backtop


Print 114 comment(s) - last by porkpie.. on Feb 24 at 11:00 PM


E-waste handling is bringing much needed money to China and India, but it's a deal with the devil; improper handling leads to the toxic exposure to locals and serious damage to the gloval environment. In addition, the ineffective handling wastes precious resources.   (Source: Greenpeace)
New study showcases the problem of electronic waste in China and India, an issue that continues to grow

In the heat of China, toxic plumes waft daily into the hot summer air.  It's just another day in a nation that's become an international dumping ground for electronics waste.  Even as the U.S. and other nations have passed laws prohibiting sending shipping containers packed full of old computer monitors and cell phones to China or India, the practice quietly continues every day.  It's a toxic trade that exposes the Chinese people to unsafe levels of halogens, mercury, and lead.

The UN's Environmental Programme, concerned about this growing problem, has issued a special report entitled "Recycling – from E-Waste to Resources".  According to the study, the current efforts are simply not good enough; the problem is growing.  The report predicts that by 2020 India will be home to 7 times as much computer waste, while China and South Africa will be home to 2 to 4 times as much waste.  Cell phone waste is expected rise 700 percent in China and over 1800 percent in India.

The report identifies Latin America and Africa as vulnerable regions, in addition to India and China.  It identifies numerous types of e-waste, including old computers, printers, mobile phones, pagers, digital photo and music devices, refrigerators, toys and televisions.  The report says that the biggest issue is not the waste itself, but the fact that it's being dumped on a nation without proper disposal tools and is being mishandled.  This both leads to wasted resources and exposure to toxins.

Describes UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner, "This report gives new urgency to establishing ambitious, formal and regulated processes for collecting and managing e-waste via the setting up of large, efficient facilities in China.  China is not alone in facing a serious challenge. India, Brazil, Mexico and others may also face rising environmental damage and health problems if e-waste recycling is left to the vagaries of the informal sector."

"In addition to curbing health problems, boosting developing country e-waste recycling rates can have the potential to generate decent employment, cut greenhouse gas emissions and recover a wide range of valuable metals including silver, gold, palladium, copper and indium. By acting now and planning forward many countries can turn an e-challenge into an e-opportunity."

The report suggests building state-of-the-art e-waste facilities in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Morocco and South Africa.  Kenya, Peru, Senegal and Uganda were suggested locations of waste pre-processing (dismantling) facilities.

UNEP wants the U.S. and other nations to step up to the plate when it comes to investing in these facilities.  After all, if we want to dump our trash overseas, we should at least finance proper handling of it, the panel argues.  Doing so would both prevent waste of resources and prevent the release of toxins into the local air and water supplies.

Ultimately, in its current state e-waste is both a blessing and a boon.  It's important not to discount the fact that it does bring desperately needed money to poverty stricken regions in China and India.  However, much like the prostitution industry in Thailand, the e-waste industry is an exploitive one, and its prosperity comes at a high cost -- in this case the health of the local populous and the environment.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

In other words...
By LRonaldHubbs on 2/23/2010 9:11:28 AM , Rating: 5
UN urges US to stop shipping waste to other countries because it knows that those countries don't care about their own citizens enough to stop the problem themselves.




RE: In other words...
By supermitsuba on 2/23/2010 9:10:58 AM , Rating: 4
Pretty much.


RE: In other words...
By reader1 on 2/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: In other words...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: In other words...
By reader1 on 2/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: In other words...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2010 10:41:32 AM , Rating: 2
How am I supporting China ??


RE: In other words...
By rcc on 2/24/2010 2:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, you know better, I know you do. Quit feeding the troll. If you guys feed him to much, he might breed.


RE: In other words...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/24/2010 6:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
My mommy said never look straight into the eyes of a troll otherwise he may convert you and you'll never be the same again... She also said something about fur on my hands, I can not remember that one.


RE: In other words...
By A5un on 2/23/2010 11:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
...so it's okay for me to sell cocaine to a 8-year-old -- or rather, an 8-year-old with a dead-beat single parent -- if he or she is a willing recipient? You're the asshole!

And in case you don't understand it...8-year-old = local Chinese government body that accepts that e-waste, and the dead-beat parent = Chinese government body in Beijin


RE: In other words...
By porkpie on 2/23/2010 11:51:50 AM , Rating: 2
"it's okay for me to sell cocaine to a 8-year-old"

You lose. Minors cannot legally consent to anything.

"8-year-old = local Chinese government body "

What a snide, condescending, borderlin-racist attitude.


RE: In other words...
By Lerianis on 2/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: In other words...
By SiN on 2/24/2010 6:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

And in case you don't understand it...8-year-old = local Chinese government body that accepts that e-waste, and the dead-beat parent = Chinese government body in Beijin


And in case you don't understand it...8-year-old = The local Government body that accepts that e-waste, and the dead-beat parent = The Government body in Beijin

Fixed!
The analogy works world wide. And on a side note, the governments who make the agreements are acting for more than 99% of the Nation, on their personal Political Ideologies and Carer. If you didn't know, this form of Fascist Dictatorship is called Democracy.

Main Entry: pol·i·ti·cian
Pronunciation: \?pä-l?-'ti-sh?n\
Function: noun
Date: 1589
1 : a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government
2 a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons


RE: In other words...
By AstroCreep on 2/23/2010 3:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...How can any one side be guilty when both sides have an agreement ??

When both sides are doing something illegal? :/
The companies in the U.S. shipping ewaste know (or should know) that it's illegal, and I'm sure the companies in China doing the work know it's illegal for U.S. companies to be doing this (what with all of the exposes and such).
I'm not saying it's "Right" or "Wrong", I'm just going off of the legality of it all...

I'm not going to use the "consensual sex" or "An eight-year-old buys some coke" analogies, but the "someone sells their physician-prescribed Vicodin to someone else is illegal" (whether used as intended or not) analogy is somewhat fitting; I purchase an electronic device, I recycle it with someone who (unbeknownst to me) sends it to an outfit in China that is paid to break it down.
The Chinese company makes money, the Chinese workers make money (maybe?), and I've made sure that my old device hasn't ended up in a landfill. From that perspective, everyone "Wins".

Is "ewaste" and its disposal a problem? Definitely. As an American consumer, I make sure I recycle my devices in an "Environmentally Responsible" way, but what happens to it when it leaves my fingertips is not under my control. And it's not like I'm going to spend the time to interview an ewaste recycler like I would a job applicant.


RE: In other words...
By rmclean816 on 2/23/2010 4:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
he never said that only one side was responsible.


RE: In other words...
By jimbojimbo on 2/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: In other words...
By rmclean816 on 2/23/2010 4:11:03 PM , Rating: 2
That makes absolutely no sense.


RE: In other words...
By Taft12 on 2/23/2010 4:45:19 PM , Rating: 4
Lay off the flawed analogies. Killing a person who gives you their consent is still murder.


RE: In other words...
By porkpie on 2/24/2010 12:00:08 AM , Rating: 1
"Killing a person who gives you their consent is still murder. "

Depends on the country. Look up the laws on euthanasia.


RE: In other words...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/24/2010 6:35:46 PM , Rating: 1
The US is willing participant, that makes us guilty. It's the same way Americans knowingly sell guns to be used in the drug wars in Mexico.

Errr, you realized you just said, "It's the same way Americans knowingly sell guns to be used in the drug wars in America." Mexico is America...

Do not be so quick to pass that guilt around. In eight years, I have had two and the second phone will probably be good for another 4 years. I still have the first phone in my house.. It still would work short battery life... Now just an extreme back up (would have to call up phone company) and hold phone numbers in case I lose or destroy my current phone. Yes, I live in the USA and I'm not wasteful. Personally I think we should keep the e-waste here and recycle the product ourself. Then give the non-recycle items to wall-e to crush and build something..


RE: In other words...
By just4U on 2/24/2010 7:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
The first thing I thought of when I read this article was

" MADE IN CHINA "

So why not send it back when were done with it? You pay a recycle fee on most (if not all) electronics now, and I am sure that money goes somewhere. Good chance they can salvalge stuff anyway and have it be re-used in new products that they come out with.


RE: In other words...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2010 9:14:58 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah the more I read this the more I keep asking myself "Why does the author make it seem like China is POWERLESS to stop the importing of E-waste??"


RE: In other words...
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/23/2010 9:36:47 AM , Rating: 4
It's obviously not powerless, but rather too hopelessly corrupt.

Half the people in China's government are just looking for a quick personal gain; doing business over there is a nightmare of bribes and dirty dealings.

That's a major reason why there's such horrible quality issues and these sort of toxic exposure problems. Ultimately they certainly share the culpability.

That said WE are the ones shipping the waste over there. They obviously want the money from it, but does that make it right for us to exploit them? It's a similar question as the one raised by the illicit sex trade in Thailand.

Obviously China's government will do nothing, and we're the ones making the mess, so I think its reasonable for the global community to ask us and other responsible nations to take moves to prevent it.


RE: In other words...
By supermitsuba on 2/23/2010 9:37:48 AM , Rating: 5
Why even bother doing business entirely? There are other industries that produce items in factories that are just as toxic. Potentially anything coming from China is exploiting someone in some form or fashion.

I understand there has to be a line, but I guess it should be at doing business with China to begin with.


RE: In other words...
By Machinegear on 2/23/2010 9:57:51 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
so I think its reasonable for the global community to ask us and other responsible nations to take moves to prevent it.


Who said the US is responsible?

Wake up.

Governments are never responsible. To expect such things is crazy talk. Individuals on the other hand, can be responsible.


RE: In other words...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2010 10:08:29 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Obviously China's government will do nothing, and we're the ones making the mess, so I think its reasonable for the global community to ask us and other responsible nations to take moves to prevent it.


No. See this is where your liberal sensibilities are at odds with common sense. This is NOT our problem. You just spent 4 paragraphs outlining how this is China's problem.

quote:
That said WE are the ones shipping the waste over there. They obviously want the money from it, but does that make it right for us to exploit them?


Do you know what "exploit" means ? You can't say we are exploiting them when they are the ones who WANT the stuff ! It's an agreement, not an exploit.

quote:
Half the people in China's government are just looking for a quick personal gain; doing business over there is a nightmare of bribes and dirty dealings.


Their problem.

quote:
It's obviously not powerless, but rather too hopelessly corrupt.


Once again, their problem. Maybe the big problem here is Communism ?? Or does everything just magically get better by stopping E-Waste Jason ?

You have failed, despite your emotionally based anti-capitalist anti-American Liberal arguments, to establish a wrongdoing here. China HAS a legitimate government, THEY decide what gets shipped in or out of their country legally, NOT the United Nations.

If the UN was doing their job all these years instead of blaming America for everything, China wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

An excerpt from the UN Charter :

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion;

Ironic when you think of the human rights track record of China...


RE: In other words...
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/23/2010 10:45:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you know what "exploit" means ? You can't say we are exploiting them when they are the ones who WANT the stuff ! It's an agreement, not an exploit.


I disagree. Just because someone wants to make money off something doesn't mean they aren't being exploited. Look at the child prostitution industry in East Asia.

Sure the kids want money, but ultimately they didn't choose to born into that lifestyle and it doesn't change the base fact that they are being exploited by foreign nationals, including some from the U.S.

You'd probably go right ahead and defend such pedophilia, though, just like you're defending us dumping our toxic waste to China.

quote:

No. See this is where your liberal sensibilities are at odds with common sense. This is NOT our problem. You just spent 4 paragraphs outlining how this is China's problem.


Ummm how is it not our problem, when we're shipping OUR junk over there?

quote:
Once again, their problem. Maybe the big problem here is Communism ?? Or does everything just magically get better by stopping E-Waste Jason ?


Honestly the problem here has nothing to do with communism. China's economy is far closer to unregulated capitalism these days than communism (with the exception of the media), but honestly that's immaterial and has nothing to do with this discussion.

quote:
You have failed, despite your emotionally based anti-capitalist anti-American Liberal arguments, to establish a wrongdoing here. China HAS a legitimate government, THEY decide what gets shipped in or out of their country legally, NOT the United Nations.


You're INSANE. America is a great nation that's why we have the potential to be the better person in cases like this and be part of the solution not the problem.

It's you who is BLATANTLY anti-American with your rhetoric advocating violating the principles on which this nation was founded on, by turning a blind eye to corporations who compromise the fundamental American values -- life , liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- of individuals overseas.

It's a sad day when people like you say that we don't need to be anymore concerned with human rights than China.


RE: In other words...
By LRonaldHubbs on 2/23/2010 10:58:12 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
It's you who is BLATANTLY anti-American with your rhetoric advocating violating the principles on which this nation was founded on, by turning a blind eye to corporations who compromise the fundamental American values -- life , liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- of individuals overseas.

America was founded on the values of life, liberty, and happiness, but it was also founded on the principle of non-interventionism. An interesting duality, is it not?

In other words, yes those people have the same inalienable rights as us, but it is their responsibility to stand up for those rights.


RE: In other words...
By AstroCreep on 2/23/2010 2:48:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
...but it was also founded on the principle of non-interventionism...

Sigh...I wish we'd re-embrace the Monroe Doctrine.
Let everyone else take care of themselves while we take care of our own. If someone tries to upset that balance, then they will face repercussions, otherwise let the world figure itself out. We have our own crap to handle.


RE: In other words...
By mechwarrior1989 on 2/24/2010 2:14:54 AM , Rating: 2
I think a lot of the rest of the world would agree with this as well. But they would see it as the US not meddling in their own affairs.

I concede that some countries want the US there, but there are many that do not.


RE: In other words...
By Kurz on 2/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: In other words...
By porkpie on 2/23/2010 11:53:45 AM , Rating: 3
"nations around the world is in bed with Corporations. America can be great, however its been a gradual decline to what it is today"

Funny then that America's gradual decline in greatness (your words, not mine) has been matched by a similar decline in the strength of corporations, and a vast increase in the size and strength of government.

But that's just a co-inkidink, isn't it?


RE: In other words...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2010 12:37:25 PM , Rating: 4
Idiots like him can't comprehend that Corporations and small business MADE American great.


RE: In other words...
By Kurz on 2/23/2010 1:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
I never said Corporations and small businesses were an issue.

Corporations and small business are not the problem.
The government is. Distorting the interest rates, congressmen giving the people's money to their friends.

The problem is in the government not the corps.


RE: In other words...
By Kurz on 2/23/2010 1:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
I never said Corporations and small businesses were an issue.

Corporations and small business are not the problem.
The government is. Distorting the interest rates, congressmen giving the people's money to their friends.

The problem is in the government not the corps.


RE: In other words...
By porkpie on 2/23/2010 1:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
Then I misinterpreted your post. My apologies.


RE: In other words...
By MadMan007 on 2/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: In other words...
By porkpie on 2/24/2010 12:14:34 AM , Rating: 2
"I suppose some small-minded people think that money is the same as greatness"

Economic prosperity equates to standard of living. Standard of living equates to health, education, and general happiness.

If you think money is so evil, why not emigrate to Cuba or North Korea? Or do you prefer a lifetime of hypocrisy?

"Not getting blown to hell in two world wars like the rest of the industrialized world in the 20th century didn't hurt"

The reason the US "didn't get blown to hell" was because of its industrial might. Want to explain where that came from, if it wasn't business?


RE: In other words...
By MadMan007 on 2/24/2010 12:40:12 AM , Rating: 1
I did not say money is evil - warped Christian Republitards, and I never understood how those two got together, should actually be the ones sticking to their bible and saying the love of money is evil - I said it is not the same as greatness. I'm sorry if such subtleties are beyond you.

Geography had more than just a litte to do with the US not getting blown to hell in the world wars. Geography has always been one of the greatest advantages the US has had, I'm sorry if it hurts your rabid nationalistic pride that an accidental thing beyond human control is so important but you'd be hardpressed to find a rational historian who would disagree with that. If all that was needed was 'industrial might' then the European powers wouldn't have had a problem either, nor would have Japan. Of all the European powers, England got off the least worst in the world wars. *psst - it's an island.


RE: In other words...
By onelittleindian on 2/24/2010 8:25:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Geography had more than just a litte to do with the US not getting blown to hell in the world wars.
You're right, it had nothing to do with the US producing 40% of all the tanks, planes, ships, and guns in the world.

/rolleyes.

quote:
Of all the European powers, England got off the least worst in the world wars. *psst - it's an island.
So was Sicily, Singapore, the Philippines and a dozen others that were smashed to pieces in WW2. *psst - there's more to surviving than being an island".


RE: In other words...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/24/2010 10:20:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of all the European powers, England got off the least worst in the world wars. *psst - it's an island.


Are you an idiot ?

England was bombed into the stone age. By the end of the war almost every major city and most of the minor ones were utterly 100% destroyed by German bombing and fires from rocket attacks.


RE: In other words...
By Kurz on 2/23/2010 1:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
Really? so you are denying the bailouts massive spending up and down the board?

I am a believer of free markets with minimal Government Intervention.


RE: In other words...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2010 11:01:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look at the child prostitution industry in East Asia.


Typical Liberal. Can't have any rational discussion without you bringing kids into it. How can you compare E-Waste to child prostitution, honestly ?

quote:
You'd probably go right ahead and defend such pedophilia, though, just like you're defending us dumping our toxic waste to China.


After reading this I wanted to tell you to go F yourself, but you know what, I think instead I'll just pity you. That you could stoop so low, and make such a personal attack on someone here because they don't agree with you. You are so off base and out of line with this comment, if Daily Tech had any standards you would be fired or barred. You have no respect for your readers, you have contempt for them.

quote:
Ummm how is it not our problem, when we're shipping OUR junk over there?


You can't have a shipper without an importer. But I know common sense doesn't mean much to someone as liberal as you. After having just been called pro-pedophilia by you, you'll forgive me if I have this opinion of you.

quote:
You're INSANE. America is a great nation that's why we have the potential to be the better person in cases like this and be part of the solution not the problem.


I'm insane, that's rich. And what you really mean is that we should be held to a higher standard than everyone else, while also taking the blame for everything. Just like we're responsible for "Climate Change" in all those crackpot articles you write, huh ?

You have this warped impression in your mind that the big bad bullying United States showed up one day to a China harbor with battleships towing barges of "JUNK" and delivered a TRADE OR DIE ultimatum to the poor helpless little Chinese.

quote:
It's a sad day when people like you say that we don't need to be anymore concerned with human rights than China.


Yeah nice job ignoring my whole point about the UN Charter and how China has done more to violate the rights of human beings than any nation in modern history. "Human rights" in China is an oxymoron.

quote:
It's you who is BLATANTLY anti-American with your rhetoric advocating violating the principles on which this nation was founded on, by turning a blind eye to corporations who compromise the fundamental American values -- life , liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- of individuals overseas.


Now this is the clincher. Liberals like you are CONSTANTLY bemoaning how the United States forces our view on the rest of the world. Now you suggest we apply our Constitution to dealings with foreign nations ?

Again, China is a sovereign country. THEY decide what gets shipped into their country legally. Not you or the UN. And, for whatever reason, they have DECIDED to accept E-waste, and not just from the United States by the way.

p.s. Nice use of the picture with the sad kid in it. If you're going to build on argument based purely on emotions, you might as well go all in eh ? But hey, I'm just the guy who "probably defends pedophilia".


RE: In other words...
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/23/2010 11:16:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That you could stoop so low, and make such a personal attack on someone here because they don't agree with you.


I by no means made a personal attack on you. You argued that there's no way of exploiting someone that was willing to participate. I merely raised an example of such a scenario that's relatively clear cut.

I indeed expected you to defend it. The fact that you did not shows you have some sense of moral decency, but rather inconsistent application of it.

quote:
But I know common sense doesn't mean much to someone as liberal as you.


Ha! That's a hoot. I judge each issue individually and would be loathe to characterize myself as a liberal or a conservative. Anyone who claims to be a "liberal" or a "conservative" is obviously too inflexible to rationally debate issues.

For example, most "liberals" are against nuclear power. Personally I'm a firm believer that's its a good solution. Also, most liberals support providing health care to illegal immigrants. I'm personally quite opposed to this.

Your blind labeling is completely incorrect.

quote:
Now you suggest we apply our Constitution to dealings with foreign nations ?


Yes?? Are you saying our interactions with other nations shouldn't be governed by our founding beliefs?

Since the nation's inception trade was federally regulated. Until this changes, the Constitution is a great place to start when considering foreign policy, be it trade or diplomacy.

I believe in non-interventionism is the best policy. But in this case we've already intervened, so its a moot point.


RE: In other words...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2010 11:16:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You argued that there's no way of exploiting someone that was willing to participate. I merely raised an example of such a scenario that's relatively clear cut.


You know exactly what you were doing, don't insult my intelligence.

We're done here.


RE: In other words...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2010 11:21:39 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly wtf, you expected me to defend children being taken from their parents and homes and forced into being injected with drugs and made to be sexslaves until they are used up and die... because I think it's ok for China to accept junk so they can make a profit from it !!!???

You are freaking... something else man.


RE: In other words...
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/23/2010 11:32:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
because I think it's ok for China to accept junk so they can make a profit from it !!!???


You're trying to defend people BREAKING U.S. laws and exploiting desperate people in China by exposing them to toxins.

That seems pretty immoral too.

Again a key point you seem to miss here is that these people that you're so ardently defending are breaking the law.


RE: In other words...
By semiconshawn on 2/23/2010 11:44:34 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
You'd probably go right ahead and defend such pedophilia, though, just like you're defending us dumping our toxic waste to China.


Accusing someone of defending pedophilia is a very personal attack as well as going on to attack his morals. Not exactly what I would expect from the author of an article on a tech site.


RE: In other words...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2010 12:43:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I'm honestly really offended, not sure where the line is on Daily Tech, but I'm pretty sure he crossed it.


RE: In other words...
By porkpie on 2/23/2010 11:44:37 AM , Rating: 4
"..exploiting desperate people in China by exposing them to toxins."

You mean by exposing them to a pile of used cell phones? Oh my god, the horror!


RE: In other words...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2010 12:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're trying to defend people BREAKING U.S. laws


/rolls eyes

Oh that's cute. Hey, so are Illegal immigrants from Mexico and Cuba. Where are all your articles about that ?

quote:
Again a key point you seem to miss here is that these people that you're so ardently defending are breaking the law.


You're hiding behind that and you know it. Your real issue here is that this offends your liberal sensibilities.

quote:
exploiting desperate people in China by exposing them to toxins.


Oh I feel very sorry for them. I feel sorry that they live in such a place that tech garbage is an industry and they depend on it for their livelihood because they ARE that desperate. Which begs the question, what will become of them if that industry is taken from them ? Will you help them Jason ? Will China help them ? Like it or not, this is how they make their living. Who the hell are you to take it away from them.

But I know one thing, YOU and others like you will be the first to shout that America SHOULD do something to help them.

The world isn't a perfect place and not everyone has things as good as you. But that doesn't mean you should blame others for it. Try to remember that when you're sitting in a Starbucks typing liberal crap on DT with your Mac Book Air in your name brand clothes sipping a $5 latte.

To all you Chinese who have the unfortunate choice between sifting through tech trash or starving to death, Jason Mick says starve !


RE: In other words...
By ClownPuncher on 2/23/2010 1:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
Those desperate people in China have more pressing concerns than worrying about UN and US laws. There are starving people all over the world that would jump at the chance to earn enough to feed themselves by dumping potentially harmful tech waste in their back yards.

What you should really be asking is for China to take care of their own problems. You need to treat these people with the same respect you would any other person, they are consenting adults who chose to take money in exchange for tech waste. They aren't 8 year olds on the street corner forced into sexual slavery by their parents.

If the Chinese people want a change in government, it is up to them.


RE: In other words...
By TSS on 2/23/2010 7:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
The whole problem is here that china hasn't passed the laws mandating the correct handling of e-waste, neither has india. If those laws got passed, and we'd still ship our e-waste there, there wouldn't be any problem.

And if there's 1,4 billion chinese, and only 1 of them is enough to stop a column of tanks, then they damned well don't need any intervention from any country.

Oh, and in accusing somebody of defending child pedophilia, or even comparing it to e-waste, you yourself have probably shown the least amount of regard for human life in this whole article. Instead of adding weight to the crime of incorrect e-waste disposal, you detract weight from the heinous crime that is child pedophilia, by using it so lightly.

I'm not going to belive another word you write. I simply cannot trust an author who hasn't got the slightest clue morale.


RE: In other words...
By Kurz on 2/24/2010 8:59:29 AM , Rating: 2
Being a clean nation is very expensive.
Once China, India gather enough wealth the people can make the demand to be cleaner.

Till then they are happy to have an income and a way to increase their standard of living. And even though they have some toxic elements introduced into their society they'll still live longer lives because of that increase in standard of living.


RE: In other words...
By porkpie on 2/23/2010 11:25:04 AM , Rating: 2
"And, for whatever reason, they have DECIDED to accept E-waste, and not just from the United States by the way."

Probably because its very valuable, and not nearly as dangerous as environuts would have you believe.


RE: In other words...
By theapparition on 2/23/2010 12:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

There is a huge market for gray market electronics components, often times re-sold by US brokers.


RE: In other words...
By porkpie on 2/23/2010 11:43:10 AM , Rating: 4
"by turning a blind eye to corporations who compromise the fundamental American values -- life"

An NFL player has a far more serious risk of death or serious injury than does your average Chinese citizen from E-Waste. So is the NFL compromising our fundamental American values by risking the lives of their player? Are they exploiting Peton Manning and Terrel Owens?


RE: In other words...
By The0ne on 2/24/2010 10:00:15 AM , Rating: 1
You're speaking of something you don't know again. Just because there are limited reports on e-waste effects on people doesn't mean it's less dangerous. As for NFL players, there are now numerous studies and starting studies to better evaluate concussion and such injuries. And for that matter, it's is also spreading to other sports.

Seriously, this is e-waste. There are shady companies that uses harmful chemicals without you, the consumer, knowing. Just take a look at the picture. If you're game, come over and I'll take you to one here in CA and have you spend the entire week living there. Then we'll see how you view it afterward.


RE: In other words...
By porkpie on 2/24/2010 3:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
" Just because there are limited reports on e-waste effects on people doesn't mean it's less dangerous [than the NFL]"

Tell you what. We'll give you a choice...sleep 1 mile away from a pile of used cell phones, or spend a season getting hammered by 300 lb linebackers trying to break your spine.

Want to bet which one has a larger effect on your overall health?


RE: In other words...
By StraightCashHomey on 2/24/2010 10:54:14 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't consider a $100M contract exploitation.


RE: In other words...
By wired009 on 2/24/2010 11:33:44 AM , Rating: 3
I'm with you JM. There is a complete lack of ethical sensibility from some posters here. This is clearly exploitation (unfair practice for personal gain) because we are trying to avoid the costs of dealing with e-waste in a responsible way by sending it someplace where people may not be fully aware of the health and environmental hazards, can't process it properly, and have little other economic opportunity. All of us are part of a global community so we need to stop acting like our actions don't matter as long as the immediate repercussions are outside our field of view.


RE: In other words...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/24/2010 12:15:09 PM , Rating: 1
So when these people starve to death or die of poverty because they can no longer work the E-Waste, where are your ethical sensibilities then ?


RE: In other words...
By porkpie on 2/24/2010 10:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
As long as they can sigh and pat themselves on the back, they really don't care what happens afterward. Thousands of Chinese now out of work and starving? No big deal...we did our good deed for the day!

In actuality, this eWaste psuedo-issue has a hidden primary goal. By making disposal of consumer goods incredibly expensive, the environmentalists have a backdoor to reduce our consumption and force into the lifestyle they think we should be leading.


RE: In other words...
By porkpie on 2/23/2010 10:53:05 AM , Rating: 2
"That said WE are the ones shipping the waste over there. They obviously want the money from it, but does that make it right for us to exploit them? "

Nonsense. You can't 'exploit' the willing. Your statement is like saying we're exploiting Olympic skiiers, who risk their lives to do tricks for our entertainment.

E-Waste generates money for the poorest of Chinese and Indian citizens. Would they be better off without that e-Waste, starving in the gutter with no food, clothing, or housing from lack of money.

Until YOU decide to financially support each and every one of these people who make a living from recycling eWaste overseas, you have no right whatseover to condemn either them, or the people who support them through fair and honest trade.


RE: In other words...
By NesuD on 2/23/2010 10:47:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even as the U.S. and other nations have passed laws prohibiting sending shipping containers packed full of old computer monitors and cell phones to China or India


Lets see the headline essentially accuses the US of exploiting China and India but the article states right from the start that we have passed legislation making this practice illegal. Looks Like China should be the one stepping up. We are not responsible for their environmental initiatives. They are doing these things to themselves. They have enough money to buy up trillions in US debt but cannot spare a few billion for their own environmental needs? Please this is nothing more than another UN money grab. We are not exploiting them in any way. It is no different than when Canada ships all of their landfill waste to Michigan which most of Ontario does. They pay a fee to do so and then we are responsible for handling it after that. Canada is exploiting us in the same way and in exchange for a fee we are assuming all responsibility for the proper handling of that waste. Handling of the E-waste in China is China's problem.


RE: In other words...
By rudy on 2/23/2010 1:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
I only half agree, did you know that most asian countries have almost all the same laws we have? As in some law overlaps, I mean people are a little different but the what is wrong in one place is wrong in another for the most part dispite what people tell you.

The difference is in enforcement, due to massive curruption with the people in control there is no enforcement. Countries claim one thing and do something very different which is why the US will not sign many treaties because we know that our competitors will sign them but simply not enforce them.

So basically a law is only useful if you effectively enforce it which is our job. Now if China helps by denying these shipments the combination of our law and enforcement with their enforcement would probably make the problem all but dissapear. So both countries need to step up.

However I put the ulitmate blame on China it is their government which should be protecting their people not ours.


RE: In other words...
By psychmike on 2/24/2010 9:36:15 AM , Rating: 2
Great comment. It seems like there's a lot of defensiveness on the side of people saying that America has no responsibility. No one is America bashing. America is simply the most powerful country in the world and its actions often reverberate through the rest of the world. Most of the time, those actions are good or at least benign but sometimes they are negative and unintended.

While contracts define the legality of issues, they certainly almost never define the morality of an issue. The core issue is whether one country should ship its waste to another. The issue is somewhat complicated by the fact that that waste has some economic value that the recipient country is willing to accept. It is further complicated by the fact that the Chinese government does not represent the interest of its population. I can certainly agree with the position that the Chinese government is at greater fault but the point is that the First World can stop its contribution to the problem by not sending the waste. THAT is up to us and not doing what is up to us falls on our shoulders.

Imagine that your state government is offered a contract to accept federal nuclear waste in exchange for federal funding. Once the contract is accepted, that waste is going to be in your backyard for thousands of years. Certainly, there are genuine reasons that the government would do so for the interests of the state including funding essential services. Certainly we would expect the government to implement all kinds of safety measures. But if that government is corrupt and doesn't represent the interest of its population, is it fair to participate in such a contract? As a disinterested third party, would you say that such a contract should proceed?


RE: In other words...
By porkpie on 2/24/2010 3:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
"Once the contract is accepted, that waste is going to be in your backyard for thousands of years.."

Oh, please not this tired old nuclear waste fallacy again. The toxic elements you keep under your kitchen sink stay dangerous forever. They NEVER decay. Nuclear actually has an advantage in that it decays...and the really dangerous daughter nuclides are pretty much all gone within 6 months to a year.

The total amount of high-level waste in the US doesn't even come close to the radioactivity we release continally from burning coal, or the total radiation from the trillions of tons of uranium, radium, and other elements found naturally in ocean water.


RE: In other words...
By armulyman on 2/23/2010 9:38:03 AM , Rating: 1
I agree entirely. And honestly? Screw China, it seems like twice a day I hear about some problem there, censorship, hacking our networks, government cover-ups, Apple computer killing people... I'll be glad to see it turn into a toxic wasteland.


RE: In other words...
By semiconshawn on 2/23/2010 9:58:33 AM , Rating: 1
Really? Have you ever been there? Have you ever met one native Chinese family? You dont like their government so screw the people? Hmm I wonder why when I travel people think Americans are arrogant and that we dont care about what the rest of the world thinks.......


RE: In other words...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2010 10:11:55 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Hmm I wonder why when I travel people think Americans are arrogant and that we dont care about what the rest of the world thinks.......


Nope not anymore, we have Obama and he fixed that with Hope and Change.

/sarcasm


RE: In other words...
By Hiawa23 on 2/23/2010 11:15:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hmm I wonder why when I travel people think Americans are arrogant and that we dont care about what the rest of the world thinks.......

Nope not anymore, we have Obama and he fixed that with Hope and Change.

/sarcasm


even Obama, can't fix the gradual decline of America, & it's middle class which is decades in the making. Did anyone think he was going to solve these issues in 1 2 3 4 years, like I said that it took decades to make. I know many want to throw it all on his plate, but these issues existed before we had ever heard or Obama, & they will exist after his term is up. Average Joe, or the poor is screwed, just the way it is, the way it has been, & the way it will continue to be.


RE: In other words...
By Solandri on 2/23/2010 3:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
even Obama, can't fix the gradual decline of America, & it's middle class which is decades in the making.

The U.S. is not in decline. Average wages have been going up across all income brackets, have always been going up (though sometimes flatter than other times).

What's happening is more of the rest of the world is modernizing, and approaching the level of prosperity the U.S. and Western Europe has enjoyed for decades. In the process, the percentage of world productivity represented by the U.S. decreases. In the 1950s, the U.S. accounted for about 40% of world GDP. Currently the U.S. represents less than 25% of world GDP, and is approaching 20%. But in inflation-adjusted dollars, the GDP per capita of the U.S. has steadily been going up*, indicating the country is not in decline. That means the drop in % is simply due to other countries modernizing and increasing the world's non-U.S. GDP to levels approaching what the U.S. enjoys.

Unfortunately, a lot of people who never learned the difference between a percentage and a number in high school incorrectly interpret what's happening to be a decline.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_In...


RE: In other words...
By Taft12 on 2/23/2010 4:51:28 PM , Rating: 1
Inflation-adjusted wages have NOT been going up, they have been stagnant or declining for DECADES

http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits...

Only one income was needed per family a generation ago.


RE: In other words...
By porkpie on 2/24/2010 12:19:27 AM , Rating: 2
"Only one income was needed per family a generation ago"

A generation ago, the average family had a house half the size of today's families, one less car, only a single TV, and about 1/10 the electronic gadgets we do today. If you want the standard of living people had a generation ago, you can easily support that on a single income.


RE: In other words...
By mechwarrior1989 on 2/24/2010 2:21:08 AM , Rating: 1
A TV back then cost quite a bit more than it does now, as did a car and any other appliances that they had. That's not a valid point of comparison. You can say that back in the 1800's only the very wealthy had access to things like indoor plumbing and electricity. Does that make us wealthier than them?

American's savings rate up until recently was in the negatives. That means they spend more money than they make. Sure you see people have nice things on the surface. It's their true value after subtracting their mortgages and credit card debit that's a true indicator. BTW, savings rate in the US is now 1%. Woohoo!


RE: In other words...
By porkpie on 2/24/2010 7:32:00 AM , Rating: 2
"You can say that back in the 1800's only the very wealthy had access to things like indoor plumbing and electricity. Does that make us wealthier than them?"

Of course. How else do you measure wealth across different eras, if not by standard of living?

We have more food, clothing, bigger houses, more manufactured goods of all types, more medical care, and more education than someone from the 1800s. How can you say we're NOT far more wealthy than they were?


RE: In other words...
By Keeir on 2/23/2010 5:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Average Joe, or the poor is screwed, just the way it is, the way it has been, & the way it will continue to be.


Hrm...

Lets see, the percentage of taxes paid by the poor has fallen to nearly nothing. Yet the number of government programs, and the majority of government dollars go to service the poor/etc in one way or another.

In 2004 for example, the bottom 75% of tax payers only paid around 15% of the total bill for income tax. Yet they likely consumed 70%+ of the direct government services. Now we all pay Corporations' taxes for them, but yet again, likely the poor paid a significantly smaller overall share of corporate and sales taxes than the rich.


By jimbojimbo on 2/23/2010 11:26:00 AM , Rating: 2
Wait a minute here. So supposedly we're dumping ewaste in these countries and now they're suggesting we pay to build and finance recycling facilities out there?? How about we create those facilites right here so Americans can get those jobs!




By bottomline on 2/23/2010 12:27:06 PM , Rating: 2
jimbo thats because of taxes red tape and the cost of the american worker.

America isnt doing this its big business who is dumping thier stuff there to save a buck and bring you cheap electronics. It doesnt matter to them what they do with it
as long as thier saving money.

Jobs that could be created here is a issue but itll never happen till buisinesses are slapped with enough hazzardous export fees to warrant seeking alternative means of disposal.Big business doesnt see "unknown" factors like evolving state of pollution.

I dont blame any country/corporation for saying they will take that stuff throw it in a hole and bury it for money or kickbacks.The problem isnt with them taking it its with us letting it go.The problem is always where it begins not where it ends up.

The next question is when we as citizens are going to do something about it? In the end were the only ones that can change anything about it.

I fear that too many ppl are watching american idol every night to worry about stuff like this.So lets just all raise our glasses and toast to the globalization and toxification of our planet.We can plant a flower to signify the moment in the spare tire flower pots we have in the yard.


By porkpie on 2/23/2010 12:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
The only reason this stuff is being shipped overseas in the first place is because of inane environmental regulations here at home. Shipping tens of thousands of tons of waste to China isn't cheap...its only done because companies literally cannot afford to do it here.

". It doesnt matter to them what they do with it as long as thier saving money"

Company saving money = consumer saving money. Company hit with massive new costs = consumer paying twice as much for all his shiny new toys.

If you think government control of all aspects of business leads to a healthy, happy lifestyle, I suggest you check out the booming economies in Cuba or North Korea.

"..and toast to the globalization and toxification of our planet."

Where do you think the "toxins" in those cell phones came from in hte first place? (Hint: we're not bringing in the stuff from outer space).


By MadMan007 on 2/23/2010 10:55:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, totally, toxins like mercury and cadmium are naturally occuring, so hey, no problem! Given that, I'm sure porkpie would be happy to wallow in said toxins. Or maybe he would support opening a China-style e-waste facility in his back yard, or near his water supply.

Here's a 'hint' for you: it's not just about whether these compounds occur in nature at all (although some of them don't), it's also about at what concentrations.


By porkpie on 2/24/2010 12:11:28 AM , Rating: 2
Here's a hint for you. Most of these elements occur in much higher concentrations naturally. For instance, the lead mining region of Missouri has millions of tons of galena deposits with concentration ranging as high as 60% lead. They also contain large amounts of arsenic and cadmium. Yet groundwater flows freely through these massive deposits and is drunk by the people of the region.

The solder in electronics today contains only trace amounts of lead...and even back in the days of the 40% lead solders, the amounts involved were an infinitesimal fraction of the amounts of lead found naturally in the ground at hundreds of places around the globe.

As for mercury, in the 1800s doctors commonly gave their patients mercury for medicinal purposes. You can actually drink liquid mercury by the pint with little to no side effects. It's only certain compounds of mercury that are highly poisonous. Rather like common table salt...which is made up of deadly sodium and chlorine.

Have any salt on your table at home?

Most of the health effects from workers dealing in this waste is from their attempts to burn off or out the various substances, which results in them breathing in concentrated toxic fumes. Beyond that, the health effects are essentially negigible.


By MadMan007 on 2/24/2010 12:43:59 AM , Rating: 2
Just like your 'CO2 is plant food, therefore it's good' line haha. You, sir, are truly an idiot.

But you didn't answer the wuestion - if it's so harmless, why aren't you asking for such plants in your back yard?


By MadMan007 on 2/24/2010 12:48:30 AM , Rating: 2
btw (no edit) I have a degree in biology so I'm well aware of chemistry, its subtleties, and the difference in effect of different elements, compounds, and naturally occuring minerals. You are seriously wasting your time if you're trying to convince anyone but yourself that toxic compounds are not toxic...but maybe you like to because you've snuggled up with the organic mercury compound bottle one too many times, or used your lead goblet a little too often.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/24/2010 2:17:10 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah the Chinese know all about toxins. After all most of the products they export seem to be loaded with them.


By mechwarrior1989 on 2/24/2010 2:24:26 AM , Rating: 2
You're right! It was in the news once and so it clearly applies to everything! How many products in your house are made in China? How many of those have been recalled due to high concentrations of toxic chemicals?


By Reclaimer77 on 2/24/2010 2:26:47 AM , Rating: 2
Once ??


By porkpie on 2/24/2010 7:53:22 AM , Rating: 2
"I have a degree in biology..."

Ah, the Appeal to Authority fallacy rears its smelly little head.

Here's a hint for you. Nearly everything is toxic in a large enough dose. As Paracelsus himself says: "All things are poison and nothing is without poison" .. the dose determines the poison. The belief that a infinitesimally small dose of lead or mercury from a manmade source is risky-- but a much larger dose from a natural source is not, is right up there with belief in ESP and ghosts.

There is countless research contradicting your superstitious belief that natural minerals are somehow safer. Here's one such study, which found that, contrary to environmentalist outcry, the high levels of lead in local drinking water were due to NATURAL sources, rather than human:
quote:
Moreover, the isotopic composition of dissolved lead was equivalent to the isotopic composition of total lead in turbid samples collected from the same well, suggesting that the majority of the lead detected in the groundwater samples was associated with sediment particulates of indigenous aquifer material, rather than lead associated with spilled leaded gasoline.

The results of this investigation indicate that (1) lead detected at some gasoline-release sites may be derived from the local aquifer material, rather than the gasoline release


http://geea.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstra...

Now, care to try that one again?


By MadMan007 on 2/24/2010 9:21:16 AM , Rating: 2
Wow. The contradictions in this post are hilarious. Let's see, first I said I had a degree in biology because it means An appeal to authority is only fallacious if that's the whole basis of the argument. But countless studies have shown that the compounds in e-waste are harmful as well so I'm not relying on 'my authority' alone. But then you appeal to the authority of a report..hmm..

Then you say I have a 'superstitious belief that natural minerals are somehow safer' and yet I never said any such thing. But then you go on to quote one environmental study and cherry pick a quote to support the position that naturally occuring Pb is ok? If that was your purpose in linking it, I'm not even sure what your point is. ..hmm..

And I can read the abstract you linked, so I'll cherry pick some a quote too, I don't have access to the full article but it seems that you only chose one particular conclusion. This is the end of the abstract which draws the conclusions:

quote:
Lead isotopic compositions of the sulphides from the sulphidic schists and coexisting Fe-oxides and Fe-sulphates produced by weathering and alteration overlap, but the secondary minerals extend toward more radiogenic values that broadly indicate the addition of Pb from anthropogenic origin. As a component of Pb from extensively used arsenical pesticides may also be present in the secondary minerals, the range in Pb isotope values is consistent with multiple sources: natural Pb from the schists and anthropogenic Pb (industrial and possibly from agricultural activities). Contributions from past mining activities or from other bedrock sources are not implicated.


(See there, I didn't leave out the last line just to 'prove my point.') So the study clearly concluded that there were some anthropogenic sources, just not past mining activites. Wtf was your point then in even linking it?

Now, have you ever even done something as simple as read Wikipedia about say, mercury? Even elemental mercury is poisonous, you can't 'drink it because it's harmless,' organic compounds of mercury are even worse because they are more easily absorbed by the body. Stating medical practices from the 1800s doesn't mean much. The stubborn idiocy you've displayed here for the sake of your e-ego is quite shocking.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to try again though. I think what you should try however is not making yourself look foolish by saying things like 'you can drink elemental mercury with no harmful effects.'


By porkpie on 2/24/2010 3:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
" But countless studies have shown that the compounds in e-waste are harmful as well "

Show one then. And no, a study that says "lead is dangerous" doesn't count. Show a study that says "lead is harmful". But a study that shows it's harmful in anywhere NEAR the concentrations one would get from living near a pile of used cell phones.

Until then, you're just a Luddite painted-face Witch Doctor scaring up the tribesman with your superstitious chanting.


By porkpie on 2/24/2010 11:00:44 PM , Rating: 2
Still waiting for that proof, Madman.

...and waiting.

...and waiting.


By MadMan007 on 2/24/2010 9:40:19 AM , Rating: 2
btw you might want to read this before trying to imply that fallacious (in your opinion) arguments make the conclusion wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy

Calling 'fallacious argument' as a way to dismiss the conclusion when the conclusion is correct is in itself a fallacious argument ;)


By porkpie on 2/24/2010 7:40:21 AM , Rating: 2
"Just like your 'CO2 is plant food, therefore it's good' line haha. You, sir, are truly an idiot."

Translation "I can't debate you Porkpie, so I'll just insult you instead".

"if it's so harmless, why aren't you asking for such plants in your back yard?"

Don't be obtuse. A trash heap in my backyard doesn't have health risks, but its still unsightly and lowers property values.


By Masospaghetti on 2/24/2010 8:40:17 AM , Rating: 2
correct me if im wrong...but while you might be right about being able to drink mercury (and therefore its not toxic), the mercury commonly found in old electronics IS hazardous because it contains the toxic mercury compounds. So the fact that you can drink pure mercury is irrelevant.


By porkpie on 2/24/2010 8:56:34 AM , Rating: 2
Mercury compounds are not used in electronics. Flourescent bulbs have small amounts of mercury...but only in vapour form, not compound. It can potentially *form* compounds...but so can natural sources of mercury.


By The0ne on 2/24/2010 10:22:16 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly, where do you stand on this issue? On one hand you're talking about e-waste NOT being a big deal and then now you're commenting about toxins and the like. At least be consistent like Reclaimer77 with his hatred of China with little to no experience or expertise except for some light Google reading.

There are several reasons for US, of which I know of, to ship old or out-dated parts to China.

1. Tooling that you don't want lose and have to spend money making new tools.

2. China can and will use parts from what we give them and resell them

3. To save and sometimes even make money from off-loading crap.

For the first, I'll use the Coke company. In China, can soft drinks are sold just like you would expect to see here in the US. However, one of the major differences is that these cans in China have the old fashion pull tab. You pull the tab off and discard it. Now imagine the millions of people doing this and the billions of tabs that could be on the ground.

Yes, it's great they shipped the tool there to get production going quickly but where's the update to the tooling? How is China dealing with the problem? As of now, absolutely nothing. Small piece this tab is, but with millions using it, it piles up quickly.

And for those that DON'T actually know, China is doing something. China custom is very strict and difficult to go through. I deal with them on a weekly basis having to ship parts back and forth. Having said that, however, customs is still made up of people and most people there are, like Jason Mick have said, have a personal gain to look out for.

I hate to admit it but our CM had actually bribed the workers in customs to be able to receive one of our shipments, without our authorization. They did this to appeal to us, make us happy...sigh. Fortunately, this isn't going to happen again as I am trying to abide by their custom rules.

So it may appear that China isn't doing anything but in fact they are, to some extent. Whether the system works or not really comes down to how well they managed and follow their own rules. In this case, prosecute those that take bribes.


By The0ne on 2/24/2010 11:41:49 AM , Rating: 2
I stand corrected as of 5 minutes ago. Apparently, to save a few bucks my Boss now wants us, me in general, to ship parts back by faking serial numbers, labels and the like to pass customs. He even had the nerve to ask me what I would like to do even after I told him to do it legally and properly. It's like asking me for my opinion and not even bothering to pay attention. And god forbid we should do it legally *roll eyes*

Here's a prime example, for you in particular Reclaimer77, of why it is partly our fault. And yes, my consideration of new employment has been under way. I'll say it again, why the fck would anyone want to work for a company that tries to screw people over and possibly get them killed (i.g. my previous aerospace company). Bad times no doubt but I'm not going to sacrifice myself for a company that has no interest in doing things right.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/24/2010 1:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
WOW..

SO I "hate" China and I'm a pedophile ? This thread gets better and better...


By Lerianis on 2/24/2010 3:02:20 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse me? There are plenty of tech recycling companies over here in the United States.... the problem is not that it is too expensive to do it over here, nor that there is too much regulation.... the problem is that the idiots have been gulled into thinking that making things in America is 'too expensive'.... it only APPEARS to be too expensive because China is STILL UNDERVALUING IT'S CURRENCY!


Well then China needs to step up.
By UncleRufus on 2/23/2010 11:09:32 AM , Rating: 3
Honestly, I feel like it's more a case of a company in the U.S. saying "I have a bunch of e-waste...who will take it for x amount of money?", and there are Chinese and Indian folks who are knocking each other down to say "Yes, yes, give us all that crap for x amount of money, please."

It may be detrimental to folks in China, but honestly, China needs to put laws in place regulating such things.

If there was a company in the U.S. that was importing all sorts of toxic waste and not handling it properly, I feel certain that they would be swarmed with lawsuits.

I'm not arguing that these folks in China should continue to improperly dispose of e-waste, but I certainly am arguing that it is not our government's right or responsibility to prevent them from doing so, anymore than it is our government's responsibility to regulate foreign prostitution.

It is China's government...China's PEOPLE...that need to get organized and fight these things.




RE: Well then China needs to step up.
By bottomline on 2/23/2010 12:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
thats our trash you dont sent it to your neighbors and let it pile up.Eventually it will start to stink and cause you health problems and it will affect you the neighbor.

We should be taking care of our own trash as china/india/whoever should be taking care of thiers.Everyone should have the correct facilities to do so.


RE: Well then China needs to step up.
By porkpie on 2/23/2010 12:51:49 PM , Rating: 4
Let's look at the process here.

a) China makes a cell phone, and makes money by selling it to us.

b) China makes more money by our paying them to return the cellphone (and its valuable resources inside) to them.

It's clear SOMEONE is being exploited here...but its not China.


By ClownPuncher on 2/23/2010 4:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
But but what about the children? Who cares that most of those "dangerous" chemicals and heaps of tech waste originated in that country in the first place?

I would rather focus on my gut reaction from seeing some poor child sitting in a pile of tech waste att he top of the article. America is the evil*.

*add eyeroll here


Sounds noble
By tastyratz on 2/23/2010 9:17:57 AM , Rating: 2
But the people shipping e-waste overseas aren't doing it for nobility, they are doing it for greed. The reality is this notion will be bypassed for the almighty dollar/yen/euro. A few companies will adopt the new cleaner e-waste facility to tout on their press releases but it will overall be statistically insignificant.




RE: Sounds noble
By porkpie on 2/23/2010 1:13:05 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have a job? Why do you go to work everyday? For "greed"? For "the almighty dollar"?

Hypocrite.


RE: Sounds noble
By tastyratz on 2/23/2010 11:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
Having a job to survive isn't greed, making money at the EXPENSE of others suffering is an example. I would be a hypocrit if maybe I was a part time seal clubber or union rapist.


RE: Sounds noble
By porkpie on 2/24/2010 7:37:55 AM , Rating: 2
Is a person who works at a 7-ll making money at the expense of others? The tobacco and alchohol he sells are far more damaging to human health than this e-Waste is to the average Chinese...and I won't even get into the aspects of selling lottery tickets or 32 ounce sugary drinks.

What about a Nascar official, who presides over a sport that regularly kills and injures its participants? Or a NFL official? Is it there "greed" to "make money at the expense of others suffering"?

What about the HR employee who hires firefighters and police officers, KNOWING a percentage of them are going to get killed? Oh my god, the horror! Their greed is making others suffer!

Selling someone a load of trash isn't making them suffer, certainly not when all they need to do is handle it properly to not incur any health risk at all.


How much you want to bet...
By JDHack42 on 2/23/2010 8:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
What if it's Chinese/Indian companies operating in America to ship our e-waste back to their own countires?




RE: How much you want to bet...
By faecium on 2/23/2010 11:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine US economy crashes, (not a difficult exercise right?) some of your more individualist citizens decide for their very own profit/supervivence to import e-crap for a few coins despite the consequenses to everyone else and even to generations ahead.

peace love empathy


the problem....
By swizeus on 2/24/2010 12:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
Proper handling requires lots of money and that's what US don't want to hand out.... Hey, they're capitalist after all...

Why don't we sell our junks, and accuse them of making global warming, How's that sound ?




RE: the problem....
By Lerianis on 2/24/2010 3:07:01 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the only thing that you 'need' to properly 'handle' this stuff is a biohazard suit with filtered air.... that's it!

And THAT only when you are melting the stuff to get back the metals used.


By Lerianis on 2/23/2010 4:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
No? Then STFU and get real here! China and India KNOW what they are getting into, as do the people who are doing the recycling. They have been told that their lives are in danger while recycling this stuff, and you know what most of them said?

"Better to have a little pay so I can have good life while alive, than not have job and have horrible very short life!"




Screw em
By overlandpark4me on 2/23/2010 5:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
Heck, what are the kids expected to play with if you take all of their toys away? I reminds me of my youth when I used cardboard boxes to entertain myself. Who needs a flashy plastic toy that will break. I'm betting that prop, oops little kid, feels lucky just to have something to play with.
Besides, shouldn't we be more worried with the people the Chinese government has vanishing in large numbers? I'd be more worried that the prop,(there I go again)oops, kid would stumble across a body during recess.




Main problem
By Burned on 2/23/2010 11:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
Both sides are to blame!
It's one thing in this world which causes all problems GREED




"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki