Jump to content

Talk:Acid rain: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
←Replaced content with 'fggfh'
Line 1: Line 1:
fggfh
{{releaseversion|class=B|category=Natsci}}
{{Environment|class=B|importance=}}
{{FailedGA|2007-05-27}}

==Picture==
I think a good picture for the article would be one of a forest (and trees) damaged by the acid. You would have to find one that allows fairgjjfjjfhucn vnngk ksdj use though unless you have taken one yourself in such an area.

== Headline text ==
This is an excellent scientific treatment. Thanks,

Now, can anyone describe what industry and goverment are doing to ameliorate the problem? I'd like to see at least a reference to [[emissions trading]] or fines or scrubbing or reductions of output or whatever.
very nice this information <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/59.184.59.28|59.184.59.28]] ([[User talk:59.184.59.28|talk]]) 16:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


[[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], Tuesday, June 11, 2002
----

== Accuracy/POV ==

according to me:i would like to tell that acid rain is created by those who don't care about the environment and we should held an awareness programme.[[Media:[[Example.ogg]]''Italic text'']]


Furthermore, I miss the placing of the widespread attention to this perceived phenomenon within the context of the environmental-conscious 80s.

Also, there should be some descriptions of Nitrification, and attention paid to the publications in Nature of January 27th 1994 regarding the role of calcium potassium Sodium and magnesium in counterbalancing the SO2 en NOx emssions.

There is a lot more to be said on this topic, quite a lot of the suppositions about Acid rain were allegedly based on junk science but sadly I miss the necessary background to contribute in a sensible way to the article. --[[User:Lomedae|Lomedae]] 18:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be tagged for accuracy or POV.

"Since public interest groups can retire the licenses by purchasing them, the net result is a continuously decreasing and more diffused set of pollution sources. At the same time, no particular operator is ever forced to spend money without a return of value from commercial sale of assets"

Which emission trading agreements allows public interest groups to buy licences? Some examples would be good. The statement on the effectiveness of emission trading systems is an opinion, rather than fact and should be removed. For a full explanation of its merits, or otherwise, the page points to emission trading.

POV should definitely be removed. The favourable references to emission trading should be removed, but I'll first give the emission trading entry a makeover. Can someone provide a reference to the bold assertion of the environmental advantage of nuclear power? If not, I'll remove the reference. I suspect it is a half-truth at best. [[User:Jensbn|Jens Nielsen]] 10:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

== formation of H2SO4 ==

:''sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides ... diffuse into the atmosphere and react with water to form sulfuric and nitric acids''

Sulphur dioxide is oxidation state 4. Sulphuric acid is oxidation state 6. It can't be a case of just reacting with water, there must be further oxidation. Likewise, which nitrogen oxides? I think largely NO and NO<sub>2</sub> (oxidation states 2 and 4). Nitric acid is oxidation state 5.

<font size="-2">[[User:Terra Green|Terra]]<font color="green">[[User talk:Terra Green|Green]]</font></font> 12:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

:Sulfur dioxide (S<sup>4+</sup>) plus water produces sulfurous acid (S<sup>4+</sup>)
::SO<sub>2</sub> + H<sub>2</sub>O ==> H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>3</sub>
:Sulfur trioxide (S<sup>6+</sup>) plus water produces sulfuric acid (S<sup>6+</sup>)
::SO<sub>3</sub> + H<sub>2</sub>O ==> H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub>
:Nitrogen oxide reactions seem a bit more complicated. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] 13:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

::According to my book, nitrogen oxide forms acid rain by the following reaction.
::nitrogen oxide + water → nitric acid + nitrous acid
::Is it correct?

::Also, I want to know how sulfur trioxide forms in air? According to my teacher, sulfur trioxide cannot be formed without catalyst even there is excess oxygen.
::My teacher also told me that dissolving sulfur trioxide into water is very exothermic (and that's why it is not done in the Contact Process). If sulfur trioxide in air dissolves to form acid rain, will the rain water be heated and vaporized?[[User:Momoko|Momoko]]


:::The current explanation is misleading. A large fraction of oxidation of SO2 occurs in raindrops and involves reactions in the liquid phase with hydrogen peroxide, ozone and manganese. Most emissions are in the form of SO2 or H2S. Oxidation in the gas phase occurs via reaction with the [[hydroxyl]] radical. I will improve this when I get time (unless someone else gets there first. There are several steps to the reactions so I need to get my atmospheric chemistry book out to check they are right. In the meantime I'll remove the misleading information.
:::On nitric oxide the main reaction is in the gas phase NO2 + OH -> HNO3. Another reaction is the nightime process of N2O5 reacting with water on the surface of [[particulate]] to give nitric acid.--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 08:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

::::This section had recently been changed incrrectly with the reation of sulfur trioxide with water changed to sulfur dioxide. This meant it resembled the old incrorrect version. there was a lot of vandalism on the article and I missed this important change which happened 31st Oct. sorry about that. I have now restored the correct version of this reaction. Thanks to [[User:JKleo|JKleo]] for spotting that one.--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

== Criteria has changed from 5.6 to 5.0 ==

''The pH of "normal" rain has traditionally been given a value of 5.6. However scientists now believe that the pH of rain may vary from 5.6 to a low of 4.5 with the average value of 5.0.'' [http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/190acidrain.html]

''To be considered acid precipitation, the precipitation has to have a pH of 5.0 or lower.'' [http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/2.html]

[[User:Paleorthid|Paleorthid]] 18:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

'''''may vary from 5.6 to a low of 4.5 with the average value of 5.0.'''''
Huh? Wouldn't the average be 5.05?
[[User:Caesardude|Caesardude]] 02:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

'''''Huh? Wouldn't the average be 5.05?'''''
Depends if you're thinking of the mean or the median. One would assume that the median is the best approach to this situation.

Normal rain has a pH of 6.5 - pH's of 5.6 or below are considered to be "acid rain" <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.110.82.85|58.110.82.85]] ([[User talk:58.110.82.85|talk]]) 10:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Soil effects poorly documented ==

''However, data to determine changes in soil characteristics'' (due to acid rain) ''are generally lacking.''

[http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/1/141 Acid-base Characteristics of Soils in the Adirondack Mountains, New York]

[[User:Paleorthid|Paleorthid]] 23:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:That abstract is very unclear. I suspect it may mean that the data for the Adirondack Mountain is lacking rather than information in general. For the UK there is certainly much data. See chapter 5 of [http://www.nbu.ac.uk/negtap/finalreport.htm NEGTAP final report].--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 20:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

== Cleanup ==

The part that says that it needs a cleanup needs it badly. It makes my eyes go all funny.


Someone please have a creaful look at the contents, plz. Thanks. --[[User:Bhadani|Bhadani]] 09:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

:I agree this needs a lot of work. From looking at it carefullly it looks like a personal essay. It was posted on its own entry without any work to make it appropriate. I think it needs to be hacked down to a minimum so that the useful information can be put in and the rest removed. I'll try and get around to this but I am worling on [[Methane]] at the moment.--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 16:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
:Hacked. Comments welcome.--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 21:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

== Source needed for technical detail added ==

Removed from article:
:'''The thickness of embedded SO2 and NO2 layers in [[marble]] is a meassure of the rate at which a material is attacked by this type of pollution. Calculated constant rates allow the thickness of embedded layers to be calculated over a wide range of SO2 and NO2 concentrations. Experiments have shown that, even in the presence of excess atmospheric NO2 over SO2, the amount of CaSO4 produced excess that of Ca(NO3)2, indicating that SO2 has a stronger weathering effect on marble relative to NO2.'''
First, this kind of detail needs a source - ''Experiments have shown...'' won't cut it here. Also the relative solubilities of calcium nitrate vs calcium sulfate should be discussed - presumably they were in the orig. source? Finally, why the bold - is this bit that critical? [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] 21:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

== Effects on metal ==

I've read on random websites that there is an effect on iron and other metals. i might be able to add some after some research but this needs to be mentioned.
==Major edit==

I've been working on a fairly major edit of this article and I have now put it up. Feedback is welcome.--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 21:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

==Need for proof==

Cut from intro:

:The resulting increased acidity in [[soil]] and [[waterway]]s has proven to be harmful to [[fish]] and [[vegetation]].

The article provides no source for this claim, let alone any "proof". However, it is an article of faith among radical environmentalists.

Would someone please provide a source for the claim that there is proof?

And if they have time, would they also please summarize any evidence this source provides? I'm looking for things like:

*Acid rain has been observed to increase the acidity of soil and waterways.
*This increased acidity has cause measurable harm to fish and vegetation.

Better yet would be actual '''numbers''', e.g., Lake Michigan's pH went from 5.0 to 4.0; and then the population of lake trout went from 2 million down to 5,000 (or whatever). --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 21:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

===Some quotes about acid rain===

*Fred Singer: Among scientists acid rain is generally understood to present no hazards to human health. [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg13n1-singer.html]
*The scientific chain between emissions and acid rain consists of three links: It requires knowledge about the emission of polluting gases into the atmosphere, the acidity of precipitation, and the ecological effects on soils and water. The evidence for all three can best be described as confused and confusing. [http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1987/february/Sa12205.htm]
*EPA: Researchers now know that acid rain causes slower growth, injury, or death of forests. [http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/forests.html]
*Missouri state gov't: Many lakes in the Adirondack Mountains of New York and many streams in the Appalachian mountain region have lost trout and other aquatic life due to acid rain. [http://www.dnr.mo.gov/faq-answers.htm]

EPA: "Food crops ... are not usually seriously affected because farmers frequently add fertilizers to the soil to replace nutrients that have washed away." [http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/forests.html]

==Still looking for proof==

Once again, I ask: what is the '''evidence''' that human-caused emissions of pollutants (like [[sulfur dioxide]]) has significantly increased the acidity of rain anywhere? Or that reducing emissions has decreased the acidity of rain?

I'm not questioning the '''theory''' - the chemical process seems rather straightforward. But I'm looking for something nontechnical which our readers can dig into. Something like:

*1920 - rain acidity in the U.S. Northeast was measured at pH of 6.4 by scientists with the Blah Blah Blah agency.
*1980 - after 60 years of sulfur dioxide emissions from power plansts in Ohio and neighboring states, rain acidity increased to a pH of 6.1 [Blah agency report, 1983].

:One good place to start would be [http://www.nbu.ac.uk/negtap/finalreport.htm NEGTAP, 2001]. Another good source of info is
[http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/index.html EPA's page on acid rain effects]. I am aware that this section still needs a lot of work though.--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 22:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

===Political quotes===

[[Peter F. Guerrero]] wrote a letter for a GAO report, saying:

*Acid rain ... is largely the result of burning fossil fuels to generate
electricity. [It] can harm human health and damage forests, lakes, and
streams.
*The two major causes of acid rain [are] sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from electric utility power plants that burn coal and other fossil fuels.
*Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions return to earth (in a process called deposition) in various chemical compounds.
*Total sulfur deposition includes sulfates in precipitation (called wet sulfates), dry sulfate particulates, and dry sulfur gas. Similarly, total nitrogen deposition includes nitrates in precipitation (called wet nitrates), dry nitrate particulates, and dry nitrogen oxides.

This looks almost exactly like what our article says - though I haven't checked it word for word yet. It's not a copyright issue as much as a "source" issue. We need to rely on scientific sources for facts. Or, failing that, on political sources for [[points of view]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 14:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

== "M" ==

In the gas phase reactions... what kind of (apparently inexistant) element is represented by the letter m? Please clarify.

--[[User:Dbs12693|Dbs12693]] 00:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)dbs12693
: It represent any third body. In Earth's atmosphere this is almost always N2 or O2. If you consider the reaction with just two bodies reacting together to give a single product e.g. OH + NO2 = HNO3 then it is impossible to conserve both momentum and energy simultaneously just by looking at the velocity of the product. The extra energy becomes internal energy in the product and this will tear the new molecule apart unless it colides quickly with some other molecule 'M' to remove this energy. This M is the conventional representation of this process in chemical kinetics. This also has a big effect on the speed of the reaction, giving it a pressure dependence as well as a temperature dependence. I will try and a short note to this effect in the article soon (and I will have to think about writing an article for wikipedia on this as I can't find anything to link to).--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 08:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

==Big revert==

I have just reverted back to the version of the 29/3. Apart from a lot of vandalism two other changes have been made.

1) In the early 1800's, a famous inventor by the name of Janakan set forth to discover the chemical basis behind acid rain (UofT Acid Rain Catalogue, 1997). (by [[User:Thakkarbhavik]]).

I am prety sure this is spurious. I apologise if this is true but I have never heard of Janakan and a google search on his name and acid rain finds nothing relevant. If it is correct please explain what the (UofT Acid Rain Catalogue, 1997) is and how I can get a copy. --[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 13:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

2) What can I do to help? (by lots of different anonymous users). This is general advice on "beign green", parts of it are not at all relevant to acid rain - e.g. go CFC free (especially as CFCs are now banned everywhere). As regards acid rain I suppose some of the changes in driving style are relevant as nitric acid is still a major problem. However it is really out of place.

3) History and trends section went AWOL after all the vandalism.

--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 13:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

== Unoriginal ==

I don't know much about copyrights, but much of this article is taken word for word, including images, from [http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/ http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/].

[[User:Caesardude|Caesardude]] 02:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for pointing this out. However works of US government agencies are not copyright. If you click on either of the images you will see they are tagged as such. As for the text - the copyright status is the same although I'd prefer that we had clean text but I'm not sure which parts are the problem - I know I wrote large chunks of the chemistry parts myself from scratch.--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 07:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

==Controversy==

Does this article fairly describe both points of view, about whether acid rain has ever caused any harm and/or whether this harm is important enough to pass laws to reduce emissions and thereby reduce this harm? --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 15:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the EPA viewpoint (which I assume is mainstream) [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Acid_rain&diff=72832315&oldid=72178808], followed by an opposing viewpoint (which I assume is minority). [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Acid_rain&diff=next&oldid=72832315]

If this is "[[Wikipedia:POV pushing|POV pushing]]", shoot me now! --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 15:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:Three ref's might be overkill. Please trim this down or summarize it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:: I am a bit worried by this edit but I don't have time now to do a proper change to the article. In particular I am worried by the selective use of one sentance from the Environmental Literacy Council webpage (''"the effects of acidic precipitation were not as great as once feared"'') which is taken out of context (elsewhere it mentions that 10% of eastern lakes and streams had been affected by acid deposition). This is a short summary of a 98 page report (which I have not read but will try and skim). It is also not really evidence to my mind that this organisation believes that acid depostion is not a serious issue. If the early fears were that every lake in the US would die then clearly the effects were not as bad as that. If there was serious damage to 10% of Eastern lakes then this seeems a big problem. I do not plan to make any edits immediately but I feel it is important that we do not give the impression of there being widespread skepticism about acid rain which I feel would be misleading.

:::Yes, all of this makes sense. I just spen some time going through the "ten year study", and I'm not sure that Singer's viewpoint is really justified by his reference to it. He might have a bone to pick, so we probably should not consider him "an objective source" but rather someone who "disagrees with the mainstream". --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:: I also wonder if this really belongs in the lead section.--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 18:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Removed from intro - ref to a '93 letter by Singer and a report based on a minute interview - not good sources, especially for the introduction. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] 23:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a controversy section?
:*Other sources disagree, such as retired atmospheric physicist [[S. Fred Singer]].<ref>Acid rain provides a prime example of a case where the policy response ignored sound scientific evidence. After government agencies spent over half a billion dollars on research, some 3,000 scientists from atmospheric physicists to ecologists concluded that acid rain was only a minor problem that posed not threat to human health and that the damage claims hall been vastly exaggerated. [http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/envirltr.html Science Under Siege],
letter by S. Fred Singer in ENVIRONMENT, May 1997</ref>
:*He wrote:
:*A major scientific study, conducted under government auspices, had demonstrated that most small lakes affected are naturally acidic and that forests are not harmed. This new scientific evidence was never disputed; it was simply ignored. <ref>[http://www.his.com/~sepp/key%20issues/env-jobs/regcosts.html The Costs of Environmental Overregulation] by S. Fred Singer, from ''Human Events'' - August 7, 1993</ref>

<references/>

I would place it near "Prevention". --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:What was the ''major scientific study'' referred to? A vague ref. and a cite to SEPP site aren't enough. Or did Singer not specify the study - just a bit weasely as is. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] 16:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

==Acid rain vs Acid precipitation==

If you want to be picky about this the correct term is actually acid ''deposition'' - dry depostion of acidic compounds is also a major contributor to acidification. We should either use the common term (Acid rain) or the widest possible term. I favour acid rain.--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 18:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
::Me too. By a mile. [[User:Sfahey|Sfahey]] 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

*The term "acid rain" is commonly used to mean the deposition of acidic components in rain, snow, fog, dew, or dry particles. The more accurate term is "acid precipitation." (USGS)

If you want to disagree with the USGS, be my guest and move the article back. I'm easy-going. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 19:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
::I do actually disagree. ''"Acid deposition also includes direct deposition, in which acidic fog or cloud is in direct contact with the ground; and dry deposition, in which ions become attached to dust particles and fall to the ground"''. [http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/acidrain/intro.html]. It is illogical to include dry deposition of acids in an article on acid precipitation. Dry deposition occurs in the abscence of precipitation (hence the name). Acid rain is the commonly used term so there is a case for this article to be called this (the original title). Otherwise it has to be Acid deposition.--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 19:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Renamed. See [[WP:NAME]] as well.--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 10:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

== NPOV dispute ==

Uncle Ed wrote when flagging this as NPOV: ''"should fairly describe whether acid rain has ever caused any harm and/or whether this harm is important enough to pass laws to reduce emissions and thereby reduce this harm"''

Can we agree to narrow this down a bit? As I see it, the main issue which you see as not being neutral is the question of the cost/benefit analysis of emission reductions? Can we just label the section on "Prevention methods" as NPOV not the whole article? Your main concern with the "Adverse effects" section seems to be the lack of references - this is well flgagged up by the citation needed templates but it might be worth slapping a <nowiki>{{Unreferenced}}</nowiki> tag on it. I can start to work on providing references for this section in that case. The discussion of trends and their relation to emissions reductions is very poorly dealt with - I think there need to be seperate sections for the history of the research and the measured trends.

The "Prevention" section seems the ideal place to note any oppposition to emissions controls and probably the most controversy prone also. One of Singer's articles you cited actaully argues that it was right to make the initial effort to reduce emissions of acid precursors it is jus that the final 1% is too expensive to clean up. I am not an expert in this area but I would be suprised if there is not more controversy about this out there on this sort of level. Environemtal science only has to deal with a very complex system, political science has to cope with confliciting priorities and ideologies as well....

I hope this plan can give us a clearer way forward with this article--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

== Reworked Adverse effects ==

I have stripped this section down to the bare bones of information all taken from the EPAs pages. I will now fill in some more detail from other sources. However I believe this is now better structured and has references for all the information here. Stuff that I removed I will try and verify from other sources and then put back in the article.--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 19:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
nice interesting ... i like it

== Typo? ==

I don't claim to be an expert in the field, but this passage in the introduction paragraph seems to include a couple of errors. First off, we have:

Acid rain is defined as any type of precipitation with a pH that is unusually low.

As a lower pH indicates a stronger acid this seems to make sense. A couple lines later we have:

Therefore a pH of >5.6 has sometimes been used as a definition of acid rain.

This seems to read a pH GREATER than 5.6 has been used to define acid rain. This seems irrational as a pH greater than 5.6 is approaching a neutral pH. A couple lines later we find the same issue again:

However, natural sources of acidity mean that in remote areas, rain has a pH which is between 4.5 and 5.6 with an average value of 5.0 and so rain with a pH >5 is a more appropriate definition.

Going to alter this to read a pH of <5.6 and pH <5. If this is incorrect, go ahead and revert back.

-Alazon

Went to change this and in the code for the page the symbols appear correctly. Since this seems to be a coding error somewhere, I substituted lesser than and less than for the < symbol.

-Alazon

hey watz ^ tree huggers (please dont get offendid im a tree huger too) l.o.l im in total shock to hear about acid rain i swear it makes me mad[[User:70.156.27.239|70.156.27.239]] 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)ME THE TREE HUGER[[User:70.156.27.239|70.156.27.239]] 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
== There is no reference to NAPAP ==
NAPAP was a $600 million study into acid rain in the 1980's that concluded a) the problem had probably been overstated b) there was little evidence of acidification of lakes - many which were changing were in fact reverting to their historical acidic condition having been damaged by slash-and-burn agriculture c) there was little evidence for tree damage; the total problem showed itself at the tree line where the additional nutrients (NOx and SOx)caused early blooming which was then damaged by late frosts. The NAPAP director was replaced and the final report held back until the 1990 CAAA had been passed.
[[User:Perpetual sceptic|Perpetual sceptic]] ([[User talk:Perpetual sceptic|talk]]) 07:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
: The 2005 NAPAP report to Congress is the first external link. Its content contradicts your allegations. [[User:Gabriel Kielland|Gabriel Kielland]] ([[User talk:Gabriel Kielland|talk]]) 17:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

== Observational Database ==

A large [http://www.autochem.info/constituentobservationaldatabase.html observational database] of many different atmospheric constituents including radicals from a host of platforms is available. This was created as part of ESA Envisat and NASA Aura validation. It is of general use. Do you think it should be added to the article text? [[User:Dlary|Dlary]]

== Forests and other vegetation ==

Somebody didn't finish their thought in the last sentence under Forests and other vegetation. Anyone know what they are talking about? [[User:Hburg|Hburg]] 15:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


==Acid rain does not cause deforestation==
According to Julian Simon (The Ultimate Resource 2, pg 265/6) and Bjorn Lomborg (The Skeptical Environmentalist, pg 178-181) acid rain does not cause deforestation. Both cite the work of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (the only longitudinal attempt to demonstrate causality, as opposed to correlation) which demonstrated that acid rain does not reduce sapling growth, across a number of species and a broad range of pH 6.0 - 3.5 (cf average pH of 4.2 for acid rain). See:
Kulp, J.L. and Herrick, C.N. /The Causes and Effects of Acid Deposition./ Interim Assessment, National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987. [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg13n1-kulp.html].
--[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]</sup> 02:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

== Vandalism ==

I have noticed that this page is subject to very frequent vandalism and bad-faith edits. Does anyone think this page should be semi-protected? I realize this won't stop all of the problems, but it would sure help. Thoughts?--[[User:Analogue Kid|Analogue Kid]] 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)



==GA comment==
The statements that are followed by "citation needed" need to be removed or sourced or the article will be quick-failed by a reviewer. --[[User:Nehrams2020|Nehrams2020]] 05:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


==Failed "good article" nomination==
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 27, 2007, compares against the [[Wikipedia:What is a good article?|six good article criteria]]:

:'''1. Well written?:''' Can be improved:
:::- positioning of the citations need to come after the nearest punctuation
:::- more copyediting is needed, as some sentences have excessive commas and bad grammar
:::- wrong heading level: 'Gas phase chemistry'
:::- lead section is too long.
:'''2. Factually accurate?:''' 'Citation needed' tags are still present, as mentioned above. Existing citations are not in the proper format.
:'''3. Broad in coverage?:''' Yes, but how about some information on future trends of acid rain?
:'''4. Neutral point of view?:''' Yes.
:'''5. Article stability?''' Yes. Interesting amount of vandalism.
:'''6. Images?:''' Good.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be [[Wikipedia:Good article candidates|resubmitted]] for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a [[WP:GA/R|GA review]]. Thank you for your work so far.<!-- Template:FGAN -->
''Quick-failed per cleanup tag criterion.'' — [[User:Carson_Lam|Carson]] 05:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

== Vandalism ==

I have noticed to shock obvious vandalism stating "Mr.Filips is stupid" I am new to wikipedia and don't know what else to do but announce it here. This needs attention and must be changed immediatly... I hope. [[User:Dillpickle987|Dillpickle987]] 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)acid rain is confusing but youll find out 1 day......

There is also an incomprehensible paragraph on Margaret Thatcher. This also needs attention.

== New lead ==

The existing lead section of this article was too specific and too long (see good article review). I have attempted to make a short summary of the article consistent with the guidlines at: [[Wikipedia:Lead section]]. I may have now made it a bit on the short side and it will still need citiations to be added, but I belive this is an improvement. Comments welcome.--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 18:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

== Article gone backwards? ==

Since this article was nominated for GA status, it seems to have lost large sections of text. In addition, someof the citation needed tags seem to have been removed without citations being provided. I have restored some of the lost text.--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] 18:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

== Wikipedia is infested with morons ==

All the "scientific discussion and debate" on this page demanding "proof of harm or damage" caused by water precipitation with super-normal acidity (acid rain in layman i.e. Wikipedia terms) makes me convulse with laughter and amusement. Soon we will have "skeptics" who'd demand "strong proof" to "cite" the harmful effects of consumption of cyanide, LOL. Bunch of idiots, y'all. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.200.95.130|203.200.95.130]] ([[User talk:203.200.95.130|talk]]) 15:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
wow its so great here i can now do my report <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.94.182.210|24.94.182.210]] ([[User talk:24.94.182.210|talk]]) 23:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


There is acid rain in the Rainforest.

acid rain is a result of air pollution <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.68.34.74|75.68.34.74]] ([[User talk:75.68.34.74|talk]]) 17:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Affected Areas ==

In the section "Affected areas":

"Particularly badly affected places around the globe include most of Europe (particularly Scandinavia with many lakes with acidic water containing no life and many trees dead) many parts of the United States (states like New York are very badly affected) and South Western Canada. Other affected areas include the South Eastern coast of China and Taiwan.

Potential problem areas in the future

Places like much of South Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand), Western South Africa (the country), Southern India and Sri Lanka and even West Africa (countries like Ghana, Togo] and Nigeria) could all be prone to acidic rainfall in the future."

This section is poorly worded. Also, where is "South Western Canada"? I think this is probably "Southern Ontario" (where lots of manufacturing and much of the population is), but Ontario is hardly "Western Canada" (it's considered Central Canada).

My proposed re-wording is as follows (and deleting the potential problem area, which pretty much covers the remaining parts of the globe). The "unfortunate geography" refers to being downwind/downstream of heavy industry and population... don't know how to more accurately describe this. I intend this merely as a re-wording, not supporting claims or research.

'''Affected Areas'''

Acid rain affects some areas to a greater degree, such as: much of Europe and the United States, southern Ontario in Canada, the south-eastern coast of China, and Taiwan. Heavily populated areas like New York state or areas with unfortunate geography like Scandinavia are severely affected.



[[User:SilverEyesSE|SilverEyesSE]] ([[User talk:SilverEyesSE|talk]]) 19:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

== Incomprehensible Paragraph on Margaret Thatcher ==

This page has a meaningless section on the effects of Margaret Thatcher's political policies on Acid Rain. Could a trusted user review/remove this section.

[[User:Richard.walkington|Richard.walkington]] ([[User talk:Richard.walkington|talk]]) 21:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:Done. [[User:Gabriel Kielland|Gabriel Kielland]] ([[User talk:Gabriel Kielland|talk]]) 07:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know why this section was removed, or why people are accusing it of being incomprehensible. As the rest of the article points the finger of blame for Acid Rain at the use of Coal and as we all know Margret Thatchers destruction of the coal mining and using industries (e.g. the massive amount of funding she ploughed into nuclear power) and other industry surly she is a large factor in the dropping levels of Acid Rain produced by the UK. Just because its a political not scientific method of reduction surly it still is worth some merit. Instead it was more or less unilaterally removed. Two users agreeing over a period of two days dose not make a consensus!--[[User:Prophesy|Prophesy]] ([[User talk:Prophesy|talk]]) 01:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:Simply [[WP:OR]]. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] ([[User talk:Vsmith|talk]]) 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::Its not origanal rechearch though. As you can see it was refrenced.--[[User:Prophesy|Prophesy]] ([[User talk:Prophesy|talk]]) 13:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::[[User:Prophesy]] insists that Margareth Thatcher is a prevention method, which is wrong. Acid rain was not accidentily discovered in the 1980s, nor was Mrs. Thatcher. The speech referenced only mention the international commitment she at the time had inherited as prime minister. The European history of acid rain abatement could very well fit into this article, but not as this joke. [[User:Gabriel Kielland|Gabriel Kielland]] ([[User talk:Gabriel Kielland|talk]]) 09:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== New Material ==

Added substantial new material on acid rain emissions trading program in U.S. [[User:Mervyn Emrys|Mervyn Emrys]] ([[User talk:Mervyn Emrys|talk]]) 20:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

== Nagging Spelling Error ==

It may have gone unnoticed because no one thought it worth mentioning, but the introductory paragraph contains the word "infastructure" instead of "infrastructure." As this paragraph is the one most commonly referenced by students looking for general definitions, it should be as orthographically sound as possible.
[[User:CopperPlatypus|CopperPlatypus]] ([[User talk:CopperPlatypus|talk]]) 20:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

:Fixed. Thanks. :-) [[User:Atmoz|Atmoz]] ([[User talk:Atmoz|talk]]) 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

== spelling mistake? ==

In the introduction I noticed a possible spelling mistake of sulfur. My computer says it should be 'sulphur'. Because being a student I personally don't want less marks for a spelling mistake.
:No mistake in the article. See [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sulfur|wiktionary] for an explanation.
Sorry if this is an american wiki, but if it's British, don't spell it in the Americanised (again, if this is american wiki, tha's americanized, and my comment is worthless) way, or we will slowly lose our nationality

[[Special:Contributions/81.157.127.193|81.157.127.193]] ([[User talk:81.157.127.193|talk]]) 18:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:32, 12 March 2009

fggfh

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acid_rain&oldid=276773493"