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.
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)
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.
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.
... 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.
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