Slashdot Mirror
Silicon Hell
ferlatte writes: "There's a great piece on the effects of the tech industry in Silicon Valley on the environment and their workers. Pretty scary stuff, and sort of unsettling to think about how many toxic substances went into that shiny new laptop. The story is available at http://www.sfbg.com/News/34/30/siliconhell.html." Maybe the industry needs to set up "PolluteE", a "watchdog" agency to make sure companies post their pollution policies prominently on their Web sites...Update: 05/04 11:08 by michael : A good link from the comments: the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition.
Be a tragedy of monumental proportions to see the industry that has pushed forward the boundaries of technology so far wind up costing people their lives.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
More seriously, any company with a good (anti)polution policy - including biproducts of the manufacturing process itself - typically shouts it from the rooftops. The trick is to get consumers to consider it in a purchase.
Check out http://www.svtc.org/ for detailed maps of all the toxic sites in Silicon Valley. Very scary.
I had a bit of a hard time with the article since it started right off saying that cleanroom workers wear "sterile suits." Of course they're not sterile... they're clean. Keeps dander and the like off of your shiny new Athlon.
There are some pretty scary chemicals used in the semiconductor manufacturing process, though. Take HF, for instance - it'll leach the calcium out of your bones. Through your skin. (This same substance is used in alloy wheel cleaner...). Some of the gases that go into the mix are morbidly called "two-step" gases - one whiff, take two steps, and you're dead.
Of course this is all taken pretty seriously. Worker safety is extremely important - organizations like Semi have very strict requirements on safety interlocks for the processing equipment, for example.
As far as environmental impact goes, I think it's becoming important as well. Applied Materials, the largest manufacturer of semiconductor processing equipment, has a "Green Initiative" which seeks to minimize environmental damage in the manufacturing process. Take for example this press release:
SANTA CLARA, Calif., October 7, 1997 -- Applied Materials, Inc., the leading supplier of CVD (chemical vapor deposition) systems to the worldwide semiconductor industry, has introduced a key technology innovation for its dielectric CVD products that provides the industry's first zero-consumables chamber cleaning process and virtually eliminates PFC (perfluorocompound) emissions.
"Applied Materials is very concerned about global warming gases used in the semiconductor industry and is voluntarily leading an effort, in cooperation with its customers, to find ways to eliminate their emission. Our Remote Plasma Clean technology not only provides a breakthrough in environmental safety by virtually eliminating global warming emissions from dielectric CVD systems...
So yeah, there's a lot of scary stuff, but I think the industry does make a real effort to keep it under control. The article was a bit shocking, though... I hadn't heard those stories...
---
I can't believe that these places were never inspected by the government for things like this... isn't there some agency in charge of this? and if there isn't, shouldn't there be?
Another thing that gets me is that none of the workers brought this subject up to the government... you'd think that some of them would get worried...
I know a good portion of you are anti-government-power, but this is one area where they should be allowed to regulate...
-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.
...especially with the short life span, but Wired ran a great story (available 2000.05.16) in the last issue about using Flywheels instead of lead-acid batteries. When can I get a Flywheel UPS?
This may or may not be relevant, but scorecard.org has info on who makes what pollution where. Additionally, it has contacts so you can email or send a fax to companies that are polluting your area. Check it out!
From the article:
The company's legally required material-safety data sheets warned of possible nausea and dizziness from the chemical-filled tubs over which he worked, Loanzan said, "but they didn't say anything about tumors. They never talked about the place being dangerous."
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't the material-safety data sheets HAVE to state it if the chemical is a known carcinogen? And seriously, is acetone all that carcinogenic? I used to wear nail polish, and I hate to think of how many tumors I caused myself while removing that stuff.
Here's another one:
One of the main ingredients in the cutting fluid, according to Hawes, has been linked in studies to brain cancer.
Hmm, what's this mystery ingredient? Anyone know? Who did the studies? Why is a lawyer being quoted on the subject of whether or not something causes cancer?
Now the concerns raised in the article may be quite valid, but the fearmongering crap makes it almost impossible to take seriously.
--Shoeboy
(former microserf)
Next week, how tax can kill your unborn child.
They will only very slowly make their way into the market. There was a company trying to make an electric car that used flywheels for storage, instead of dry cells. I don't think anything ever came of it.
Right now, there are companies working on using flywheels as UPS's, but only for very large-scale installations. For instance, currently telco central offices have massive racks of batteries as backup. These exist purely to power the telephone switches for the 30+ seconds that it takes to fire up the diesel generator in the case of a power outage.
When you are talking about replacing *rooms* of batteries with one, big flywheel, then it is economical -- and certainly more environmentally friendly. The economics of PC UPS's aren't there yet. These things may eventually wind up in being used in such small-scale systems, but I can't see it happening for a long time.
flywheels *are* kind of neat, though...
--Lenny
The article addresses this. Apparently they developed a material that would simply fracture a little, then the system would shut down. The only way they could get a dramatic catastrophic failure (with shrapnel an all) was to actually shoot the damn thing.
What's to prevent a tech firm from just outsourcing it's production to a country/state/area that doesn't require that law?
After studying the deaths of 15,000 slashdot readers between 1998 and 1999, they found that 1500 of them died from brain cancer, due to the radiation of the monitors they were sitting in front of. To this date, Slashdot has yet to submit their toxic output to the EPA.
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
I get the feeling this is more likely yellow journalism than a thoughtful analysis of the pros and cons...
My impression is that this article could be reduced to:
"An industrial accident at FooCorp. injured x workers and exposed many more to hazardous materials. Does this remind us of the old 'ends vs. means' question and the dangers of exploiting advanced technology? Yes. Do I, as yet another journalist re-hashing this question have an answer? No."
What frustrates me is that stories like this run not to raise awareness so much as to sell copy. It's FUD, pure and simple.
I guess the only difference here is that the "computer industry" allegedly claims to be "cleaner" and "safer" than other industries.
Sure, I guess. I mean, I've never really heard any of those claims, while I am aware of the hazmats and pollution attendant on high-tech manufacturing. So I'm unaware of any hypocrisy here--this feels more like FUD to me.
Every industry has demonstrated clear hazards to life and limb for those involved in it, and while people have often questioned the "goodness" of those industries, it's interesting to note that we continued to [mine coal|manufacture plastics|hunt whales|&c.] until the economic factors dictated otherwise--safety, both personal and environmental, has always been a secondary consideration.
This threat from the "computer is either a) a non-issue, relatively speaking, or b) suitable for serious discussion outside of random slow-news-day pseudo-editorials.
But then, I'm a cynical bastard with little or no moral conscience, so what do I know?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Sorry, dude, but the mortality rate is 100%, everybody dies from something eventually. Yeah, it takes nasty stuff to make computers, so do you want your computer or a pristine environment? You CANNOT have both. Do you want to freeze in the dark with clean air or do you want to stay warm and see your computer screen in a polluted atmosphere? You gotta choose. Sorry, but everything you do "pollutes" the earth, either actively (if you ever took a shit, you've polluted the environment) or passively (every time you turn on a light you create demand for evil electric generation). Ride a bike instead of driving a car? Like the metal frame didn't come from a mine somewhere, and the synthetic rubber tires sure came from some bad chemicals. Get over it, get on with your life. Earth First! - we'll strip-mine the other planets later...
>Clean rooms are "cleaner than hospital rooms," Oswalt said. "I'd rather live there than be on the street."
/. posters' denial of that idea; tough to reconcile while you use your $1500 computer to read the article, isn't it? Did you really think $1500 could buy any sort of environmental control and worker protection? Somebody had to pay for that stuff you're using, and it sure wasn't you.
What the hell kind of meaningless statement is that? Even for a corporate spokesthingy this is idiotic. Not that I wouldn't like to see it happen; kind of like the Chinese officials responsible for airline Y2K readiness (the sky is falling, indeed). Too bad that really was a chicken little story, but this isn't.
The whole consumer electronics industry (including and especially computers) has always rested on inexpensively poisoning people too poor to have a choice in the matter. It's amusing to watch the
-- Life is short. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly. ~ Robert Doisneau
I love the smell of free radicals in the morning... it smells like computing power!
BlackNova Traders
This article is nothing but innunendo with no substance written by someone who has a strong (and quite possibly correct) prebias. There are no data and some of the examples are laughable. Articles like this are good at spooking the public but are useless for information content. Their lead piece about nitric acid is a great example. Sure nitric acid is a hazardous chemical and if you mix it (carefully) with another hazardous chemical ammonia (one of those "two step gasses") what you get?
Ammonium Nitrate AKA fertilizer woooooo nasty!!!
I would have been interested in an article that focussed on halogenated hydrocarbons but anecdotal tumor stories are pathetic. Had they listed the percentage of tumor patients in IBM employees vs the general populace that might be useful.
If you haven't read this article I'd suggest you skip it.
no sig.
well, we wouldn't want there deaths to be in vain, now would we?
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
1) The manufacture of electronic components does certainly involve the use of large amounts of various solvents. Many of them are particularly nasty, (I've worked with toluene and methyl ethyl ketone, for instance, and they're no joke), and it is to be noted that chemists use fume hoods and gloves even when working with acetone. Of course, it's also worth noting that chemists have pretty bad work-related fatality and illness statistics. Anyway, the point is that the high-tech industry certainly uses large amounts of toxic chemicals, that much you can't really argue with.
2) It will inevitably be cheaper and quicker, at least in the short term, to deal with these chemicals in an irresponsible manner than it would be to deal with them responsably. Protective equipment is expensive.
From there you can do the math for yourself. I don't see how the conclusions in this article are unbelievable or even surprising. One would expect the electronics industry to have these kinds of problems, regardless of whether the specific claims of the article are true or backed up by statistics. What's really scary is that this will almost certainly get worse as the industry moves more and more into the third world.
I think this is an issue of which people in the tech industry need to be much more aware. Consumer awareness could put pressure on manufacturers to be more clean. At the very least, it's something to think about as we sit down in front of our computers.
This article does raise a few important questions, and makes you wonder about how the computer industry affects the enviroment. In an industry where the entire productlines change every year or so, how do you measure the enviromental impact these companies are having if the constantly upgrade their manufacturing equipment? How many of them fall in and out of EPA guidlines from one product cycle to another? And how do prove what chemicals gave someone cancer when they have worked there for 20 years and have been exposed to many different chemical mixes used only for a few years each?
... but I think the industry does make a real effort to keep it under control.
Not to pick on you, but... Press releases are carefully-crafted documents to show a company in the most positive light possible. Do not ever, ever take them as fact, without doing other research. Press releases are essentially advertising.
Maybe Applied Materials is doing something good, maybe not. A press release alone can't tell you.
Does everyone here know what "greenwashing" is? It's the PR practice of trying to make a company look pro-environment, and there's a LOT of money being spent on it. Greenwashing became widespread in the 90's, with the increase of public awareness of environmental issues. Many millions of dollars are spent each year on advertising that fosters pro-environmental images of companies, more money than is actually spent on pro-environmental activities by those same companies. Advertising conferences conduct sessions on greenwashing, and hire speakers who are experts at it. Corporations hire professional greenwashing consultants.
Be aware that greenwashing is all around you, and avoid being fooled by it. Watch for it yourself, the next time you see one of those disgusting "People Do" commercials for Chevron, which is one of the single most environmentally destructive corporations on the planet.
Some companies are pro-environment, some aren't. As with everything else, decide which is which only with care and research. Be leery of information that comes (even indirectly) from the company or person you're investigating.
'Nuff said. Typical journalistic FUD.
-- Life is short. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly. ~ Robert Doisneau
Nina's Adventures - "Ecollusion"
The average rate of cancer in males is 44.66% (I'm assuming that, at least historically, a significant majority of the workers were male). This would be about 12,000 of the 25,000 worker deaths IBM has on file. Compare this with the actual rate of cancer deaths (The file now shows that 8,000 of the 25,000 deaths were due to some form of cancer, Hawes said.) and it appears that working at IBM reduces the risk of cancer by 33%.
Yes, I shout at the TV when those ads are on. :-)
But you shouldn't be too cynical, either. Some companies really do make an effort. A bunch of semi companies here in Austin have signed up for "Green Choice" power from the electric co - paying about 4% extra which will buy power from wind farms, etc.
And although that press release from Applied Materials did look a bit cheesy, this one (yeah, another release... the EPA has a corroborating story here) points out that they got a Climate Protection Award from the EPA in 1999.... "This year's award recognizes only ten individuals and organizations worldwide that have made exemplary efforts and achievements to protect the global climate."
So yeah, be wary, but applaud those who ARE doing good things...
---
Huh? A code violation is a code violation - being big doesn't give you an excuse to make more of them. Rather, it makes you more responsible to avoid making them, because the effect is magnified when you do.
If it were "accidents" or even "fires" I'd agree with you, but that's not what we're talking about here. Violating some code occurs because the company chose to do things that way. It's not a question of scale, but of policy.
-- Life is short. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly. ~ Robert Doisneau
Part of the problem with flywheels is that if they come apart, they kill people... there's a sh*tload of energy stored up, and it's moving really really fast... one cool solution I've heard is to make it out of a tightly wound kevlar cord - then if it fails, it just turns into a ball of spaghetti instead of flying shrapnel in the mall parking lot. :-)
I read the article too The flywheels are made of wound carbon fiber so they won't just fly apart. They monitor for defects and have plenty of warning when defects begin to show up. Even in the case of a total failure they are confident of safety.
I don't know much about it other than what I read in the Wired article, but they certainly make it sound like a promising technology and quite safe.
numb
A problem with chemical safety is we only recently understood the risks. It was not so long ago that toulene and xylene were used as freely as rubbing alcohol. We now know better. One of my memories is the day that I finally convinced the people at a fab that acetone was actually dangerous. I spent a year trying to convince everyone that we needed fume hoods and carriers. When everyone had finally read and understood the MSDS, there was a push to get rid of all the acetone. This, of course, was an overreaction. I worked out some numbers to show which cases were safe and which weren't. The key was for everyone to understand how to safely use the chemical, and try to use it in an inherently safe way. We must remember that the accident in Japan was caused by worker confusion, supervisor pressure, and deprivation of needed resources.
My main desire is that companies take an extremely objective look at the safety issues, the alternatives, and not put business expediency above the objective conclusions.
BTW, a good book that talks about, among other things, the difficulty of matching medical cause and effect is A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Why do you read Slashdot if you only want to be exposed to your own point of view?
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
beacuse your an idiot and you didn't made the link realitive.
Should read:
Because you're an idiot and you didn't made the link absolute.
I seem to remember a previous thread on a similar subject on /. a few months ago. It's getting a bit like usenet these days... the same threads/subjects popping up.
Getting back on topic, I think it does go to show that no matter how much you research the products you buy, whether that's a pair of trainers or a computer, you can never be entirely sure that the company concerned doesn't have any skeletons in it's cupboard. Although that said, this particular article is a little bit patchy in places.
M.
Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there.
Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
Dihydrogen monoxide:
* is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
* contributes to the greenhouse effect.
* may cause severe burns.
* contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions!
Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the Midwest, and recently California. Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
* as an industrial solvent and coolant.
* in nuclear power plants.
* in the production of Styrofoam.
* as a fire retardant.
* in many forms of cruel animal research.
* in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
* as an additive in certain junk-foods and other food products.
Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal.
The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!
The Horror Must Be Stopped!
The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its importance to the economic health of this nation. In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.
It's Not Too Late!
Act *now* to prevent further contamination. Find out more about this dangerous chemical. What you don't know can hurt you and others throughout the world. Send e-mail to no_dhmo@circus.com or a SASE to:
Coalition to Ban DHMO
211 Pearl St.
Santa Cruz CA 95060
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
A report that shows infant mortality dropping by half in the vicinity of nuclear reactors after their shutdown has just been released. See the story here. Again, in light of the historical activities of corporations when it comes to safety & profits, this is not surprising.
Basically, companies in a capitalist system will always place profit ahead of worker's health. Go read your history books. The only way to prevent this and insure worker safety involves two things: goverment regulation and oversight, and worker organization. Coal mining, making steel, railroads, have all been through this before. Go look up the mortality rates for railroad workers in the early 1900's before they started striking en masse for reform.
Reform for worker's health will only come at the initiative of organized workers. Capitalism just plain doesn't give a shit because the capital-owning class doesn't put their bodies at risk. If you want a starting place for the history of this sort of thing, try Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States .
The "bunny suits" really are just to protect the electronics from the workers, not the other way around. They are typically made of very light material, like Tyveck, a cheap platicised paper product, or a bi-layer plastic film. Tri-cloroethylene, acetone, HF, HNO3 will all go through most of these materials in less than a second. Cloth suits offer no protection at all. A full facemask filter, a "gasmask", only offers a 50 to 100 times safety margin (if it fits and the person knows how to use it). For chemical exposure, that's nothing. A facemask might allow you a couple of minutes of exposure, rather than a second or two. Gasmasks are for escape, not for long-term use.
Level A spill response for a fab, the first-in people, calls for a full-body, sealed butyl-rubber suit (~1/4" thick) with a self-contained, overpressure air supply. The full suits with air give you a couple of hours in most environments. If there's radionuclear sources present, as there are in some fabs, all bets are off. In that case, you send in a robot. Alternatively, you cover the place with concrete and cross you fingers....
Workers generally vastly over-rate their protective equipment. Most employers provide the bare minimums (or less) and then these are usually only to be used for escape during an emergency, not (usually) for chronic exposure. Anybody in an environment that hasn't been trained and isn't properly paranoid about the chemicals they are using is a nutbar. Avoid them if you can. On the bright side, you usually don't have to plan retirement parties for these people either.
Some reference sites:
The US Govt. Hazmat site
and what should be every spill responder's bible:
The NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards
Kind Regards,
Kind Regards,
Bruce
Sure, companies are supposed to keep bulk chemicals in contolled-access inventories, and the good ones even do. The more usual case, however, is that there's always the back corner or that space under the stairs that nobody knows precicely who is responsible for and it's full of mysterious black barrels....
With regards to the acid accident, it sounds to me like the person poured water into a drum of anhydrous or conc. nitric. That will cause quite a nice explosion of hot acid, quite sufficient to injure someone. Water + acid is usually highly exothermic.
Nitric acid, in small doses, turn skin a sepia brown colour and makes it crinkly, like rough paper. In large volumes, it will indeed cause the blackening effect described in the article. When you were young, you were lucky enough to be playing with a fairly dilute mixture. Anything else and you would have hurt yourself. Concentrated oxidizing acids, sulphuric and nitric to name two common ones, really sting on exposed flesh.
Kind Regards,
Kind Regards,
Bruce
I read this article in dead tree form a few days ago after arriving in San Francisco for my new job.
I find myself wondering how much of this article is based on objective fact, and how much is based on biased editorialism and sloppy research.
In just a week of reading the local papers, I've noticed, in the editorial sections at least, a good deal of outright hostility towards computer geeks in general. But just by virtue of moveing here, I've , according to the Guardian, gone from being a slacker-punk-computer-geek to being a predatory yuppie scum.
Why, I don't know. I can only guess that the editors, and some of the writers/letters to the ed readers/writers have never matured past their assinine little high school we-hate-the-computer-nerds cliques. Either that, or they just have such a liberal bias (SF *IS* known as a VERY liberal area after all) that they hate anyone who might ever become sucessful in life... and let's face it, out profession is potentially very profitable. Oh well. At least most of the PEOPLE I've met so far (as opposed to journalists) haven't shown themselves to hate computer geeks.
I've gotten a little off-topic here, but I think it *IS* very important to remember the anti-geek bias in the Guardian when you're reading about them trashing geeks and the computer industry.
If you haven't had HASMAT training, you'd be quite suprised at how many substances, common in everyday life, are considered hazardous/toxoc/carginogenic/etc if used in the workplace.
*The bleach you use in your toilet or to clean your whites...
*The gasoline you use to fuel your car...
*The windex you clean your glass with...
Each and every one of these is considered a hazardous/toxic material by OSHA. And each one requires a MSDS to be on hand if used in the workplace.
And MSDS's are VERY conservative. If there's the slightest chance of an adverse effect at ANY concentration, you are warned about it. Chlorine, for instance, has a good half page or so dealing with it's irritant/toxic qualities at concentrations you'd find in a swimming pool!
I find it quite hard to beleive that tech workers were cast into toxic conditions completely ignorant of the risks and unable to take any precautions.
john
Imagine all the people...