renovatieprojecten

22:14 Jun 30, 2011 

I always make note in my translations when the source seems to be ambiguous, contradictory, poorly formulated etc. And leave it at that.

21:36 Jun 30, 2011 

Agree with Textpertise on both counts.

21:32 Jun 30, 2011 

This is a frequent problem for translators. If you have a poorly drafted, obscure text, a faithful translation may likewise be obscure. You are then open to blame for having done a poor translation. To protect yourself, I recommend you add a translator's comment to the effect to you recommend the client consider a redraft at this point. This covers your back when six months on, a proofreader who only has sight of your text without the comments gets the client to complain to the agency about your poor translation (only just happened to me). I was able to show that I had remarked on the poor quality of the original. It is not the translator's job to rewrite the text.

21:09 Jun 30, 2011 

I think it might be confusing because the author lumps together two causes of observed increase, one being an artifact of better registration, while the other is actual increase due to renovation projects. It is also unclear if the 29% refers to dangerous (31%) or the total (1.855 tons) of waste.

20:28 Jun 30, 2011 

I believe it really IS simply renovation projects. Bear in mind that when buildings are renovated there is often hazardous waste, e.g. old asbestos-bearing insulation material etc.