PC users 'want greener machines' (BBC) {toxic waste from computers}

[eppur_se_muova]

A report published by the UN University in 2004 said making the average PC required 10 times the weight of the machine in chemicals and fossil fuels.

The study also found that the short life of computer equipment was leading to a mountain of toxic waste, mainly in India and China.

Electronic waste, or e-waste, is a massive global problem. Thirty million computers are thrown out every year in the US alone.

About 70% of heavy metals, such as lead and mercury, in landfill sites come from e-waste.

Greenpeace International spokeswoman Zeina al-Hajj said: "Consumers not only want greener PCs but they are willing to pay extra for them.
***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5107642.stm

Among the chemicals causing concern are flame retardants, including polybrominated hydrocarbons, found in the plastic cases, cables, and circuit boards. It never ceases to amaze me what chemical mfgrs will consider OK to use in their products.

Much of the article pertains to how much users said they were willing to pay in a survey. Of course, the real price will not likely be entirely in money, but in lost convenience and fewer options.

[NNadir]

1. A survey?

What people say they are willing to do in surveys and what they actually do when no one's looking, are very different things.

Of course, pottery aside, modern consumer electronics are one of the first big consumer adventures in silicon chemistry. Of course, in the pottery case, the oxidation state of silicon went largely unchanged, and there wasn't all that much mixing with elements like, say, cadmium.

Greenpeace, I note, actively promotes even more big adventures in silicon chemistry. To continuously site this oxymoronic group of consumerist dilletantes as pargons of environmental credibility, if nothing else, reflects poorly on the perceptual ability associated with modern journalism.

[eppur_se_muova]

2. Well, Greenpeace may have done the survey, but you'll note ...

that I chose to cite a different portion of the article, one using UN sources. I actually felt like the "background" in this story deserved more attention than the lead. (Clearly the BBC author framed things differently.) Part of my reason was that people do tend to "survey better than themselves".

Not too long ago I saw a reference to analysis of 1,2,5,6,9,10-hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) in Chesapeake Bay fish. I couldn't help but wonder what in Hell that chemical was used for, but alkyl bromides are something to avoid generally, and I don't like the idea of them showing up in wild animals. It's obviously made from 1,5,9-cyclododcatriene, which is formed from butadiene (mfgd on a huge scale for polymers) by catalytic trimerization. My suspicion was that this was another case in which the chemical didn't have any outstanding applications which demanded its use, but it was cheap (maybe even an unwanted byproduct), so they found a use for it. Lots of brominated hydrocarbons are used as flame retardants, and it doesn't matter that much what the exact structure of the hydrocarbon is, I'm guessing. Sure enough, HBCD is a brominated flame retardant (BFR) commonly used in polystyrene foams. Presumably it's used for the same purpose in computer casings, cable jackets, etc.

It's worth noting that the most hazardous components tend to be the big, heavy ones -- old CRT's and old batteries are the worst offenders, while the lead in the solder is almost certainly more hazardous than anything found in the chips. IMHO, simply reducing the weight and bulk of the devices -- something which is ongoing anyway -- will have the biggest impact on waste reduction. If you've ever seen an entire PDP-6 sitting in the hallway waiting to be rendered, you'd know what I mean.

I'm afraid your reference to Greenpeace's "more big adventures in silicon chemistry" was too obscure for me, but then I don't keep up wih their adventures. I'm guessing -- concrete in drainage pipes?

[NNadir]

4. Points well taken.

To be sure, I take the point of your entire post well, and if I seemed critical, I apologize.

Greenpeace bugs me.

The Greenpeace promotion of adventures in silicon chemistry to which I refer is the solar cell. I contend that the external cost of solar cells has escaped notice in the past because the industry is tiny. I imagine that if the industry reaches a broad market, the situation might get very much like the situation we now see with computers. When the computer industry was small, no one noticed its environmental impact. People notice now.

Greenpeace likes to pretend that zero risk and zero environmental impact is realistic. They protest just about everything, but never can manage the basic sense to do basic comparisons. The wax romantic about that which does not exist until it does exist.

Let me mince my words and be gentle: They are mindless, superficial, consumerist brats with arbitrarily selective attention who lack the sense of a warthog shot through the head.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. No apology needed. I wasn't passing on GP hype unfiltered, wanted to be

clear on that.

I do worry about PV technology that uses mercury and cadmium tellurides. There's GOT to be an alternative to THAT alternative! And even CIGS contains selenium -- nowhere near as bad as mercury, but don't ever burn them when they wear out!

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Europe's (partial) answer: The RoHS Directive

http://www.rohs.gov.uk/

And I quote:

What is RoHS?

The RoHS Directive stands for "the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment". This Directive will ban the placing on the EU market of new electrical and electronic equipment containing more than agreed levels of lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyl (PBB) and polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants from 1 July 2006.

Manufacturers will need to understand the requirements of the RoHS Directive to ensure that their products, and their components, comply.

It's certainly not perfect by any means -- according to its critics, it's too easy to get an exemption -- but it's a step forward.

--p!