Talk:Environmental hazard

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2020 and 15 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chfoley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 10:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Should climate change be mentioned as a hazard in this article? I am asking because I was looking at anthropogenic hazard and thought climate change should be mentioned there, perhaps in the section on "environmental hazards". EMsmile (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

If you have suitable reverences, yes. Try to keep within the scope of the article, as it currently needs to be trimmed down to avoid excessive duplication of content that belongs in other related articles. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

there's a misspelled word on the annotation for food poisoning, but i don't know how to change it, am i supposed to go to the article for food poisoning and change something there so that it's fixed here? 108.160.65.5 (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and it is a redirect, so you would need to go to the redirect page. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 02:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I propose that this article be split into two separate articles: one for hazards to the environment, and one for hazards of the environment. While both may be referred to as environmental hazards, they are distinctly different concepts with very little overlap, and including both in the same article may be confusing. Just some chem guy (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Based on the {distinguish} tags and GHS image in the lead section, it appears (to me, at least) that this article was originally intended to discuss hazards to the environment, while the environmental risk section of the risk article could be expanded into its own article to discuss hazards of the environment. Just some chem guy (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Pinging relevant contributors: @GoldenPhoenix123 and Pbsouthwood: Just some chem guy (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Splitting could be a reasonable approach, provided that the current title becomes a disambiguation page. What the article was originally intended to be is not particularly relevant in comparison to the actual meanings of the term. I do not think it is clear that either of the meanings is the primary topic. It probably depends on context and personal experience. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 02:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Also to be considered: Some hazards exist within an environment, and are both hazards to the environment and to people, other organisms, and property in the environment, making them hazards of the environment to thore exposed to them. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 02:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not convinced, but open to logical persuasion. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I second the splitting approach. The term 'environmental hazard' does indeed appear to be used equally commonly for both hazards to the environment (A review of the effects of environmental hazards on humans, their remediation for sustainable development, and risk assessment - PMC) (the article talks about environmental hazards as hazards that affect the environment as well as human beings), and hazards of the environment to humans and other living beings (Environmental Hazard - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics), as seen in several reputable sources and scientific journals. This might lead to ambiguity, thus necessitating separate articles. GoldenPhoenix123 (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

You say they are distinctly different concepts with very little overlap, but that is not clear to me, as a hazard can exist within an environment and affect both the environment and those exposed to the hazard by exposure to the specific environment in which the hazard exists. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 02:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

What would you suggest calling the two articles? SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hazards to the environment and Hazards of the environment is implied in the original post. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 02:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hmm... I think those titles don't quite sound natural. I'm open to the proposal but I think better titles would be needed. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

They do have the advantage of being reasonably clear, but I am not convinced that a split is necessary, as there is considerable overlap, where a specific hazard is both to and of the same environment. I suggest that the article should be expanded under the current title, taking the ambiguity into account, and it may become clearer what should be done with it. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be more useful to split out excessive detail on other classifications of hazards, like chemical, physical and biological hazard types which have their own articles and only need to be mentioned here as summary subsections. If we look at what is meant by environmental hazards as a concept, and expand that content, the rest might fall into place more naturally. After all, most hazards exist in the context of some or other environment, so we need to be discriminating in our choices of what goes here and what should go somewhere else. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Since most hazards exist in the context of an environment, as they tend to be localised to some extent, even if the locality is large (e.g. galactic), this needs to be mentioned, but I think the main focus should be on the concept of hazards to an environment. By this I include any definable environment, not just a natural environment. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I find it important to note that hazards of an environment are typically hazards to humans resulting from an environment (whether natural or artificial), whereas hazards to an environment are usually the result of human activity (and usually only refer to natural environments). I don't think this distinction will have much of an impact on the decision to split the article, but it seems like it may be useful in distinguishing one type of environmental hazard from the other. Just some chem guy (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Subjectively, this is a common perception. Objectively the position is broader. As an encyclopedia, we try to present all sides in perspective. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Environmental risk has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 9 § Environmental risk until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)