Talk:Environmental disaster

message: Why are no natural environmental disaster's mentioned?  Volcano's, hurricane's, tsunami's, that sort of thing.  At least on a regional scale, natural environmental disasters often far exceed what people have managed to do.  Where people seem to excel at creating problems is with an accumulation of relatively small environmental insults that add up over time.  Surely not as dramatic, as worthy of the word disaster, as the natural ones.
:The word "environmental" usually impies the negative effects of human activity on the environment.  There is a seperate article for Natural disasters Alan Liefting 20:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should be rewritten to be specific disasters that are of concern to environmentalists. Alan Liefting 20:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV comments

message: * Arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh appears to be natural.  See   Alan Liefting 20:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh. 

message: I have reinstated the POV as the title alone is inflammatory. 
Define 'environmental'. To the 'environment' of whatdoes this refer? 
Define 'disaster'. What standards are to be applied? How do we objectively measure 'disaster'? Disastrous to whom, or what, and how?
This article really needs to be a subsection of something larger concerning the negative impacts (both natural and 'man-made') on the Earth's environment. My initial reaction would be to tag AFD but there could be something worthwhile. Eddie.willers 01:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Disaster 

message: What is the difference between environmental and natural disasters and who is going to clean the mess in links and categories? Right now I am lost to which one should I link the Bulgarian articles and categories but will go for "natural" as being closer to our Bulgarian term and meaning.
As I am not a native English-speaker I can only guess that one may consider natural ones to be nature-driven (not human-made), and the environmental to be affecting somehow the nature. If there is natual "revenge", it is a subset of natural disasters. Am I right, or totally wrong? Cheers, Goldie (tell me) 11:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental vs. Natural 

message: Hi everyone, I added two new sections, especially one called "Difficult in Categorization" to point the debate around what can be considered an environmental disaster. However, this whole article leans toward human created environmental disasters so maybe someone should change the title to "Man-made environmental disasters" or something better. --205.250.250.154 21:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added new sections, links, and fixed grammar 

message: The word calamity has less emotive and negative connotations than disaster. It could be used on this article as well as List of environmental disasters and :Category:Environmental disasters. Alan Liefting 00:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename as Environmental calamity? 

message: Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of doomsday scenarios]]

message: The problem here is simply a matter of perspective. In Emergency Management, emergencies and disasters are categorized by the cause  (man-made, technical, natural) not the effect (environmental, financial, human). However, as people, we are drawn to the pathos of the effect: the impact, the damage, the devastation. In Emergency Management, the effect is known as loss. Loss of life. Loss of property. Loss to the enviroment. It is what mitigation seeks to prevent, and what preparedness seeks to minimize.
This article appears to be about a specific kind of loss: diminuation of the natural environment. If viewed from that perspective, it becomes clear that disaster is just one of several causes of Environmental Loss along with illegal dumping and introduction of non-native species for example. I agree with Alan Liefting's suggestion above in NPOV comments that this article should be rewritten to be about specific losses that are of concern to environmentalists.
As an example: the Three Gorges Dam is not a disaster under Emergency Management because it is neither unexpected nor immediate. However, if it were to collapse due to poor construction, people would probably call it both an environmental and a financial disaster (identifying the type of loss). Emergency Management would call it a man-made disaster (because of the unexpected and overwhelming emergent context).
Therefore, I recommend the following:
*This page be removed from the Disaster Management Project.
*The word "Disaster" be removed from the title,
*and replaced with the word "Loss", "Losses", "Diminuation", or whatever word an environmentalist would indicate be a better fit.
Parradoxx 10:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause vs. Effect 

message: I noticed that there is a list of man-made disasters, but why are the results of those disasters not provided (Like an oil spill poisoning sea life, or something like that)? Mr Pigeon (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No results of disasters 

message: Many disasters have occurred; however, the most recent disaster displayed is from 2010. We should dig into some more recent disasters. Mr Pigeon (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for an Update 

message: The intro section would benefit from much added detail on how exactly an environmental disaster differs from natural disasters and war disasters. Perhaps there is a more concrete definition out there. The article also suffers from lack of relevance, making its structure contingent on the listing and linking of environmental disasters. This could maybe be moved to a sub-focus of the article, and the article could detail instead how environmental disaster came into the political conversation, trends in advocacy, interest groups, movements related to environmental disasters, etc. 
Aileenxgui (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing Structure

message: Please do something for better tomorrow the Creation which you are creating would be you habbit after some days and you habbit makes you mentally and the mentally make your nature of response and it makes your fortune so if there is a man who is great then it is you the you within you makes you infinite and the infinite is the best .
He is all rounder for the proof some links are given below
--Shivwati (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please 

message: This article is very clear and neutral in tone, which are excellent!  I think an important part of environmental disasters are how different populations are either more or less vulnerable based upon their social class and standing.  I added a brief section discussing this topic along with a few sentences on Hurricane Katrina. I also added sources and made some very minor edits to grammar.  Overall this article is a great start, I would love to see just a little more detail. Keep up the excellent work!
Mggale (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Addition in regards to Social Vulnerability

message: environmental disaster vs migration 41.210.146.252 (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assignments