Talk:Landfill

message: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.44.249 (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold! Atlant 23:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Could use a new section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Landfill Classes 

message: 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)
thread_title: EU legislation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong state 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Landfill in the UK and Cardiff (POV insertion) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Generally on landfill vs. burning waste?

message: Why is Fresh Kills Landfill listed twice on the list of landfills68.193.135.2 04:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fresh Kills 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Broken Links 

message: 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)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: The section begins "a Caleb lives in a garbage can approach". What does this mean? Is this a regional colloquialism? I even tried Googling it and Wikipedia is the *only* result.
Whatever "a Caleb lives in a garbage can approach" means, it needs to be clarified.
Bratling (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unknown term starts "Site Construction Requirements" 

message: I followed a link here from Fossil-fuel power plant pointing to Landfill#As_a_source_of_materials to find the section no longer existed. As I was interested in reading about it I looked it up and found it here but it seems to me to have been deleted without reason or explanation. Was there one, does anyone know? ɹəəpıɔnı 23:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landfill as a source of materials 

message: Shouldn't the section by combined into the Land reclamation article? --Mistakefinder (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  combine into Land reclamation? 

message: I love this section. I'd love it more if someone more knowledgable than I could add to it. *puppy dog eyes* 121.214.207.199 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microbial degradation 

message: This article appears to show the impacts of landfill without explaining the benefits over other types of waste disposal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.47.233 (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The potential advantages of landfills (in comparison to other waste disposal methods) are already described in a section of this article. Jarble (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Landfill. 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  tag to http://www.ecoissues.ca/index.php/Aging_Landfills:_Ontario%E2%80%99s_Forgotten_Polluters
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150222005007/http://beginwiththebin.org/innovation/modern-landfills to http://beginwiththebin.org/innovation/modern-landfills
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150222005007/http://beginwiththebin.org/innovation/modern-landfills to http://beginwiththebin.org/innovation/modern-landfills
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051030021240/http://loma.civil.duth.gr/ to http://loma.civil.duth.gr/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Are mine tailings dams considered landfill? There is no mention of them here, but they are certainly related.  Mermaldad (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that this would be extending the definition way beyond its common understanding. The material in tailings ponds is not "dumped" there, instead it slowly accumulates over time as the tailings pond remains in use. At the end of their life, they are, regrettably, often simply abandoned , often with no covering  and remain an area of toxic land spreading toxic dust as they dry out. Some, of course, simply collapse because of poor construction and management with fatal consequences. If we did extend the definition, would that also include mine waste heaps, sewage sludge drying beds, other sorts of settlement lagoons? I don't see the logic of widening the definition away from what is commonly understood.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tailings Dams 

message: Perhaps emphasize that unlike filling dental cavities, there needs to be no hole to fill. Dumping a pile of rubbish upon flat ground is also a landfill. Jidanni (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No cavity needed 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Land filled and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 27#Land filled until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Land filled" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A landfill site, also known as a tip, dump, rubbish dump, garbage dump, or dumping ground, is a site for the disposal of waste materials.
So "landfill" == "garbage dump"? Jidanni (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landfill vs. garbage dump