/sso/control/diseases.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Review within the Wikipedia Primary School project

Hi all. As anticipated, some weeks ago Simone Sala agreed to review this article within the scope of the project linked above. You can find his notes in the PDF I just uploaded to Commons. We'd like to thank Simone Sala for his work and for his helpful notes. We invite everybody to feel free to reuse the review to improve the article and/or to comment it here. Best, Anthere (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

To facilitate the editing process, I copied Simone Sala notes below.

Quality of the Summary

Is the summary of the article a complete, thorough, and concise introduction to the topic? How do you think the summary could be improved? Which meaningful data are missing? Is there something that you find too much detailed for a general overview of the topic?

The summary provides a complete, thorough, and concise introduction to the topic. It could be improved by providing global and regional figures instead of examples from single countries (i.e. India, China and US).
The data and information provided is not too much detailed for a general overview of the topic.

Personally, I find the summary too short. EvMsmile (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Structure and style of the article

Is the article properly presenting the topic for a general public? Does the article provide a complete and easy-to-navigate structure? Which paragraph would you add, unify or split into different parts? Please provide a list of suggestions. Is the article well written and understandable at a high school level?

The article is well written, adequately presents the topic to a general audience, and can be understood at a high school level. The navigation structure is clear and complete.
The paragraph on physical testing could be expanded, and the term “turbidity” should be linked to the related entry in Wikipedia.

note that turbidity already has a Wikilink where it appears first; we are not supposed to hyperlink it each time?EvMsmile (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Content

Is the article comprehensive of major facts related to the topic? Is the article adequately placing the subject in context? What does it miss? Please provide a list of topics you think should be included in the article (suggestions must be related to bibliography). Do you find that some arguments are not meaningful or representative of the topic for a general public. What should be deleted? Please explain why.

The article includes all the major facts related to the topic, and adequately places the subject in context.
I think that all the topics are meaningful and representatives for a general public.

International and local dimension

Is the article neutral (it presents general and acknowledged views fairly and without bias)? Is the article representative of the international dimension and consolidated research about the topic? If applicable, does the article feature examples from all over the world (no localisms)? Please draft a list of what is missing with related references.

Despite having links to water pollution in different countries, most of the examples and pictures are from the United States. I would recommend including examples from other countries as well. Particularly, there are no examples from the European Union.

Good point - could remove the U.S. focus a bit; if we give more examples, then lets give more examples from developing countries (rather than the EU), as the problems with water pollution are even more pronounced there. Could probably easily pull some images e.g. from the article on water pollution in India.EvMsmile (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

References (essential to allow the articles to be improved)

Is the list of publications comprehensive and updated? Does it list the fundamental monographs and papers? Please provide primary/generic and secondary/original resources which need to be included and suggest the list of publications which should be removed.

I consider the list of publications comprehensive, even though the references on current pollution figures [1-7] may be updated.

This article violates our Manual of Style

This article contains the ungrammatical expression "and/or" which is prohibited per Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which states that we should use either the expression "and" or the expression "or" but not "and/or". Žikica Milošević (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2017

In this paragraph, "Water pollution affects the entire biosphere of plants and organisms living in these bodies of water", may you preferably change "bodies of water" to "water bodies"GMwes (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC) GMwes (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2017

On the sub-topic Pathogens the sentence "Other microorganisms sometimes found in surface waters that have caused human health problems include" please add the word "contaminated" to read "contaminated surface waters"GMwes (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC) GMwes (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2017

On the sub-topic pathogens in this sentence, "This can be caused by a sewage plant designed with less than secondary treatment (more typical in less-developed countries)" may you change to read "This can also be caused by a sewage plant designed with less secondary treatment options to adequately remove pathogens (more typical in less-developed countries)"GMwes (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC) GMwes (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree and would, and have, gone further. Tertiary treated sewage effluent typically has a very high bacterial load which may contain pathogens. Unless final effluent is sterilized or put through extended polishing processes, there is always a risk of pathogenicity in sewage effluent. This is not a developing world issue - it remains common in the developed world.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Water pollution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130108194041/http://www.cwp.org/documents/cat_view/75-articles-from-the-practice-of-watershed-protection.html?limit=40&order=name&dir=DESC&start=80 to http://cwp.org/documents/cat_view/75-articles-from-the-practice-of-watershed-protection.html?limit=40&order=name&dir=DESC&start=80
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312045934/http://www.cwp.org/documents/cat_view/75-articles-from-the-practice-of-watershed-protection.html to http://cwp.org/documents/cat_view/75-articles-from-the-practice-of-watershed-protection.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Article evaluation

Some grammatical errors occurred within the article. Additionally, unsure of some of the added information in the introductory section, as there are multiple global facts that seem that they should be stated within another subsection. Groundwater has its own separate description, however, surface water is only touched upon. Citations are functioning, and there are a large number of sources. Vne5385 (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2018

202.7.53.249 (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)i want you to write more information about this

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed a chunk of text from "Transport and chemical reactions of water pollutants"

I have just removed this chunk of text as it was too detailed for this kind of overview article and had no references. Also it was just dealing with one specific location. Can we move it to another article perhaps?

In some areas of the world the influence can be traced one hundred miles from the mouth by studies using hydrology transport models. Advanced computer models such as SWMM or the DSSAM Model have been used in many locations worldwide to examine the fate of pollutants in aquatic systems. Indicator filter-feeding species such as copepods have also been used to study pollutant fates in the New York Bight, for example. The highest toxin loads are not directly at the mouth of the Hudson River, but 100 km (62 mi) south, since several days are required for incorporation into planktonic tissue. The Hudson discharge flows south along the coast due to the coriolis force. Further south are areas of oxygen depletion caused by chemicals using up oxygen and by algae blooms, caused by excess nutrients from algal cell death and decomposition. Fish and shellfish kills have been reported, because toxins climb the food chain after small fish consume copepods, then large fish eat smaller fish, etc. Each successive step up the food chain causes a cumulative concentration of pollutants such as heavy metals (e.g. mercury) and persistent organic pollutants such as DDT. This is known as bio-magnification, which is occasionally used interchangeably with bio-accumulation. EMsmile (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, I don't really understand the headline "Transport and chemical reactions of water pollutants" - what is this section really about? Can we come up with a clearer headline? Also the text needs tidying up, it is confusing at the moment. EMsmile (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Industrial wastewater treatment

User:Moreau1, thanks for putting the section on industrial wastewater treatment back in! I am really sorry, I had removed it by mistake yesterday. So glad you caught this, thank you! What do you think of the rest of the edits, I made, any comments? See also directly above. EMsmile (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User:EMsmile, You're welcome! I figured it was just an oversight on your part. Your edits look fine to me--much appreciated. (I might have some further thoughts about use of the term "nonconventional" pollutants, which is commonly used in the US regulatory community.) The "Transport and chemical reactions" text truly does not belong in the Water pollution article. Perhaps the Hydrological transport model article? Or maybe Marine pollution; that article would need a new section and some introductory material. Moreau1 (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree and have moved that text block now. Most of it fitted with groundwater pollution. In fact, when I tried to insert it there, I found it was dublicated in that article already!

Do we need something on "nonconventional" pollutants? I haven't missed it so far. I am not familiar with that concept. If you think it should be explained, please do.

I find there is actually a fair bit of overlap with the article on wastewater and sewage, e.g. regarding the long contaminants list, so we have to be careful with that.

I have now also added something more about marine pollution (with a link to the main article)

I also felt the "nutrient pollution" could be mentioned more prominently than it is currently (I didn't even know until 5 minutes ago that we had a separate article on "nutrient pollution")

The more I look at this article, the more I find flawed with it. - Overall I think we should make it into a good overview article from where many sub-topics branch off. That means we have to ensure that all the right sub-topics are mentioned in the right places; but not go into much detail here, as that detail is to be found in the sub-topic articles. (also need to ensure that all the sub-topic articles link back to "water pollution". EMsmile (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Improving the Lead: more information, more readable

WikiProject Sanitation selected this article to work on improving the lead. We felt more content from the article needed to be included. We are also working to improve readability as our topics are read by high school educated people in the Global South, working on sanitation issues in their communities. Please post your feedback on my choices for what new information to include in the lead. Is it long enough now? Too long? How about readability? That required splitting some long sentences into two sentences or removing parenthetical information from sentences and putting the same information in a new sentence.

Right now readability is still on 40 / 100. I had hoped to get that score up to 50, but sometimes with technical topics it's just not possible.PlanetCare (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, User:PlanetCare that was excellent work. I've re-arranged things a little and brought it back to 4 paragraphs (which I think is ideal). I removed the emphasis on nutrient pollution which did not reflect well how little this topic was included in the main text. The lead is now 400 words which I think is a good length. Strangely, my edits have dropped the readability score to 35 down from your 40. Sorry about that. It might be because of the listings which result in longer sentences with plenty of commas. EMsmile (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2018

117.222.224.36 (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 03:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

FFS it is a bullshit edit obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.56.205.152 (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

What a mess

put the pollution link in the lede instead of in the see also

Put the by country template below ext links where it belongs and write a proper section for By country

Get rid of the link to the Book. It is embarrassing and adds nothing.

Point sources subsection is seriously biased to the US

Get rid of the less relevant subject templaces and categories.

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2019

Aman momin (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Some of the major causes of water pollution are listed below.

• Pathogens One of the most severe pollutants is the disease-causing microorganisms called pathogens. Pathogens are mostly bacteria, virus, and protozoa. Although bacteria are considered harmless if not beneficial, there are a few of pathogenic bacteria as well which enter the water bodies through sewers and sanitation systems. The water-borne pathogens cause several diseases such as diarrhea, gastrointestinal illness, etc.

• Organic Wastes Organic water pollutants include food waste, detergents, leaves, grass, etc. They originate from domestic sewage, discharge from food processing factories and farm wastes which reach the water sources through runoff and pollute them. It is a fact that the bacteria decompose the complex organic matter into the simple organic matter. They consume oxygen which is dissolved in water. As the organic waste content in the water increases so does the count of decomposers. They use up a lot of oxygen which results in the depletion of oxygen content in water. This adversely affects the aquatic life.

• Chemical Pollutants Chemical pollutants include heavy metals such as mercury, lead, cadmium, etc., solvents from industries, pesticide run-offs, oil spills through ships, etc. They are poisonous to aquatic life forms and cause their infertility and death. The metal wastes are dangerous to humans as well when they get absorbed in our body. They can damage the nervous system, kidney, etc.

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 05:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Heading text

141.68.233.82 (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
In most cases, you must cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

2405:204:5781:7F31:E12C:2D1A:1113:545C (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Please

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 14:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2021

In the second sentence of the article, the word “oceans” incorrectly links to a different article instead of “oceans” article. 73.158.94.218 (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for alerting us. Dimadick (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Surface water pollution section

The paragraph beginning with "Water pollution from human activity..." mainly discusses oil spills. Oil spills are a major source, but other sources should be mentioned, at least briefly, in this section.

Currently there isn't a summary of the wide variety of pollution sources in this article, described in a basic terminology such as factories, agriculture, sewage, etc. (We might have had such a summary para. in this article in the past, but I can't recall at the moment.) It would be useful to have such a paragraph in this section that lists the major industrial sources, which would include oil spills and some manufacturing sectors (including mining). Also, agriculture and urban sources (sewage and stormwater) should be listed. Just a sentence or two would do to summarize all of these, in this section. Having such a paragraph in this article would then remove the need to over-emphasize oil spills here. (I think that oil spills do contribute the greatest amount of pollution by volume worldwide, on an annual basis. There is, of course, a large separate article on oil spills.)

The section on "Organic, inorganic and macroscopic contaminants" is more granular, and that text needs some refinement, perhaps shortening, but is not a substitute for listing the major sources by economic sector or facility level. Moreau1 (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. When I moved the textblock about oil spills from fresh water to here yesterday I was also puzzled why the section on surface water pollution was still so brief. Then again it's always hard to decide how much detail to put into an overview article of this nature. Some of the information about industrial source that you ask about is already included in the section on "Organic, inorganic and macroscopic contaminants". EMsmile (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggested improvements in March 2021

I came back to this article to check how it's looking now with regards to the parameter "comprehensiveness". Here are some suggestions. Comments anyone?

• The section on surface water pollution should be a bit longer, and the link with nutrient pollution be explained.
• If thermal pollution is a thing then we could also mention ocean temperature rise there?
• Need to check for overlap with the article on "water quality".
• It's difficult to find the right balance: even though sub-articles exist for everything, the content should still be explained. Maybe work with excerpts more?
• Is the article missing a section on "impacts of water pollution" which could include health impacts, environmental impacts, economic impacts (but careful in case this content is already covered in other articles) EMsmile (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• The article should also mention SDG 6. EMsmile (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Content expert review (July-August 2021)

I am currently involved in a 2-year project where we contact content experts and ask them to review selected articles (more information here). When reaching out to people I am in particular looking for textbook authors who might enjoy teaching others and parting with their knowledge. For this article I have thought of two book authors that are already cited in the article as well: Oliver A. H. Jones (chapter author in Pollution: Causes, Effects and Control 5th Edition); Edward Laws, he's a book author: Laws, E. A. 2018. Aquatic Pollution: An Introductory Text. 4th edition. Wiley-Interscience. New York. 740 pp. Is there anyone else who comes to mind who might also be willing to contribute to this Wikipedia article? EMsmile (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Here are the comments that I received from one content expert (Oliver Jones). I will work with him now to make improvements:

1. The content is very basic and many points are repeated.
2. Very little detail is given on specific points I know there are lots of links people can follow but in many cases not enough details is given to understand the topic.
3. There is no logical flow (pardon the pun) to the article and the topics jump even within paragraphs (which is incorrect English and also makes it hard to follow).
4. No mention of major water pollutants such as PFAS and very little on micro and nano plastics.
5. Many of the references cited are inappropriate. For example sometimes a news article is cited to back up a claim of scientific fact, sometimes the link goes to a story that is not the one listed in the text and in others the link is broken and one link goes to an article in Spanish so I can’t check if it is appropriate.
6. Reference is made to the USA on many occasions as if it was the only country with water regulations (references are overwhelmingly American). Conversely India and China are singled out for having very polluted waters; they aren’t the only countries that had polluted water.
7. Almost nothing on legislation or management policy.

EMsmile (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I have worked on those comments by Oliver Jones and addressed them these last few days. I’ve tried to find the right level of detail for an overview article of this nature, i.e. not too much detail but pointing people to all the relevant concepts and issues. Where good sub-articles existed, I have now used the excerpt function (quite a lot) which means using content from the “source article” and including it in the “water pollution” article but in a way so that they are linked. It’s interesting how the overview articles are sometimes worse than the more specific articles. E.g. “water pollution” was much worse than marine pollution or groundwater pollution. We did not yet have an article for “freshwater pollution” / “surface water but not marine pollution” which is kind of the focus of this article.EMsmile (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

There are still some weaknesses and gaps that I see in the article now:

1. I think we still need a bit more on the impacts. In particular perhaps more on the impacts of the persistent organic pollutants? Here I am not sure though if individual chemicals (like PFAS) need to be mentioned or if we can group them together and make blanket statements about them.
2. We need more on the non-technical methods for control and reduction, in particular management and regulation approaches.
3. With regards to legislation, I am not sure if we can make general global statements or if we need to go down to the country level and describe per country? Or just pick out some best practice example countries? Can we take the info for the European Union, for example?
4. Do we need more information in the surface water or freshwater pollution section? I am not sure because I have added there excerpts from marine pollution, groundwater pollution and from nutrient pollution already. We already had separate articles in Wikipedia on nearly everything else but not yet on “freshwater pollution” but many of the issues are so similar between them. EMsmile (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This reference doesn't seem reliable

http://stopkillingwhales.com/environment/index.html
It claims pollution has killed half of plankton since the 50's and this reduction in plankton caused warming, this seems incorrect to me, human emissions are the cause of warming and plankton communities have increased because of the increased co2 and nitrogen/phosphorus run off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.108.221.124 (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Is ocean acidification an impact of water pollution?

I have started a discussion on how ocean acidification relates to water pollution here on the talk page of ocean acidification. It's either a type of water pollution or an impact of water pollution, I think. EMsmile (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Is plastic waste a part of water pollution?

The question was raised above if solid waste and plastic pollution are a form of water pollution or not. I would say yes they are and had accordingly included it in the article but the recent edits in November had removed it. I am doing some work on SDG 14 today and I think that the websites by the UN speak a clear language. See e.g. here and here. Marine pollution is defined to include marine debris and plastic. As marine pollution is a form of water pollution I would say it is clear that solid waste and plastic should be seen as a form of water pollution, too. Or would anyone argue that marine pollution is not a subset of water pollution? EMsmile (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Some of the distinctions raised about plastic pollution pertains to "floatables" vs. suspended or dissolved pollutants, and the origin of the materials. And, how these pollutants are regulated and controlled, which is what governments are interested in.

For example, the US Clean Water Act (CWA) has a broad definition of "pollutant" that includes sewage, sewage sludge, industrial waste, solid waste and garbage, among other things (sec. 502(6)); 33 USC 1362). But the task of dealing with all these different kinds of pollutants in the US is spread across many different agencies (federal, state, local) that have different approaches and resources.

Trash floating on surface waters, whether plastic or other material, is typically addressed (if at all) by local governments. Often this trash was originally tossed or dumped on land, and therefore it was a "solid waste" or "garbage". Later, the trash is washed into water body after a precipitation event. Of course the local government would try to control the solid waste before it enters the water, but if it can't always do that, it might use skimmers or similar mechanical devices to collect the trash on the water. In many jurisdictions, the trash handling functions are separate from sewage treatment operations, so the local sewage agency is not involved in dealing with floatables.

At the federal level, US EPA has not regulated plastic trash under the CWA, but state and local governments have full authority under RCRA to deal with the problem. (How effectively they address the problem is basically about available resources.) The manufacture of plastics is regulated by EPA at the federal level, under the CWA, as well as the solid/hazardous waste law (RCRA) and the Clean Air Act.

Some of these distinctions about plastics seem to be related to the backgrounds and perspectives of several different environmental management disciplines. In the US we have separate laws for managing solid waste (RCRA) and surface water pollution (CWA), with definitions and procedures dating back mostly to the 1970s. So we have developed organizational cultures of "solid waste people" and "water quality people". The relationship between the two types of pollution is well understood, and many of the professionals in these fields move back and forth between them. The varying backgrounds, as well as specific laws, tend to influence whether certain types of pollution, such as floatables, are considered to be solid waste or water pollution.

When plastics degrade into small particles in water bodies, causing the well-documented serious impacts for aquatic life, it looks more like "water pollution." But the same can be said for some non-plastic materials, such as metals. And of course much of the solid wastes that are found in water bodies are complex composites of plastic, metal, coated paper, etc.

I think it is safe to say that most or all plastics start out as solid waste. They may become floatables, and sometimes they are collected in the water bodies before they degrade. If the floatables are not collected, they may degrade and become a type of water pollution. Moreau1 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Moreau1, so if I understood your comments correctly you agree with my assertion that solid waste pollution should indeed be included inside of a water pollution article? Some of the photos that were showing solid waste pollution in streams, which had been deleted, should be re-inserted? Do we need more (new) text to explain some of the issues that you listed above? If so, do you have suitable references at hand? EMsmile (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Floatables or trash, including plastics, could have a paragraph in the "Other forms of water pollution" section. That should be enough for this article, with appropriate links to plastic pollution and other articles as appropriate. A lot of the floatables problem stems from improper waste management on land. Occasionally there may be a significant trash spill from a waste-handling barge or ship; that still amounts to improper waste management practices.

Regarding photos of trash in water, only one would be enough for this article. I think there is a temptation among some editors (students, maybe?) to insert pictures of trash floating on water, because it's a visible sign of something gone wrong. But many of the serious water pollution problems are not as visible, thus no useful photos. Algal blooms are visible, and oil spills are often visible, but again, one photo in the water pollution article would be sufficient, if an oil spill paragraph is added. Some of the major spill events have their own articles, after all.

The broader problems with plastic pollution are discussed in that main article, and don't need to be repeated here. (That article could benefit from some additional editing for balance, style, etc.)

I am not familiar with academic-type references on trash and floatables. I work in the water pollution field, and I do consider this topic to be mostly in the solid waste/waste management category. I may be able to provide some links to government websites about trash management. Moreau1 (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mnyemchek, Carson2019, Hkim74, Aodunlam, Cward18vu, Tguagent.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Questioning edits and deletions made in early Nov 2021

I noticed that you (User:Smokefoot) made a range of changes to this article in November for which you gave no additional explanations on the talk page. So I am finding it hard to follow your reasoning, just going by the very brief comments in the edit summaries. You have removed a lot of text which I had only very recently worked on and which I thought was actually pretty good (see my comments on the talk page above where I had discussed some of those changes). You removed some content that you called "ad hoc lists". What is your definition of "ad hoc"? I think they helped to understand the concept. Also you removed anything to do with solid waste saying that is not water pollution. I disagree with that. Going by the definition of water pollution this does include solid waste. It's like saying environmental pollution does not include solid waste. Also I don't like the way you have shortened the lead. It was better before. Refer to this version from early November before your changes. I also think the structure of the article was better then (see table of content). The table of content was like this:

1Definition
2Impacts
2.1Ecosystems
2.2Public health and waterborne diseases
2.3Eutrophication from nitrogen pollution
2.4Ocean acidification
3Contaminants and their sources
3.1Overview
3.2Pathogens from sewage and agriculture
3.3Non-biodegradable organic compounds
3.4Inorganic contaminants
3.5Contaminants from industrial wastewater
3.6Solid waste and plastics
4Types of surface water pollution
4.1Pollution of rivers, lakes and oceans
4.2Marine pollution
4.3Nutrient pollution
4.4Thermal pollution
4.5Oil spills
4.6Others
5Groundwater pollution
6By type of source
6.1Point sources
6.2Nonpoint sources
7Measurement
7.1Sampling
7.2Biological testing
8Prevalence
8.1By country
9Control and reduction
9.1Pollution control philosophy
9.2Sanitation and sewage treatment
9.3Industrial wastewater treatment
9.4Agricultural wastewater treatment
9.5Management of erosion and sediment control
9.6Control of urban runoff (storm water)
9.7Legislation

You new structure looks like this:

1Definition
2Agriculture
3Industrial wastewater
4Sewage
4.1Pathogens from sewage
5Urban runoff
6Other forms of water pollution
6.1Thermal pollution
6.2Biological pollution
7By type of source
7.1Point sources
7.2Nonpoint sources
8Measurement
8.1Sampling
8.2Biological testing
9Prevalence
9.1By country
10Control and reduction
10.1Pollution control philosophy
10.2Sanitation and sewage treatment
10.3Industrial wastewater treatment
10.4Agricultural wastewater treatment
10.5Management of erosion and sediment control
10.6Control of urban runoff (storm water)
10.7Legislation

I think the older structure was better. Why did you take out the entire section on impacts for example? In any case, I think for someone who makes such large sweeping changes, you should have provided explanations here on the talk page so that other page watchers have a better opportunity to understand what is going on. I am planning to revert some of your changes but it's probably best to first discuss here on the talk page what your reasoning was so that we don't end up confused and disappointed. I am a bit disappointed right now because I feel that many of your changes were not improvements but just served to shorted the article. EMsmile (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Well the main thing is thank you for your interest and accept my best wishes for improving this article. With regards to my previous edits, I thought and still think that the article was improved and sharpened with my edits. You can see that my edits were made stepwise to facilitate analysis. I do a lot of editing, so often my notes are brief. We are not here to preach or offer opinions, just state facts with good supporting sources. Good luck with revisions, I hope to check in later.

examples of wordy, obvious, ad hoc, not very good sections [[3]] and [[4]]. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I must agree with EMsmile that many of the changes appear to remove useful content rather than simplify. For example a section called "=== Non-biodegradable organic compounds ===" was replaced here with a section called "=== Industrial wastewater ===". The two are very different. One of the key issues is that many non-biodegradable organics come from sources other than industry. I would urge a reversion back to a stable version and then discuss the proposed changes before implementation. I was unaware of the changes being made as I was on a self imposed exile from Wikipedia to more effectively manage my own personal issues. These changes don't help a great deal, but that, or course, is of no concern or relevance to Wikipedia. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Well I disagrree in detail and generally. The current version is clearly stable, indeed more credible version. Where did this term "unstable" come from anyway? Or, does unstable mean that "I dont like it"?

Let's take a look at the contested section:"Contaminants may include non-biodegradable organic substances. Many of these chemical substances are toxic.

• petroleum refining
• Creosote - a chemical used for wood preservation, can be released into the ocean over time"

The book by Laws does not seem to mention "non-biodegradable organics come from sources other than industry". So this is a case of an authoritative sounding source that really does not apply. It just looks good. A pernicious problem. Furthermore zero evidence/sources are presented to show that the non-biodegradable organics are notable, a big deal in WP. We dont shoot from the hip here, we should make careful, well-crafted arguments. Otherwise we put Wikipedia's reputation at risk.

Then, for the next source we drop from a potential super tertiary source to a "report" from the city of Helena in the US province of Montana. Wha???

So much of the contested section seems reasonable, but it seeems really to be hearsay supported by crappy or tangential sources. I make these harsh statements because I am an environmentalist, but I know that a surest way of hurting the cause is to argue poorly and not completely honestly. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Hi Smokefoot, thanks for engaging here on the talk page. Wikipedia is built on consensus so I think it's important to establish consensus before making very large changes. I'd like to establish some consensus before working through some of your changes in detail and possibly reverting some. In early November you mainly deleted a whole lot of content plus you re-arranged the structure. I was mostly off Wikipedia in November and December, otherwise I would have said something earlier. Here are my points with numbering for easier reference:

1. If you have problems with some of the references used then this could have been discussed. Sometimes a tag of "citation needed" goes a long way. No doubt that some of the references could be improved and sharpened. But you have taken out so much content that the article is now weaker than before in my opinion.
2. Take the lead for example. The lead of the November version was a better summary of the article than the lead that you have created.
3. Then your assertion that solid waste in waterways does not constitute water pollution. Do you have a reference for that? The references and experts that I have consulted (see above in the section on "Content expert review (July-August 2021)") do include solid waste as water pollution. Think plastic pollution and think microplastic pollution. Would you not say that e.g. microplastic pollution in water is a form of water pollution? It's all interconnected.
4. The other issue of ocean acidification can be debated whether this is a consequence of water pollution due to CO2 in the atmosphere. I think it is. We can find references for that, I am pretty sure.
5. Then the whole section of "impacts of water pollution": This is now completely missing from the table of contents? Why have you removed that? Is it not important?
6. Section headings called "2Agriculture, 3Industrial wastewater, 4Sewage" are far less clear than the previous section headings of "3 Contaminants and their sources" and "4 Types of surface water pollution".
7. I had added an overview table to show pollutants and their effects (see the November version here). You deleted that with the comment "ad-hoc list" in your edit summary. I don't understand your reasoning and would argue for putting it back in.
8. You made a sweeping change to the lead here with your edit summary saying: "redundant or preaching". The lead is meant to summarise the article and in my opinion, the text that you removed did exactly that. It was not "preaching" but summarising the article. It could perhaps be shortened and condensed but I don't think the content was redundant at all.
9. Similarly with this text block about impacts of water pollution on ecosystems. You removed it in this edit with the edit summary stating: "redundant essay". You made it easy for yourself, just deleting large text blocks rather than pointing out missing citations if you think they're missing. A statement such as this one: "Water pollution is a major global environmental problem because it can result in the degradation of aquatic ecosystems." is not an essay. It's a fact. Yes, we can add a citation if you think that is critical. It's basically a well known fact like "the sky is blue" but if you think it needs a reference then let's add one. There is no need to make a whole sale deletion on such statements unless you know that the statement is plain wrong. EMsmile (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

My proposal (in line with what Velella said) would be to revert back to the version of 20 October (this one), and then to work through each of the changes that came after that, one by one and see what was good and what wasn't as good. There is no doubt that the article (like all articles) would benefit from better referencing, copy editing, some removal of redundancies, removing any "preaching" if there is any (I don't think there was much because I would have looked out for that in my earlier reviews), perhaps removing some of the excerpts (perhaps I had used the excerpt function too much). But your sweeping changes with minimal discussion/explanation/consensus building overshot the target a bit in my opinion, resulting in a less useful article than before. EMsmile (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Well we all know where this discussion is headed: My edits will be reverted etc. If our goal is a good article and consensus, vs trying to seek retribution and save face, let's take a few days to describe what should be the organization of the article. The main sections and justification? We can start today. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you really think I would go through all the effort of writing long texts on this talk page if my hidden intention was to simply revert and be done with it? Far from it. So yes, let's take a few days to discuss and to reach a consensus hopefully. I have listed my points above in the numbered list. Looking forward to your answers. My recommended/preferred structure for the article is also provided above, i.e. the same structure that we had on early November. EMsmile (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to wait a few days longer if needed, Smokefoot? But otherwise my plan is to revert back to the 20 October version (this one) and then to very carefully look at every single edit that came after that and re-implement some/most of them, based on the discussions here on the talk page (e.g. with regards to solid waste, see below). Therefore, your edits are not lost or in vain. However, not all of them would be kept, e.g. those deletions about solid waste. I would also re-instate the section on impacts which you had deleted and go back to the earlier structure which I felt was more logical, as per my explanations above in the numbered list. Reaching consensus here on the talk page would be good. EMsmile (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi EMsmile: You go ahead and make the changes you think are best. I hope to come back and re-edit. Just keep the references to WP:TERTIARY. The topic is some mature, so broad, and so important that it would be inappropriate to be referencing specialized sources. Some of my edits have some value. Recall that it took 2 months for anyone to dispute my edits, so the article is not being cared for. Good luck. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for being open to this approach. I'll do my best to find good solutions for anything that might have been sub-optimal in the earlier version, and will also bring any particular issues here to the talk page. And I agree it's disappointing when articles on important topics are not being cared for. I come across them all the time... even something like ocean acidification, effects of climate change... So much work to do, not enough volunteers with an interest in scientific topics. Let's get more scientists and content matter experts into Wikipedia editing; that's my hope. EMsmile (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I've made those changes now, i.e. reverted and then re-instated some/many of the edits that came afterwards. I'll start a new section below to describe issues and questions that I encountered while doing so. EMsmile (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Air pollution information

Copied from above for greater clarity: "More important: There should also be at least a paragraph or two on other "multi-media" types of pollution which have not been addressed so far. Significant among these "other forms" is air deposition, which is the pathway for serious water pollution in the form of mercury compounds, nitrates and sulfur compounds, from the burning of fossil fuels. Most of the mercury found in fish tissue comes from the burning of coal and the resulting air deposition into surface waters. Currently there is not a separate article on air deposition; the article on Deposition (aerosol physics) just describes the physical process. The deposition phenomenon is not sufficiently described in the main air pollution article; there is a paragraph at Nutrient pollution#Nonpoint sources. There is a brief mention in Health and environmental impact of the coal industry and perhaps a few other articles."Moreau1 (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Air pollution as a source of water pollution is briefly mentioned about 4 times in the article so far. It might be useful to add a sub-heading for it in the section on "nonpoint source pollution"? Do you have some good statements and refs at hand? EMsmile (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Parallel construction

The concept of parallel construction means that topics are comparable in style/weight/content. Under "types of surface water pollution" we have

• Pollution of rivers, lakes and oceans

and

• Marine pollution

those two categories are parallel, they are locales, Then we get:

• Nutrient pollution

and

• Thermal pollution

The latter two categories are not locales, but describe kinds (physical vs a kind of chemical) of pollution. The sectioning should be revised. Possibly the hierarchy in general could be revised, chemical, biological, thermal, sediment. Presumably textbooks on water pollution could guide this process.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that some of this is not ideal. But I think it might be unavoidable to have a little bit of overlap in the categorisations? E.g. under point sources we repeat some content about sewage. Hmmm... Please also see the proposal that User:Velella had made above. I might go in the same direction? I am not sure. EMsmile (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I've taken out the heading "Pollution of rivers, lakes and oceans" now, as it was not helpful, I think. EMsmile (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Re-arranged structure, yet again (May 2022)?

Hi User:Smokefoot, I see you are making changes to the structure again. I thought we had been through this process already, is this now a repeat of the earlier discussion or something different? I would find it really helpful if you could discuss such planned re-organisations here on the talk page first before making them (reiterating a statement that I had made earlier on the talk page already). It's harder to follow your thought process otherwise. EMsmile (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I didnt think that these changes were controversial. Nor did I think that I required asking your permission. Pesticides etc are chemicals, right? Most biodegrade, right? Perchlorate is not organic, right? I consolidated sewage. We are not stamp collecting here, we are giving an overview. I removed an uncited list.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Where did I say that you had to ask for my permission? Please don't put words in my mouth. All I did is to ask for a collaborative, consensus-building approach to Wikipedia editing. Given the lengthy discussions we had about the structure of this article (please scroll up), I think this is justified. EMsmile (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Before your most recent changes, the structure looked like this:

2Contaminants and their sources
2.1Overview
2.2Pathogens from sewage and agriculture
2.3Non-biodegradable organic compounds
2.4Inorganic contaminants
2.5Pharmaceutical pollutants
2.6Solid waste and plastics
2.7Various contaminants from industrial wastewater

Now it looks like this:

2Contaminants and their sources
2.1Sewage and agriculture
2.2Organic compounds
2.3Inorganic contaminants
2.4Pharmaceutical pollutants
2.5Solid waste and plastics

I don't think this makes sense because it is mixing up types of contaminants (e.g. organic compounds, pharmaceutical pollutants) with types of sources (sewage and agriculture). It would be worth discussing this. If a list is uncited then how about rather finding a reference for it than just deleting it? Deleting should only take place if there are doubts that the information is correct. Of course it's easier to delete than to find a suitable reference... EMsmile (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I've changed it now to this (is this better?):

2 Contaminants
2.1 Contaminants with an origin in sewage 

EMsmile (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Trash is not water pollution

Pollution in the Lachine Canal, Canada

Trash looks bad, is generally unhelpful, and can be dangerous for macroscopic creatures, but it is not a core concern for water pollution (unless you are a living in a rich neighborhood). --Smokefoot (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

We've already discussed the issue of solid waste in waterways above (see here). The general consensus was that solid waste is a form of water pollution. Why do you insist on re-opening this? Please scroll up in the talk page. If you want to discuss is further please continue in the previous section so as to not repeat the same arguments over and over. EMsmile (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Why am I persistent? Because I think that it is a white-man's perception that untidiness = pollution. And a dangerous misconception that macroscopic objects should be the focus of those concerned about this serious problem associated with health of the environment and those reliant on it.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Then take any new discussion points that you want to make into the existing section which is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_pollution#Is_plastic_waste_a_part_of_water_pollution? . You can see e.g. the arguments of User:Moreau1. They did convince me. At the end of the day, this is about consensus building. Marine plastic pollution is also a form of water pollution for example. EMsmile (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I have moved the earlier discussion to be just above this one now to keep it all together. EMsmile (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

We have now only one single photo showing solid waste in waterways, and one small paragraph on solid waste and plastics. I think this is not excessive but rounds off the picture nicely. As solid waste in waterways can eventually lead to pollution at microscopic level (and smaller) - think microplastics - it is "real water pollution" and not just "a white-man's perception that untidiness". EMsmile (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Reorganization (Jan 2022)

While working on the new-old-new structure of the article (see above), I've realised that it's hard to avoid some overlap. Currently we have structured it along the lines of types of contaminants, then types of pollution (surface water/groundwater, point source, nonpoint source). User Smokefoot had proposed to re-arrange it and only go along the 4 types of sources (sewage, industry, agriculture, run-off). I tried to compromise by adding that type of content in the point/nonpoint source section. However, it's not just those 4 types of sources (e.g. air pollution is another one), also some of the same contaminants can come from different contributors (e.g. nutrients). That's why I think the structure that we have now re-instated is better. However, I am unsure how to deal with some of the repetition. For example with industrial wastewater we have a sub-heading on "contaminants from industrial wastewater" and then we talk about it later again in "point sources". Perhaps it's useful for the reader to have it in those two places, depending on what they are looking for. Or perhaps it should be consolidated in one place. I am not sure. There are also some missing references here and there which we can flag with the "citation needed" tag to remind ourselves that they still need to be added. I don't think that any of the "citation needed"-marked sentences contain questionable content so there is no need to delete them, just to find some textbook type references. The content about nutrient pollution also appears in several places: under contaminants, under surface water pollution and under agricultural pollution; not sure if it's OK like that or needs to be changed. EMsmile (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This article has become very congested and I broadly agree with your analysis. We do need to remove most (all?) of the duplication, as you indicate, although some may be introduced from the use of excerpts,

My idealised article would have the major sections as:

• What it is?
• where does it occur?
• what is its impact?
• where does it come from?
• How do we measure it?
• How do we control and reduce it?
• Bigger societal and financial impacts

Clearly those wouldn't be the section headings, but having an indicative model of the final article might help determine where specific bits of text might go. I am having a go at a new logical structure in one of my sandboxes, but please don't let that deter or delay ongoing improvements.

On a detail point, pollution from the atmosphere certainly must be included with examples such as acid rain and the acidification of the oceans as atmospheric CO2 levels increase  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

So currently the article structure is like this (I think it does contain all the key questions that you listed, just under different names; but somehow it doesn't feel quite right):

1Definition

2Contaminants and their sources
2.1Overview
2.2Pathogens from sewage and agriculture
2.3Non-biodegradable organic compounds
2.4Inorganic contaminants
2.5Solid waste and plastics
2.6Various contaminants from industrial wastewater

3Types of surface water pollution
3.1Pollution of rivers, lakes and oceans
3.2Marine pollution
3.3Nutrient pollution
3.4Thermal pollution
3.5Biological pollution

4Groundwater pollution

5Pollution from point sources
5.1Sewage
5.2Industrial wastewater
5.3Oil spills

6Pollution from nonpoint sources
6.1Agriculture

7Measurement
7.1Sampling
7.2Biological testing

8Impacts
8.1Ecosystems
8.2Public health and waterborne diseases
8.3Eutrophication from nitrogen pollution
8.4Ocean acidification

9Prevalence
9.1By country

10Control and reduction
10.1Pollution control philosophy
10.2Sanitation and sewage treatment
10.3Industrial wastewater treatment
10.4Agricultural wastewater treatment
10.5Management of erosion and sediment control
10.6Control of urban runoff (storm water)
10.7Legislation

EMsmile (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

My revision currently looks like this:

   1 Definition
   2 Types
       2.1 Nutrient pollution
       2.2 Soluble and miscible organic material
       2.3 Thermal pollution
       2.4 Biological pollution
       2.5 Pathogens
       2.6 Non-biodegradable organic compounds
           2.6.1 Persistent organic pollutants
           2.6.2 Environmental persistent pharmaceutical pollutants
       2.7 Inorganic contaminants
       2.8 Solid waste and plastics
       2.9 Gases
       2.10 Radioactivity
   3 Sources
       3.1 Sewage
       3.2 Industrial wastewater
       3.3 Surface water pollution
   4 Receiving waters
       4.1 Rivers and lakes
       4.2 Sea
       4.3 Groundwater
   5 Routes of entry
       5.1 Point sources
           5.1.1 Sewage discharges
           5.1.2 Industrial wastewaters
           5.1.3 Oil spills
       5.2 Diffuse sources
           5.2.1 Agriculture
           5.2.2 Surface run-off
       5.3 Atmosphere
   6 Measurement
       6.1 Sampling
       6.2 Biological testing
   7 Impacts
       7.1 Ecosystems
       7.2 Public health and waterborne diseases
       7.3 Eutrophication from nitrogen pollution
       7.4 Ocean acidification
   8 Prevalence
       8.1 By country
   9 Control and reduction
       9.1 Pollution control philosophy
       9.2 Sanitation and sewage treatment
       9.3 Industrial wastewater treatment
       9.4 Agricultural wastewater treatment
       9.5 Management of erosion and sediment control
       9.6 Control of urban runoff (storm water)
   10 Contaminants and their sources
       10.1 Overview
       10.2 Legislation
   11 See also
   12 References
   13 External links

Section 10 clearly looks odd and should be subsumed into impacts and Sources - so that table would have to go. I don't have text for all these headings yet, but most can be cut and pasted from the existing article. It would still need a lot of work to tease out impacts from sources and thus reduce duplication!  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel that in your structure, the section of "types" mixes up different types of pollution with contaminants; and "sources" will overlap with "routes of entry". I don't understand your section "contaminants and their sources". Also I don't understand what would be in "receiving waters". . In your new structure, would there be any new sections and content, or is it a re-organization proposal of the existing content? EMsmile (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I can see that "Types" and "Contaminants" needs more clarity. In my model "Types" relates to constituents in the polluting input whereas an indicative section on "Contaminants" would talk about polluting components in the water. "Sources" isn't the same as "routes of entry" but I can see where confusion may lie and again this is perhaps a terminological issue - we just need to get the wording right. So, for example, "Sewage" is a source which can be described in terms of its constituents, both of untreated sewage and treated sewage effluent. In points of entry we can discuss the impact of a treated effluent discharge at a point and the impact of the many leaks and storm water overflows.

Because we are trying to describe a multi dimensional matrix of source/contaminant/impact/location we probably either have to tolerate some significant duplication or divide up the article into a few new articles such as "Contaminants in water pollution", "Sources of water pollution" and "Consequences of water pollution" or something along those lines. That way we could make appropriate cross references between the articles, using excerpts if desirable. This overarching article would then become a summary article with only very basic content that introduces the topic but leaves the detail to the new detailed articles. How does that sound?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea but in my experience such artificially created sub-articles tend to linger with low pageviews and end up being filled with a heap of detail (often by students) that then has to be maintained and updated... I do agree that this article should be regarded as a high level overarching article and not contain too much detail. I think it's already doing that fairly well. It currently uses 13 excerpts already which is quite a lot. Only the content that didn't have appropriate articles was created with some detail, the rest is transcribed from elsewhere. When you look at the current article structure, what would you say are the main flaws? Is it mainly Section 2 that doesn't feel right ("Contaminants and their sources")? Perhaps we just rework that one but leave the rest? Oh and we could add Section 6.2 Air pollution (i.e. as a non point source). EMsmile (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I have now added a section on atmospheric pollution under the section on nonpoint sources. See also below in the discussion about acidity. EMsmile (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Deleted list about industrial wastewater?

Is this the list that you deleted because it was not referenced, User:Smokefoot? It wouldn't be hard to find a reference for it, probably in Metcalf & Eddy. It might create some repetition but I am not sure if that is such a bad thing in this kind of overview article. EMsmile (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Various contaminants from industrial wastewater

If the pollution stems from industrial wastewater, then pollutants of concern may include:

• Heavy metals, including mercury, lead, and chromium
• Organic matter such as food waste, slaughterhouse waste, paper fibers, plant material, etc.;
• Inorganic particles such as sand, grit, metal particles, rubber residues from tires, ceramics, etc.;
• Toxins such as pesticides, poisons, herbicides, etc.
• Pharmaceuticals, endocrine disrupting compounds, hormones, perfluorinated compounds, siloxanes, drugs of abuse and other hazardous substances
• Microplastics such as polyethylene and polypropylene beads, polyester and polyamide
• Thermal pollution from power stations and industrial manufacturers
• Radionuclides from uranium mining, processing nuclear fuel, operating nuclear reactors, or disposal of radioactive waste. EMsmile (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Ok, I will reinstate this thing.

Well in the end, everything person-made or person-induced (mine run-off) that touches water is a pollutant. So we can engage is long lists (cigarette butts, effluent from your-factory-here, on and on). Everything is a long list. And most items on this long list could be supported by publications attesting to their reality. So the problem for this mega-topic (IMHO) is providing readers some perspective. And perspective is gotten from tertiary sources (textbooks, encyclopedia). --Smokefoot (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you had put the list in the wrong place (under solid waste?). I have now put it in the section on "industrial wastewater". I think it fits quite OK there. Yes, there could be long lists but we can also group things together, e.g. cigarette buts would fall under solid waste, effluent from your-factory-here falls under industrial wastewater. Yes, using textbooks is good (we have used Metcalf and Eddy, the book by Oliver Jones and the book by Marcos von Sperling for example). However, many textbooks are behind pay walls so it's not so easy for Wikipedia editors to use them, or for Wikipedia readers to verify the information. That's why when I see a textbook that is open access I get excited and use it happily, like the one from Marcos von Sperling: I've also used the book by Oliver Jones after the author sent me the relevant chapter as a pdf file (it's not open access): EMsmile (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

References