 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please Edit this Big-Time
editI'm currently taking an Applied Ecotoxicology class in college and this article very poorly represents standard Ecotoxicology concepts and testing methodologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:1852:A700:9848:F803:F4F0:C0DB (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I think this should be looked at by a professional editor. It needs better word choice, needs to be more concise, among other things.
Is that really the source one should look at, to understand the concept of "balance of nature"? Seems that concept would have wider currency. By the way, what is the literature reference?
I edited the article and I put in what I thought to be the most relevant information. I will try and lay it out a bit better. I agree with your criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicdeathmonkey (talk • contribs) 01:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Think this needs to be much more extensive: i. comments on 'balance of nature' do not bear much (if any?) relation to ecotoxicology as actually practised (although I agree should be left in there as it gives the article some nice context). ii. could do with a lot more on regulatory ecotox requirements, e.g. lists of standard species for chemical risk assessment. (and a link to CRA if the page exists?) No time at the moment to edit myseful, sorry.Sonicdeathmonkey (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, deleted the reference to the conference - ridiculous to have a single meeting highlighted here. What about a link to SETAC, would this be appropriate?? 155.198.148.173 (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Still a lot of excess and unnecessary verbiage (e.g., Chemicals propose the risk of killing off another animal's food supply that change the overall population of the prey - I don't even understand the sentence, let alone its relevance to the topic) which I hope to have time to clean up. Cross Reference (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
CRA is not ecotox as it focuses exclusively on sub-individual level effects. Regulatory ecotox doesn't exist at this point in time. You are confusing environmental toxicology and ecotox. Environmental legislation (eg water framework directive) focuses exclusively on degree of contamination and biodiversity. There are no requirements to monitor the health of animals through an ecotox approach.Sonicdeathmonkey (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion
editWould not it be nice to add a paragraph in this article, or to create an article on "Ecotoxicology landscape"
see for example PubMed here
--Lamiot (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- While I like the idea of having figures and graphics, I'm not sure how the figure presented is relevant to the field of Ecotoxicology - it needs to be explained/integrated better, or removed and replaced.ToxProfessor36 (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)