| content |
 |
This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject:Civil Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of civil engineering. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class. |
There is a mention of something called "local Samirol populations". I do not find any references to this word, and I don't believe it exists. I will remove it. If this actually does mean something and is not vandalism, please revert my edit Oom Kosie 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Alex 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a section I am developing now Waste legislation. I have included links to articles on the [Landfill Directive] (EU). Please update and increase data on legilsation. --Alex 10:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Could use a new section for landfill regulations & how many landfills have caused environmental pollution because they were used before there were requirements for liners, etc.
- Well, this is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold!
- Atlant 23:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
Fresh Kills
Why is Fresh Kills Landfill listed twice on the list of landfills68.193.135.2 04:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Landfill Classes
I think that this section should be edited to contain more generic categories based on the type of material disposed in each (eg Inert, Putrescible, Secure/Hazardous), with a subsection that describes design features (eg Lined/Unlined). At the moment, the section is too specific to US legislation (poss. new article Landfill in the USA, as above?)
Every country has their own names for the different classes.
WRT adding a section on regulatory requirements, every country, state and municipality tends to have their own rules for waste disposal. Adding them all would make this page too long to be workable. Suggest placing specific local references in articles such as Landfill in the UK.
ropable 02:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I would be amenable to your suggestions... Canada could certainly use its own article, as each province has its own requirements. I've added a class to the list using the name from Yukon legislation; I think we need an entry for what could be called "non-sanitary" MSW landfills, but if anyone has a better generic name for them than the Yukon's "dumps", feel free to change it. --Barefootmatt 00:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Wrong state
58.164.222.12 wrote in the article:
- Tye Woodlawn Landfill is south of Sydney (near Goulburn) in New South Wales not Queensland
I've moved that comment here so that a knowledgable person may take action on this.
Atlant 11:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Landfill in the UK and Cardiff (POV insertion)
An insertion moved to the talkpage is below. It's not suitible for the main article, could the originator modify it before adding it again. Thanks " Landfills are threatening to ruin the precious and scientifically valued countryside of rural cardiff. The council are unwittingly and unjustifiably planning to ruin a site of beauty near St. Fagans Museum.
If you would like to join in the cause of fighting the unjustified landfill in Cardiff, go to www.fightthelandfill.co.uk
Karen Ling hates Landfills. You should too!!"Supposed 12:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- And btw, Landfills really aren't as bad as people think. Campaigners would have us think Landfill sites are the same as they were 50 years ago. I just do wonder how many of your campaigners know anything about how landfills are engineered, and so whether they can make any meaningful decision as to whether they should be used to solve your waste problem. Just what sort of Landfill do you not want? Supposed 12:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ironically there is becoming a pretty good argument that the landfilling of biostabilised waste is actually beneficial to global warming. If stabilised waste is landfilled it acts as a carbon sink. The main alternative to landfill is still incineration, which releases the CO2 into the atmosphere through combustion. --Alex 12:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Generally on landfill vs. burning waste?
I see several facts and opinions on environment articles around here. Personally I am in the group of people who don't understand the idea of landfills for all kinds of waste. Of course SOME things can't go anywhere else, but landfills should IMHO be minimized. As an example: According to section Landfill types & construction, types 2 and 4 are not allowed in Denmark. People and companies have to sort their waste into specific categories such as paper, glass, metal, bricks, plants etc. giving a "last fraction" consisting of food leftovers and packing, non-clean things that can't go in other fractions. This last fraction must be burnable and is burned giving electricity and heating.
When I read about countries (e.g. USA) that have the money and technology, I just don't understand why one would deposit burnable material for later potential pollution (someday something might leak?) while they - at the same time - use "fresh" products such as oil or coal for power and heating. (Yeah, i've heard about nuclear power and wind/water power, but I don't have the idea that those can supply entire USA at the moment?)
Also I would think everybody liked landfills to be as small as possible. This would mean putting as little as possible into the hole.
Maybe I was too fast skimming this article, but I didn't see the calculation on what's best to the environment, at the eternal basis... Could someone eventually search for numbers and figures? My english vocabulary and fantasy doesn't allow me to search in english pages for specific areas like this :-/ G®iffen 19:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Broken Links
There's quite a large variety of red and broken links in this article. Should these be removed, or should the pages they link to be created? PolarisSLBM 04:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
