Slashdot Mirror


A Shocking Amount of E-Waste Recycling Is a Complete Sham (vice.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Forty percent of all U.S. electronics recyclers testers included in [a study that used GPS trackers to follow e-waste over the course of two years] proved to be complete shams, with our e-waste getting shipped wholesale to landfills in Hong Kong, China, and developing nations in Africa and Asia. The most important thing to know about the e-waste recycling industry is that it is not free to recycle an old computer or an old CRT television. The value of the raw materials in the vast majority of old electronics is worth less than it costs to actually recycle them. While consumers rarely have to pay e-waste recycling companies to take their old electronics (costs are offset by local tax money or manufacturers fronting the bill as part of a legally mandated obligated recycling quota), companies, governments, and organizations do. Based on the results of a new study from industry watchdog Basel Action Network and MIT, industry documents obtained by Motherboard, and interviews with industry insiders, it's clear that the e-waste recycling industry is filled with sham operations profiting off of shipping toxic waste to developing nations. Here are the major findings of the study and of my interviews and reporting: Real, environmentally sustainable electronics recycling can be profitable only if recycling companies charge a fee to take on old machines; the sale of recycled materials rarely if ever covers the actual cost of recycling in the United States. Companies, governments, and other organizations have a requirement to recycle old machines; because there is little oversight or enforcement, a secondary industry of fake recyclers has popped up to undercut sustainable recyclers. These "recyclers," which advertise themselves as green and sustainable, get paid pennies per pound to take in old TVs, computers, printers, and monitors. Rather than recycle them domestically, the recycling companies sell them to junkyards in developing nations, either through middlemen or directly. These foreign junkyards hire low-wage employees to pick through the few valuable components of often toxic old machines. The toxic machines are then left in the scrapyards or dumped nearby. Using GPS trackers, industry watchdog Basel Action Network found that 40 percent of electronics recyclers it tested in the United States fall into this "scam recycling" category.

166 comments

  1. Electronic Waste Recycling Fee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see this on receipts in California for some electronics. Where is this going? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The retailers collecting this fee sure as hell have no collection dept for anything. Once in a while there's a notice in the mail for an electronic waste collection center one or two times per year.

    1. Re:Electronic Waste Recycling Fee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a scam.

    2. Re:Electronic Waste Recycling Fee... by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      Wait, we are paying more to stop the guilt of killing the planet. These taxes and fees are 100% being used to stop killing the planet.

      After all, that's what the laws were about - to stop killing the planet.

      Don't you trust the lobbiests and gubment to DO THE RIGHT THING?

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    3. Re:Electronic Waste Recycling Fee... by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      Kidding aside, There are three big screens I see daily left to rot in the yard. One is two houses down that has been sitting there for four years, one that is one house down that sat on the sidewalk for a month before being moved to the side of the house for 2 months, and one on the corner of the neighborhood that's been there for 8 months

      It's a fifty dollar fee to dispose of them locally. So they either rot in yards or end up in the local forest preserve.

      .

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    4. Re:Electronic Waste Recycling Fee... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 2

      Notice the "recyclers" are FREE MARKET BUSINESSES?
      Because we cannot have the state do the correct thing now, can we?
      So, more Capitalism, more scams, more frauds

      THE FREE MARKET AT WORK FOR YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN
      Oh, wait....

    5. Re: Electronic Waste Recycling Fee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it should work like soda cans instead. You pay a littele more when you buy, get the difference back when you turn it in for recycling. This could be done in multiple steps.

    6. Re: Electronic Waste Recycling Fee... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's actually been that way for years with refrigerators in many parts of Europe at least.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Electronic Waste Recycling Fee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, we are paying more to stop the guilt of killing the planet. These taxes and fees are 100% being used to stop killing the planet.

      Where do you think the subsidies for wind power comes from?

    8. Re:Electronic Waste Recycling Fee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bwahahaha, statists go home ,you're drunk. This is the gubermint at work. Taking your tax dollars and funneling them to their cronies.

    9. Re:Electronic Waste Recycling Fee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recycling can be done by free markets. You can't do it through disposal fees though - not when people can toss stuff off bridges for free. There is a well-tested system though: Fees are added to the price of new products instead. You get some of that back when you recycle the product, encouraging recycling over tossing stuff off bridges. The rest of the fee goes into the recycling effort itself.

      Some minimal government involvement is necessary. (Just like you need government to enact and enforce anti-pollution laws or anti-theft laws) but all the actual work can be done by private companies - if that is the ideology of the land. The government only need to provide inspectors, courts & prisons.

    10. Re:Electronic Waste Recycling Fee... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      To bad you don't understand that free market does not mean fraud is acceptable.

      A free market society also has to deal with fraud the same as a mercantile or socialist economy.

      So, rather than saying that a free market economy would do nothing about said problem why don't you see what they would do?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    11. Re: Electronic Waste Recycling Fee... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      It's actually been that way for years with [ all electrical waste ] in many parts of Europe at least.

      Anyone who sells any kind of electrical goods (TV, computer, fridge, phone) has to take away the old one if the customer asks. A small part of the purchase price pays for this.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    12. Re:Electronic Waste Recycling Fee... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a free market without big bad socialism ENFORCING rules.
      Capitalism unregulated is piracy

    13. Re: Electronic Waste Recycling Fee... by therealbev · · Score: 1

      In California you pay extra when you buy monitors, computers, etc. No idea where the money goes -- probably into the inflated pensions of retired state employees.

    14. Re:Electronic Waste Recycling Fee... by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      So none of you actually read the article and realized that you are part of the problem?

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    15. Re:Electronic Waste Recycling Fee... by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      Taxes .

      Fees on E-Waste go to places that , well, you did read the article right?

      Sorry, my bad, AC reading an article - not gonna happen . cowards are afraid of things like facts and truth.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  2. Throw it away and forget about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Now stop reminding me about it.

  3. Tell me... by Hylandr · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Where they found a battery with enough juice to power a GPS (Radio) device for the months required to cross the ocean, through the hull of a ship, and then have the GPS unit pass undetected through customs etc?

    I think it's more likely someone found the GPS unit, and sold it on Ebay, raising a false positive when it was powered up. Or, the entire article could be a sham to begin with.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    1. Re: Tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I reckon an alarm battery would do the job for months.
      But I agree, the GPS is going to be found. Even if the electronics are being repaired instead of junked. That includes looking at the whole thing, inside and out. Finding schematics to diagnose problems. A GPS isn't going to be on that. They'll see it as a security add-on and remove it and most likely throw it away as the person monitoring it is no longer the owner.

    2. Re:Tell me... by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You assume you need to power a GPS 24/7 to be able to track something. A tiny microcontroller can run for months on a battery, powering up the GPS maybe once a day, long enough to read the position before shutting it down again.

    3. Re: Tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can get some cheap GPS tracking units on eBay that have a battery that lasts close to a month, reporting position every 30 seconds.

      But that's nothing extraordinary. If you go for the expensive, professional stuff, you can get units that last close to a year on battery.

    4. Re:Tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There isn't any "customs etc" involved here. All of this shit is loaded onto enormous container ships and gets dumped in places like Guiyu, China. Nobody's inspecting that shit, it's all garbage, it lands at port at Haimen and gets trucked 10 miles inland to massive dumps where it's picked over by little kids who melt everything down looking for precious metals. Nobody is going to detect a GPS unit buried amongst 500 tons of busted up monitors and breadboards.

    5. Re:Tell me... by PurpleAlien · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Disclaimer: we build GPS trackers.

      You don't need a very big battery. You just power down for most of the time. Wake up once in a while (daily or even less). Try to get a connection. No connection? Probably at sea, so power down. Keep trying until you get a connection and update your location. You don't need to know the exact route - just the starting point and the end point (maybe a few extra once you are on land again). It really doesn't need a huge battery at all; the one they show in the picture even seem rather large for this.

      To give you an idea, we can send thousands of GPS locations over a cellular network with a tiny 1000mAh battery. We have some heavy duty batteries that can go up to 10 times that capacity to actively track assets for months on end at very frequent intervals. Putting a 10Ah battery like that and using infrequent updates can last for a year easily.

      --
      My blog, if you're interested: http://www.purp
    6. Re:Tell me... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      Where they found a battery with enough juice to power a GPS (Radio) device for the months required to cross the ocean

      Well, that took 5 seconds. The third result of a Google search for "long life GPS cellular tracking (http://digitalmatter.com/Devices/Remora) is a non-descript device which features a 5 year battery life with once-per-day tracking, which seems more than adequate for this. If you don't like that one, the results of that search are filled with others.

      through the hull of a ship

      The location while in transit across the ocean isn't relevant to this study, so the device doesn't have to transmit through the hull of the ship. It just has to be able to continue transmitting once it's been offloaded at the destination so that the destination can be identified.

      then have the GPS unit pass undetected through customs

      We're talking about containers stuffed with used and broken electronics being delivered to countries that accept them as garbage to be recycled, so that raises three questions:

      1) What the hell makes you think the destination countries have customs agents thoroughly inspecting tons upon tons of incoming garbage?

      2) How would these hypothetical garbage-inspecting customs agents identify one particular electronic device buried in a pile of other electronic devices as something unusual?

      3) Finally, assuming that there is some government that's willing to accept electronics waste (and all its hazardous components) for recycling, yet somehow still anal-retentive enough to inspect said electronics and wealthy enough to be able to pay for the metric ass load of customs agents it would take to inspect and identify everything in the shipment and determine that the GPS tracking was not broken and was active and somehow magically determine that it's being listened to, why would they care? Tracking shipments is a normal thing for that shipping companies do on a regular basis.

    7. Re:Tell me... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      You don't just need a GPS, you need a cellular radio, a SIM that works worldwide and the ability (or a strong enough receiver) to get both signals through whatever object they put them in. Given that most electronics have metal casings I find the idea that they pulled this off on the scale they claim to be quite suspect.

      As a result I'd be willing to bet that they sent out very few of these devices and "extrapolated" out the data they claim and a proper statistical review of their methods and sample size would likely indicate that their claimed result is laughably wrong. If I had to bet I would wager they sent out less than 20 of these devices and have less than that got data back and used that to claim the percentage when there are hundreds of recyclers in the US.

      The second part that bothers me is that similar claims to this were debunked in the past. There was a previous article claiming the US and Europe were shipping all their electronic waste to Africa when it actually turned out that only good working salable equipment was being shipped into Africa where it was re-purposed to be used productively and that the waste the article had photographed as an example was actually Africa's own electronic waste with none of Europe or the US.

    8. Re:Tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would take that bet

      https://hardware.slashdot.org/...

      I worked with similar devices a few years ago. The idea is you power on. Check for any coverage. None? Do not bother turning on the GPS. Set a HW wakeup clock for 2 days from now. Remember cell phones at one point lasted 1-3 weeks on 1 charge. Oh and it only needs to be on for 1-5 mins tops. If you are putting it into super backoff sleepmode? You probably could easily get a year out of the thing. Remember there is no screen and no more than a few k of memory and flash and an ultra low power ARM chip. Power leakage and physical damage would probably be your biggest enemy.

      Why is it not out of the realm of possibility that people are gaming the system? I have seem people lose their shit over a 5 cent mcdonalds toy. You think people working with thousands of dollars worth of materials wouldnt cheat? Also keep in mind where it is landing. It is landing in china. Those dudes are notorious in the materials delivery areas as cheaters both in commodity manipulation and delivery of poor quality. There is money involved. Of course there are cheaters.

      Also add to that copper, silver, aluminum, and steel prices have crashed out (nearly 30% less than 5 years ago, slightly upward trend this year). Go swing by your local recycler. They will give you an earful of how the market isnt like 'a few years ago'. Also several of those items? To recover them you basically have to chemically melt the part or super heat them. That is time consuming and not cheap. Best cpu per oz on gold prices? The early 80s intel gold label 8086. There are plenty of videos on youtube of people doing it. The chemistry guys laying out 'this is probably not worth doing I am just doing it to show you how it is done' with some showing their total costs. There are a few guys who do it in bulk and they usually have a decent pile of stuff and make very little money per pound. The second group almost never shows their ROI.

    9. Re:Tell me... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You don't just need a GPS, you need a cellular radio, a SIM that works worldwide and the ability (or a strong enough receiver) to get both signals through whatever object they put them in. Given that most electronics have metal casings I find the idea that they pulled this off on the scale they claim to be quite suspect.

      I see that you a) don't open electronics very often, and b) have no idea just how little power some of these devices use or how easy and cheap they are to make.

      What you're talking about fits in a tiny footprint, if it only updates every couple of hours can easily run for many months on a battery, and as for the metal casing, well let me just giggle a bit at the thought that electronics are still made that way.

    10. Re:Tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sell covert GPS trackers to law enforcement. Longest I've seem them lasting is 42 days with a 10,000 mAh battery with twice a day GPS reports.

    11. Re: Tell me... by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a great vector to send a biological weapon into a country, or maybe even a suitcase nuke.

    12. Re:Tell me... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Actually pretty much this is what happens in various applications already. Devices can remain powered down for times longer than the average AAA battery has shelf life, power up for a few seconds to find out whether they find a GSM net, transmit their data if they have any and power back down. The same can be done for GPS, there is no need to power that GPS system for longer than a few seconds, and if you want to be highly sophisticated about it, include an attitude sensor, compare its readings with the current attitude and not even bother to power up the GPS when you notice that you haven't moved since the last time you had power.

      Such a system can run for years.

      Unless of course it is found. But if found, and if found in a recycling plant, it would stop to transmit and not continue to transmit from a dump. Why? Because it would be recycled. Duh.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Tell me... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Now report once a week instead and you have a device that can last over a year.

      Power-down times for such devices is near infinite, what drains the battery is when those things have to do something.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry, you actual knowledge is false because random internet conspiracy guy says so. He had a whole 3 reasons he came up with in his head without any actual knowledge, so he must be right.

    15. Re:Tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There really should be a -1: hasn't thought this through mod.

    16. Re: Tell me... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Been known since the 1970's. All your international counter-terrorism stuff has covered it. It's even covered in the basic stuff they teach you at police colleges and has been since the 90's here in Canada along with domestic terrorism, there's something similar in larger police force colleges in the US. If anything the problem has gotten worse because there is simply so much traffic now. At the two busiest ports in Canada, we scan like 3% of containers using gamma ray radiography. I'd expect at ports in the US or China? Probably closer to 1%

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    17. Re:Tell me... by PurpleAlien · · Score: 2

      His covert devices suck. We do twice a day updates on a 2000mAh battery for months at a time...

      --
      My blog, if you're interested: http://www.purp
    18. Re:Tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Powering a device for months/years is easy if it sleeps most of the time. It is not necessary to work through a ship hull - the signal will be received once the cargo is unloaded. And customs? What customs sift through a large freighter declared to be full of broken electronic devices? They might give it a quick look-over for dope or weapons. A handful of gps units are merely more electronic boxes among the thousands of other electronic boxes.

    19. Re:Tell me... by ninthbit · · Score: 1

      You're making some bad assumptions here. You don't even need a power hungry GPS. Just a cellular radio or wifi radio on a microcontroller.... Hell an ESP8266 for $2 can do this easily. It just needs to wake, log any APs to an SD card, then shutdown. If it sees an open network, it could upload its contents to a server. Google has already mapped the world and knows where these APs are at. The same for cell towers. A typical 18650 lithium cell would be the largest part of the setup and run it for months if not a year.

      Yes, you'll have trackers that never find an open network and don't report in, but at $2-$5 a pop, you could send hundreds or thousands of them out into the e-waste.

    20. Re:Tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      massive dumps where it's picked over by little kids who melt everything down looking for precious metals

      Serious question, if the Chinese don't give a fuck about that little kid, why should I? There are almost a billion little kids in China and most of them are disposable. Seems like a good job to have them melt old electronic shit down. When they curl up and die, you just get another one. None of them would have ever amounted to anything more than another mouth to feed anyway.

    21. Re: Tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel free to read the methods (pp 89-91) They cover your concerns and explain how they pulled it off. Pretty well thought out. So, unless they are lying, the systems are not being used, the GPS was not separated from the device, and all of the tracking systems lasted 9 months to a year.

    22. Re:Tell me... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      There are almost a billion little kids in China and most of them are disposable.

      Either your definition of little kid is a bit broken, or you massively exaggerated the number of little kids in China. China has 1.3 billion people, so saying they have a billion children doesn't make much sense at all.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  4. Recycling fee by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

    I don't know about elsewhere, but in California when you buy any sort of large electronics (TV, computer, monitor, etc.) there's a recycling fee added as a line item on the receipt to cover recycling the device when it's discarded. Recyclers in California should be getting paid for every device they take with money that's already been collected for that purpose. Maybe that recycling fee needs to be increased and applied nation-wide, with payment going only to those recyclers who actually recycle the equipment and can prove it.

    1. Re:Recycling fee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nice, but unless that 'recycling fee' is pretty large, it doesn't cover the cost of recycling the item. Ultimately, that's the problem with ALL recycling, not just e-waste. The amount of work required makes recycling expensive and it's impossible to do it profitably because the material being recycled have so little value.

    2. Re:Recycling fee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, a mysterious fee that seems to disappear with no accountability is something that should be applied nationwide.

      Way to think that one through.

    3. Re:Recycling fee by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Though what you say is true about some materials, there are a large number of materials that can be recycled very easily. My municipality doesn't take those things that aren't economical to recycle but they will take any metal, plastics 1 & 2, cardboard and paper. All of these are very easily recycled, and the value of the material often covers the recycling. Plastic 1 (PET) is very easily recycled into numerous products. Paper products are so valuable these days due to the shortage of lumber for processing into paper that companies can get paid good money for their paper and cardboard (most grocery stores won't give out boxes anymore because of this). Metals are quite valuable, particularly aluminum, copper and steel but even alloys like magnesium and such are easily recycled and the recyclers usually pay per pound for them. Glass used to be included in that list but plastic has replaced most bottles these days and glass has almost no value anymore with very few products outside alcohol using it anymore.

    4. Re:Recycling fee by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You seem to be missing the bit where they are committing fraud and not recycling anything just dumping in overseas in third world countries. Paying them more with tax payer dollars will not change anything except their profit margin. Just typical capitalist corporations, being typical capitalist corporations. Think an honest one will save you, nope, so dishonest psychopaths just pays more that it is worth, fires most employees, ends the recycling and starts dumping the stuff in third world countries. How about tendering it, nope, you can bet the lowest tender will cheat because that is how they become the lowest tender. You want rubbish handled properly, seriously, only the government can do it, corporations will always cheat in the end.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:Recycling fee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount of work required makes recycling expensive and it's impossible to do it profitably because the material being recycled have so little value.

      There should not have to be a [monetary] profit in recycling. Everyone should do it and advocate for it. By everyone, I do not mean only individuals, but also businesses and governments. Even if it is implemented forcefully at first, it should eventually become the de facto method of waste disposal, as it already is in several countries.

      It is shocking to me how backwards and inefficient the US is at recycling.

    6. Re:Recycling fee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bottles haven't been an major consumer of glass for a long time. Industrial use of glass took off about a hundred years ago. These days recycled glass is a major building material used in just about everything from roads to skyscrapers.

    7. Re:Recycling fee by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Yes, glass is used industrially. But it is used because the recyclers pay you to take it away. So, if you need filler, glass it is!

    8. Re:Recycling fee by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Recycling is handled by waste disposal people. On the US East coast, at least, waste disposal is handled by organized crime... is anyone shocked that they lie about their recycling activities when those lies mean profit?

    9. Re: Recycling fee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is saying: "we love to make our country a garbage pile". Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe the rest of the world can send its garbage to the US?

    10. Re:Recycling fee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose we could introduce regulations....

      But you're right. Regulations are just more big government, and government can't do anything right. We'll just need to resign ourselves to the tragedy of the commons.

    11. Re:Recycling fee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not the ones tacking on the fee, nimrod statist.

  5. not complete sham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, it did not save the environment, but at least made you feel like you cared.

    1. Re:not complete sham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And that, unfortunately, is the inconvenient truth about recycling. It's seems like a good idea, and we've been taught for our entire lives not to be wasteful, and we don't want to hurt the environment, so obviously recycling must be a really good thing. Right? Well, the problem is the old saying 'the devil is in the details'. When you look closely, very closely, at recycling, it's not such a great idea.

      The recycling process itself produces a lot of pollutants. In Washington state, the top air polluters are all recycling centers. And at least one of them has been fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for repeatedly violating air pollution standards.

      Paper recycling generates a sludge that is sent to a landfill where it can leach dozens of toxic chemicals and heavy metals into groundwater. If you think that there would be regulations against that, you’d be right. But there’s one loophole: mixing anything else with the paper sludge, even just sand, turns it from waste into a product. And there are no regulations against tossing tens of thousands of tons of your product into a landfill.

      Most plastics can't be recycled. There are about seven types of plastic that you’ll find in day to day life, and only two of them are recyclable. Anything else placed in a recycling bin will be collected, processed, and sorted, and then thrown straight into a landfill. Even trying to recycle some things—for example the plastic that electronics are packaged in—wastes all those resources.

      But it gets worse: Plastic is automatically sorted at recycling plants, but the process is far from perfect. As a result some plastics can slip through even when they’re not supposed to, and you might end up with chemicals like BPA in plastics that aren’t supposed to have it.

      Most small scale motor oil recycling centers use something known as the acid-clay process. This gets impurities out of the oil, but leaves you with a toxic sludge containing all of those impurities, plus dangerous chemicals like hydrochloric acid. So what do they do with that toxic waste? They burn it, sending chemicals like nitric oxide and sulfur dioxide into the air. And that’s pretty much the official, EPA approved method.

      Glass is made from sand, the most abundant resource on the planet. The process for recycling glass is more detrimental than the process for creating virgin glass.

      But the biggest flaw in recycling doesn’t have anything to do with the technical process—it’s the mindset it gives people. The idea is that by putting materials in the recycle bin, by buying products made from recycled material, we’re saving the environment—we’re all a team of individual Captain Planets, kicking pollution to the curb. But how effective is that when the US alone still produces 250 million tons of trash every year?

      Recycling’s main impact is to convince us that it’s okay to be wasteful because we make up for it through recycling. It encourages consumption, rather than focusing on ways to reduce overall consumption and generate less trash to begin with.

    2. Re:not complete sham by FrankHaynes · · Score: 1

      Sadly, this inconvenient truth won't be seen by many because you posted as an A.C.

      Consume less, waste less.

      --
      slashdot: A failed experiment.
    3. Re:not complete sham by Bongo · · Score: 1

      Humans can be awful yet also very trusting of what our community tells us, ie. we accept the mantra to recycle without asking how that actually works. So many problems would change if we realised how much of it is down to groupthink. Buddhists are always complaining that we are too individualistic, yet it seems we need to become more individualistic, more free thinking, because that's smarter, and as people become smarter, they tend to also become less selfish.

    4. Re:not complete sham by TheSouthernDandy · · Score: 2

      Would love some references to these assertions.

    5. Re:not complete sham by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      "Glass is made from sand, the most abundant resource on the planet."

      This isn't quite true. Not all "sand" is equal, and not all of it is suitable for glass production (I'd suggest very little of it is) at least using current inexpensive processes.

      The stuff that goes on the road in the winter isn't the same as the stuff that goes into making bottles. Probably a factor of how large the grains are (i.e. fine)

      That said, I have no idea if the recycling process is more or less detrimental than the creation of new. However I do know that not all glass is recycled into other glass products. I know there have been experiments done to mix it in with asphalt for example for road repair. Might also be used in concrete mix, not sure.

  6. Re:Good grief! by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

    We apologise for the faults in the summary. Those responsible have been sacked.

  7. only one solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if you require them to charge a fee, it is always going to be cheaper to ship it overseas to a landfill than recycle it properly, and the monetary incentive means there will always be someone breaking the law. The only solution is proper enforcement.

    1. Re:only one solution by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Or socialization. Government-run (or at least funded) recycling centers subjected to public oversight, funded by cost-appropriate recycling fees charged at purchase.

      Either way, you're right, proper enforcement is key. But it becomes far more difficult once the chain of responsibility leads outside the country and our laws and enforcing agencies no longer have any power.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  8. Need to stop exporting recycling goods by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously, the ONLY way to solve this, is for us to stop allowing ANY garbage to be exported. Then capitalism will find solutions rather quickly. Most importantly, it will help bring back manufacturing since we will then have resources that need to be used, and can not be exported.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by sexconker · · Score: 1

      It's not garbage it's used goods!

    2. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Better to just dump it in California. Screw 'em

    3. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Seriously, the ONLY way to solve this, is for us to stop allowing ANY garbage to be exported.

      That sounds like a HORRIBLE idea. Nobody in this country wants to keep using my old Pentium 4, which is why I threw it out. But in 3rd world countries, for free, that's a hell of a useful item. I know all those older WiMax cell phones are considered trash in the US, but other countries still have WiMax networks, so why disallow exports to where they can keep being used?

      Export of used vehicles to 3rd world countries seems to work wonderfully... They're repaired by low-cost local labor, modified to local standards if needed, and sold to locals at dirt-cheap prices. , Or else scrapped and used for parts when those other vehicles need them. Why can't that work for electronics, too, with just a little bit of regulation and oversight?

      Then capitalism will find solutions rather quickly.

      Sounds to me like capitalism already found its solution...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but we don't throw that crap away. I'm sure I'm not the only one that could rummage through the house and come up with 10 cell phones, 7 MP3 players, 10 computers and get all but a couple up and running.

    5. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The old mantra "crime doesn't pay" is false. For any ethical activity you can imagine there is an unethical way which realizes more profit.
      Since the only goal is "more profit" then everything descends into unethical behavior, and we all put the blinders on because we're paying marginally less for it.

      There's always someone willing to take less.

    6. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, the ONLY way to solve this, is for us to stop allowing ANY garbage to be exported. Then capitalism will find solutions rather quickly.

      Exporting it is capitalism's "solution". If that becomes illegal, what makes you think they will suddenly switch to a nice solution, instead of, say, filling up the areas next to national parks, because the land is cheap, or other not-so-nice solutions that are the lowest possible expense?

      Anything that's important to other than the capitalist is a decision that should not be made by the capitalist.

    7. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like capitalism already found its solution...

      yeah, and people are always super surprised when their health care isn't primo. Turns out profit motive doesn't cure you. it keeps you on a slow drop of expensive drugs.

    8. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "capitalism" you mean "organized crime" then I'd say you're spot on.

    9. Re: Need to stop exporting recycling goods by BlytheBowman · · Score: 2

      Better to just dump it in Philadelphia. Screw 'em

    10. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      uh no. Very little that is shipped is working. And when it gets to 3rd world nations, they are looking at the waste for 1 thing: How can they smelt it back to elements.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    11. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Oh, e-waste, along with paper, glass, and metal will QUICKLY accumulate. Will some of it be thrown into a pit? Oh yeah.
      BUT, I think that capitalism will find quick uses for these. For example, plastic and paper can and should be burned for energy. It will produce CO2, but, this is going to other nations and then being used in the same way.
      Glass and Metals will be recycled again and new uses will be found.
      e-waste can be disassembled via robotics and then parted.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    12. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Very little that is shipped is working. And when it gets to 3rd world nations, they are looking at the waste for 1 thing: How can they smelt it back to elements.

      You pulled that directly out of your ass. It's not true.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    13. Re: Need to stop exporting recycling goods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, capitolisms response to this will be to create giant mounds of stuff and call them "ecofills" there will probably be many patent s granted.

    14. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Curious that you wave a capitalist flag but then insist as a precondition on a strongly-anti-capitalist ban on exports.

      --
      -Styopa
    15. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      there is absolutely NOTHING anti-capitalist by putting in regulations that says that we will not pollute the world. Capitalism is not a license to pollute and destroy our living areas.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    16. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by khallow · · Score: 1

      Seriously, the ONLY way to solve this, is for us to stop allowing ANY garbage to be exported.

      No, we can instead choose not to have mandatory recycling programs for stuff that isn't worth recycling. And continue to export our trash to regions of the world that want it.

      The key issue here is that there isn't actually a problem that needs solving any more than it already is solved.

      Most importantly, it will help bring back manufacturing since we will then have resources that need to be used, and can not be exported.

      That's a fantasy. The economic reasons why it's not recycled now will still hold.

    17. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      actually, I did not pull that from my ass. I have since 1967 been a recycler until 3 years ago. At that time, I spent some time looking into the industry (I was laid up with health issues). I found out that WM who said that they recycled local, does not. They send it all to China.
      Likewise, I have had to get old parts to make some computers work, so I went to the local e-recycler. If it worked, they re-sold it and made money locally. If not, they broke it apart and sent the board with gold or silver to be shredded and then sent to china for smelting. It was shredded because it was less space (most cargo ships are volume constrained, not weight).

      So, no, the ONLY one pulling out of their ass, is you.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    18. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I found out that WM who said that they recycled local, does not. They send it all to China.

      Nothing you've said support- your previous claims at all. You're still completely fabricating what you imagine happens on the other end.

      The reality, meanwhile is that entire industries are built around salvaging working equipment out of the e-waste stream.

      Godson, one of the e-waste dealers who have set up shop close to the port, shows the contents of the container he has bought.

      He sorts through them looking for working electronics that can be sold. He says that maybe 50 percent of the shipment is junk and the rest he will be able to salvage in some way.

      Hard drives that can be salvaged are displayed at open-air markets.
      The drives are purchased for the equivalent of US$35.
      http://www.pbs.org/frontlinewo...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    19. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Arbitrarily constraining things IS utterly anticapitalist.
      Setting a surcharge on things that more accurately reflects the tragedy of the commons (ie, if you ship electronics overseas, and we know that the prices charged for disposal there are not reflective of the long-term environmental damage) would be the capitalist response, not just a ban by fiat.

      Then capitalists can choose their solution based on economic priorities, and meanwhile accurately price their goods to consumers to bear that additional fair disposal costs.

      You need to read a little Bastiat.

      --
      -Styopa
    20. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then capitalism will find solutions rather quickly

      "Capitalism's" solutions for problems like these have, in the past, boiled down to this formula: 1) Get law passed that exempts this sort of waste from EPA protections, 2) Buy a huge chunk of land with government subsidies, 3) dump garbage on said land. 4) Deposit check in bank.

      There is no way out of this, WindBourne. Suck it up.

    21. Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You Think??

      I think we should stop allowing ANY garbage to be IMPORTED.
      Goodbye Chinese Manufacturing :)

      Seriously, the ONLY way to solve this, is for us to stop allowing ANY garbage to be exported. Then capitalism will find solutions rather quickly. Most importantly, it will help bring back manufacturing since we will then have resources that need to be used, and can not be exported.

  9. "Analog stuff" pollute 1000x less. by grumpy-cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I always debated this with people that think that everything must be digital because "dead-tree stuff is bad and will kill our planet (tm)". Come on! First trees are renewable and I prefer having papers and books in a landfield than laptop, cell, TV, batteries, ... Don't get me wrong. I work in IT for 21 years and I love it, but the problem is that people change their e-stuffs almost every year because their e-stuffs became obsolete, slow like hell because the latest OS updates (I'm talking to you Apple and Microsoft), ...

    PS: Sorry for my English quality.

    --
    Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
    1. Re:"Analog stuff" pollute 1000x less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also slow because the registry and wasteful log files all get so big it takes the OS forever to sort through it all. For many, it's easier and more obvious to just buy a new electronic than to back up, wipe, then reinstall everything, and their equipment was old and dirty anyway.

    2. Re:"Analog stuff" pollute 1000x less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's limited to smartphones, tablets and other "Status Symbol of the Year" e-stuffs you mention. Before Apple made their e-stuff to have a yearly iteration, it was very rare the company that did. More than half the iPhone 6 owners that I know are salivating about the iPhone 7, when their last year phone works perfectly. But that's about it.

    3. Re:"Analog stuff" pollute 1000x less. by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      How do you feel about electronic paper?

    4. Re:"Analog stuff" pollute 1000x less. by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      And I'm salivating over their old iPhone 6's! At 1/3 the original price or less. Win/win

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    5. Re:"Analog stuff" pollute 1000x less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      look up "touch disease" and stop salivating

  10. Re:Good grief! by lgw · · Score: 2

    The editors were replaced with dancing llamas a looong time ago (and not at great expense, either).

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  11. RepRap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And just in case you're not sure, take apart all the printers and scanners you can get your hands on. Salvage the stepper motors and the smooth rods, including the rods used to hold rubber rollers. They may not all be 8mm rods but lots of different 3D printers can use anything from 6 to 12mm rods, you just have to modify them a bit. And nothing prevents you from using bigger, heavier NEMA 23 steppers for the Z-axis and Y-axis. For a bowden printer you could also use one for the extruder.

  12. eBay / Local by darkain · · Score: 1

    I much prefer the eBay / local company route (like Re:PC). Instead of just scrapping old hardware, it is serviced into other older machines to keep them running.

    an example I bring up all the time is the HP 2100 LaserJet printers from the late '90s. These things still work GREAT. They have 3 DIMM slots though, so I've salvaged extra RAM for them from eBay over the years. Who the hell else wants old 16MiB DIMMs anyways? So someone puts them up on eBay, and I buy them. They get a little extra side cash, and the printers I service get a little extra push in performance for larger modern documents. \

    a kid wants to get into tech and start learning computer? sure, I'll just hit up the eBay or Re:PC again and get an old HP Core 2 Duo workstation for about $100. now they can have something to learn to install windows/linux on over and over again.

    1. Re:eBay / Local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "now they can have something to learn to install windows/linux on over and over again."
      Or they could spend their time playing Angry Birds.

      I know what I'd rather do.

    2. Re:eBay / Local by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You should move up to the 2300. They are cheap now. I mean, I just saw one at the local Salvation Army last-chance-before-landfill store. I would have picked it up, but I already have one.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:eBay / Local by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Anymore most of the electronic equipment I buy is used. I got a used 802.3at poe splitter a couple weeks ago on ebay for $20 had to make my own power adapter for but I still saved $20

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    4. Re:eBay / Local by xlsior · · Score: 1

      I much prefer the eBay / local company route (like Re:PC). Instead of just scrapping old hardware, it is serviced into other older machines to keep them running.

      And for every HP 2100 that you save, a thousand others just chucked away a shoddily built three year old inkjet printer that's not worth fixing or even buying new ink for when it runs out. There are millions of pounds of e-Waste that *noone* wants. An old CRT monitor will cost you a hundred times more to mail to someone that that anyone will be willing to pay for it, just to name something.

  13. Propaganda against used computers by Blaskowicz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is true that computer garbage is worthless crap, except when you re-use parts (or whole items). In some countries, people repair even dumb phones.
    Basel is a mouthpiece for the recycling industries, they're paid to make high profile stories once in a while. The industries want for all US garbage to be destroyed in the US. This would expand their business, that's all. They want to make it illegal that your dead laptop's LCD panel ends up in some African kid's laptop.

    1. Re:Propaganda against used computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They want to make it illegal that your dead laptop's LCD panel ends up in some African kid's laptop.

      That's like saying that being shot in the chest isn't necessarily a bad thing, because if you make it to the hospital and survive surgery the doctor may find an unrelated health problem that may have been otherwise missed. So you see, a gunshot wound might save your life!

      Notwithstanding a few mostly anecdotal and theoretical upsides, this junk mostly acts as toxic waste. There are more efficient and less polluting ways to deliver a laptop to that African kid, other than hoping that someone finds the parts while crawling through a mountain of trash.

    2. Re:Propaganda against used computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is true that computer garbage is worthless crap, except when you re-use parts (or whole items). In some countries, people repair even dumb phones. Basel is a mouthpiece for the recycling industries, they're paid to make high profile stories once in a while. The industries want for all US garbage to be destroyed in the US. This would expand their business, that's all. They want to make it illegal that your dead laptop's LCD panel ends up in some African kid's laptop.

      Yes, let's keep the status quo and ship an entire computer for the LCD panel to prevent US corporations from making money while recycling responsibly.

    3. Re:Propaganda against used computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is true that computer garbage is worthless crap, except when you re-use parts (or whole items). In some countries, people repair even dumb phones.
      Basel is a mouthpiece for the recycling industries, they're paid to make high profile stories once in a while. The industries want for all US garbage to be destroyed in the US. This would expand their business, that's all. They want to make it illegal that your dead laptop's LCD panel ends up in some African kid's laptop.

      Hm. Not sure I buy the above. It actually reads mostly as the opposite to what it is presented as. Are you perhaps the real industry shill here?

    4. Re:Propaganda against used computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re-use becomes less of a possibility as time goes on. VLSI means we're rolling more and more components into the same single piece of silicon.

      When your whole system is on a chip the possibility of repairing even one part of it is nil. Any single failure is a complete failure. Any new feature requires a complete rebuild of the whole chip. The garbage tips will be overflowing with this silicon.

    5. Re:Propaganda against used computers by houghi · · Score: 1

      In some countries people work for pennies and that makes it possible to work on dumb phones.
      If the price for repairing is higher than the price of a new one, it becomes stupid to repair (fun, but nit financially interesting)

      The export of waste to poor countries is exporting problems, not solutions. It is literally dumping waste on others.

      And no, that African kid will NOT get a PC or the LED screen. It will get the fumes and the pollution of working in the chemicals of breaking up those PCs.

      This is something people learn in kindergarten, or at least they should learn it there. You make a mess, you clean it up.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  14. Re:Good grief! by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Funny

    Because there is little oversight or enforcement, a secondary industry of fake editors has popped up to undercut sustainable editing. These "editors," which advertise themselves as green and sustainable, get paid pennies per post about old TVs, computers, printers, and monitors. Rather than edit them domestically, the editing companies sell them to editors in developing nations, either through middlemen or directly. These foreign editors hire low-wage employees to pick through the few valuable components of often toxic old stories.

  15. Don't blame 'capitalism' by Bruce66423 · · Score: 2

    It's all about who pays for what how. The fact that it is far easier to chuck the broken kit and buy new than get the upgrade / repair is a result of the incredible efficiency of mass production. If you want to avoid waste, you have to make the waste worth something - a standard trick in the Chemical industry, but one not associated with electronics because of the speed of change - or make visibly recycling electronics a mandatory requirement, to be paid for by a visible tax on electronic items. Which is the problem; the price of virtue is too high...

    1. Re:Don't blame 'capitalism' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is the problem; the price of virtue is too high...

      That's not the problem. The problem is the externalization of costs for things like handling waste and the fact that people are too stupid and/or addicted to new/shiny to care that they are going to drown in their own excrement some day.

    2. Re:Don't blame 'capitalism' by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      The reason for saying that we need to prevent the export of our garbage, is that it will quickly cause various ppl and businesses to look for opportunities. Capitalism IS to blame for sending it out. But, If we keep it in our nation and it builds up slightly, then capitalism will quickly solve this issue.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Don't blame 'capitalism' by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

      Good reply. The problem is that even if a resource is free, it doesn't mean that a use for it can be created, otherwise no garbage would have to go to landfill. However this article is a reminder that there is an 'industry' of making corrupt money out of inadequately enforced legislation.

    4. Re:Don't blame 'capitalism' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Externality,

      Capitalist jargon for "not my problem."

    5. Re:Don't blame 'capitalism' by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      in fact, that legislation will NEVER be enforced. It is a joke. Basically, once something is allowed to leave here, we really have no say in what happens. It is for that very reason that we must not allow it to be exported.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  16. Carbon credits... by galabar · · Score: 2

    At least my carbon credits are on the up and up.

  17. There's Too Much Graft Involved by Pauldow · · Score: 1

    Politicians like this scheme because there's graft involved. They can get contributions from the companies that participate in this.
    The so-called environmental politicians would prefer to see something scrapped than for someone to get some use out of used electronics.

    I'm typing this right now on a HP laptop that was thrown out. It had HP's infamous lead free solder ball grid array problem. Taking the motherboard out, putting it in a toaster over at 350 for 10 minutes, and then blowing a heat gun on the graphics chip until it reached 200 deg C. got it reattached. I had the same problem with a HP printer.
    Every LCD TV in my house has been something that I repaired. I don't strip out the boards from TVs I can't use the make a buck on eBay. I give the extra TVs I fix to friends and to non-profit organizations. But that's really against the law here.

    The best thing I got was a Jura coffee maker. It just needed a valve replaced at $28 shipped from Germany. New ones sell for $1400, and used ones are at least $300. (Not that I would pay that much for a coffee maker.)

  18. Here's a thought by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    How about making electronics stuff that, you know, lasts? And that can be economically repaired? Why don't we, as a culture, forego the latest bit of shiny in favour of, I dunno, 4-or-5-year-old devices that still do what they're needed to do, even if they're slightly slower, slightly bigger or smaller, and a bit lower in resolution? And while we're at it, let's make it fucking illegal to sell products whose batteries can't be easily and readily replaced by the user.

    The three R's of conservation are, in descending order of preference, Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. We should make the first one the highest priority, followed closely by the second. If we're relying heavily on the third to save our asses from environmental destruction and material depletion, we've already failed. If we're tossing items into landfill when they contain precious metals and non-renewable petroleum products, (not to mention all the energy that went into making those items, from raw material to finished products), then we're committing a crime against the Earth and its future inhabitants. But hey, it's all good, because voodoo economics has almost totally removed environmental damage and resource depletion as cost factors in production, and my, those bonuses are going to be really sweet this year.

    We've made a god of the giant Ponzi scheme we call the economy, and we're scared shitless of even acknowledging to ourselves, (much less pointing out to each other), that not only does this emperor have no clothes, he's on fucking life support, and we're mortgaging our descendants' lives to keep him going.

    My apologies for the mixed metaphors.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:Here's a thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'm doing my part. All of my computers (desktop and laptop) are refurbished Lenovo machines. I like these as they are made to be easily repaired (yes, even the laptops!), and repair manuals (called Hardware Maintenance Manuals or HMMs) are readily available as PDF files downloadable on the Internet. Parts are available too. These machines are made to last, and to be easily repairable. When I have replaced these with newer/faster machines, I have passed on the older ones to others who will use them.

      I really dislike the "replace it every year with the newest shiny toy" mentality that I see far too often. Its especially bad with the cell phones!

    2. Re:Here's a thought by Euler · · Score: 1

      Thank You! Reduce, Reuse, Recycle - in that order. Is that even taught anymore? I don't even think most people could explain what "reduce" is.

    3. Re:Here's a thought by FrankHaynes · · Score: 1

      In the PC arena, however, developers tell us that we should pitch those awful, terrible, useless 32-bit machines that are sitting around everywhere. They won't write software for that ancient, antiquated, useless junk; they only write shiny new 64-bit software now so those old 32-bit machines are stuck in the past. Pity.

      --
      slashdot: A failed experiment.
    4. Re:Here's a thought by PingSpike · · Score: 1

      The Athlon 64 was introduced in 2003. And you can still buy 32 bit Windows at least. I have as much disdain for new not-better crap that's pumped out as a lot of people, but the move to 64bit has been much slower than I thought. I'd say most applications are still made 32-bit unless they have a real good reason to go 64-bit.

  19. Link to FBI director's salary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems to me that finding these kinds of things should be the job of the FBI. I propose a new law that states that any time a major corruption scandal is uncovered by citizens ahead of the FBI, that the director of the FBI (and possibly others) get a paycut for the next fiscal year.

  20. I don't know if it is high enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We pay a fee at the time of purchase in Canada. Have to do it then. If it was at the time of disposal, people would throw it in a ditch.

    1. Re:I don't know if it is high enough by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Is it a fee or a deposit, i.e. you get a refund when you return the item? Because if it's a sunk cost what's to stop you chucking it in a ditch anyway (other than not wanting to be an asshool)?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:I don't know if it is high enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not refundable. It is a fee for the expected cost of recycling the product at the end of life. EU does something similar, where producers are required to recycle electronics.

    3. Re:I don't know if it is high enough by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Old TVs grow fucking legs and walk back to the factory, do they?

      It's pointless, because there's no incentive for the *user* to actually return it to anywhere rather than dumping it.

      Belgium has this "recupel" shit but sometimes you can't walk down the road due to dumped TVs & fridges, for exactly the point you completely missed above. It's a tax, no more, no less.

      This is like totally fucking *obvious* if you think for like 30 seconds.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  21. "E-Waste Recycling Is a Sham" is a Sham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The electronics aren't being dumped in Africa, they're being sold second-hand in Africa. Used Western/Japanese/Korean brands are more valuable than new Chinese brands.

  22. Money making scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I realized 10 years ago that ALL recycling is just a money making scam.

  23. Why landfills? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not chuck these minerals back into Nature's hotpot? aka volcanos...

    In 10,000 years we'll have new gold seams to send child labour into to exploit!

    Simple.

    1. Re: Why landfills? by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1
      In 10,000 years our robot overlords will have new gold seams to send human labour into to exploit!

      ftfy

  24. TOXIC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe if it leaches into your ground water but with the amount of computer your average slashdotter has had his hands in, this website would have a much smaller user base.

  25. It's cute how Naive you are by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I mean, you're right about capitalism finding solutions. We'll dump it in the south (where our poor disenfranchised live) or in Flint, Mi. It's just more convenient to send it over seas. You don't have to listen to 60 minutes do an expose and you don't have to bother folding the corps you set up to give yourself plausible deniability.

    What we are absolutely _not_ going to do is properly dispose of it. There's always an underclass you can shit on. If all else fails there are 5 little words that end any discussions about it: Whose. Gonna. Pay. For. It.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's cute how Naive you are by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      well, the interesting thing is that for china to send their junk to the west, requires that these ships go back FULL. Right now, they are paid good money to take garbage and some is recycled while others is not. What is interesting is that waste accounts for more than 1/2 of what we send back to China.
      If we keep the waste here, it will NOT be landfilled. Why? Because regs prevent it. IOW, burning for energy, combined with recycling, are the only options other than sending it overseas. And once export stops, it will mean that we will have low cost material here that will be use for manufacturing.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  26. Solution: EOMA68 standard will let you re-purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EOMA68 is a computing card standard where the computer is literally in the shape of a physical card that can then be plugged into different types of housing. The benefit of this is if you upgrade your CPU/ram/computer in your laptop you don't have to replace the main components like the LCD screen, keyboard, touchpad, battery, etc. And after you upgrade the main component by ejecting the card and inserting the new one (at a fraction of the cost of replacing the whole computer) you can re-utilized the older computer card in a different type of devices such as a tablet housing, router housing, or similar. Or you can sell it on eBay. There are even use case for hosting providers to provide real cheap cost effective lower power full computers instead of virtual machines. The benefits to that are great- improved security- security you control, etc.

  27. Couldn't we do both? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Strip the useful components and send them over seas without the extra heavy metals that are ending up in some kid in Africa (or Flint, Mi's) water supply? Of course, that raises the one question nobody in America ever likes to answer: Who's gonna pay for it?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  28. Re:Good grief! by beanpoppa · · Score: 1

    I beg to differ

  29. DoRD by edittard · · Score: 1

    The value of the raw materials in the vast majority of old electronics is worth less than it costs to actually recycle them.

    Wrong!

    "The value of the raw materials in the vast majority of old electronics is less than it costs to actually recycle them."

    or

    "The raw materials in the vast majority of old electronics are worth less than it costs to actually recycle them."

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  30. Re:Good grief! by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And the transition was so seamless that barely anyone noticed it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  31. jerks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By mandating the use of politically correct solder in place of lead solder, governments have replaced electronic equipment that lasted decades with new equipment that lasts months or a few years at most, thus multiplying the amount of waste and the need for (fraudulent) recycling.

    1. Re:jerks by ledow · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I can't remember the last time a solder joint failed on me. To be honest, I can't remember the last time a board failed on me. What I get nowadays is physical breakage (screens, hinges, plastics, etc.) on much less sophisticated parts, and the much MORE sophisticated parts break nowhere near as often as the boards in my TV's that I had back in the "renting-a-TV" days.

      I honestly can't remember how old my TV is. Or my DVD player. Or my router. Or any of the PCs in my house. They are all at least three-four years old and still going, and I have items that are older than that. And anything in the last decade or so must have been RoHS and lead-free solder.

      I even do hobbyist electronics, it works just fine, thanks.

      And nowadays you can't throw lead from PCBs into landfill which then leaks into the watertable and poisons everyone.

      It's nice to see you have a hobby, but does it have to be spreading rubbish about something because it wasn't like that when you grew up inhaling lead fumes? I suppose you want lead-based paint back because "paint hasn't been the same since the 50's" too?

    2. Re:jerks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember RRoD or YLoD?
      Same thing also happens in smaller quantities with GPUs.
      Google 'reflow repair method' for more details.

    3. Re:jerks by ledow · · Score: 1

      Attributed to:

      "use of the wrong type of lead-free solder"

      Not "lead-free solder" but using some cheap junk instead.

      Lead-free solder, in and of itself, isn't the problem. It's people using cheap junk. Same way you could haved used pound-shop leaded solder and got the same problem.

      Or capacitors with stolen-formula electrolyte that failed over time taking out millions of devices (Google "Capacitor Plague"). Nothing to do with "using capacitors". Everything to do with using cheap junk instead.

  32. All recycling costs should be born by manufacturer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Similar to Germany's car industry, all manufacturing producing physical waste (and potentially recyclable) should have the reclamation/recycling cost covered by the manufacturer. That means the full cost of the item from build to final teardown and recycling is incorporated into the cost of the item... this also incentivises the manufacturer to think about the products full lifecycle and design in better reuse and recycling into the product, including such things are reducing number and types of plastics, metals and other materials and clearly labeling them all as well as making the product easier (cheaper) to disassemble.

  33. Need to stop them, its our trash! by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    OMG! Thirld world countries took all our good jobs, now they are stealing our trash!

    I'm sure President Trump will know how to solve this with a wall or something....

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  34. Classic How is this News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People pump out documentaries on this stuff just as frequently as we ship our junk out to other countries. Has it not been common wisdom to flat out assume your old waste is being shipped out to China, India, etc. for people to pick through?

    It's pretty much the reason that we have it beaten into our heads to manually remove, destroy, and dispose of our hard drives before recycling our e waste, no?

    If anything, the real story would be that the practice is less prevalent than the media has exaggerated it to occur for the past decade and a half, rather than how "shocking" the amount exported is. In all honesty, 40% is a pretty shockingly low figure to me given all the campaigns I've seen through much of my life.

  35. Re:Good grief! by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    Who edited and proof-read this summary? Oh, wait, nevermind...

    Proof-read? Who even read it? It is a wall of text.. Just insert some new-lines for crist sake.

  36. Surprised? by ledow · · Score: 1

    Been telling people (on here even) this for years.

    Some companies do do it properly. A lot just ship off to China to someone who signs a form to SAY they are compliant when they are quite obviously not.

    There are documentaries galore where they GPS-tag junk and it ends up in landfill.

    There's no way to make things profitable that aren't, unless you break laws, cut corners or don't do what you say you will.

    In previous years, I shipped 100 old dead CRT's to a WEEE-authorised disposal firm. Some guy came round and picked them up for nothing. He charged me nothing. He loaded them on a van, supplied the official WEEE disposal forms all filled out, and then drove off.

    Before he left, I asked him what he does with it all. He drives them to London Heathrow (I work in London). Some guy gives him 1GBP per monitor. They load them into containers, sign HIS official forms and then put them on planes. The 1GBP pays the van guy's fuel cost. Anything else (e.g. copper cables, salvageable hardware) pays his wages. He used to LOVE me because I gave him a box of old power leads each time. That was "his profit" as he would say.

    Why on EARTH would you pay 1GBP for an old CRT? Why would you then pay to ship it out at cargo-rates to ANY country via a plane, effectively multiply the cost by ten times or more? What do you think you're going to make at the other end to make that profitable?

    I always suspected they are paid subsidies to dispose of it. They give the guy 1GBP of that. They ship it out to landfill and pay some company out in the middle of nowhere with lax laws to sign their forms and bury it. The guy in the van pretty much suspects the same, but doesn't care.

    There's almost no salvageable material. The hazardous waste more than cancels out any profit from it even if there is. Then shipping, handling, etc. costs a fortune. Where is that money coming FROM? Who's paying, say, 1000GBP for the useful metal out of 100 CRT's? It's all a fraud to hide people landfilling waste but because "the paper says so", it's hushed up.

    Then include things like toasters that cost 5GBP to buy, so have a pittance of salvageable metal or wire, and who the hell is profiting from broken toasters?

    The guy in China who's just burying them, signing a form in a language he doesn't understand and which isn't legally binding on him in his country, who just loads it on a truck to the local tip while some idiot country pays him a fortune to do what they could do themselves.

  37. Re:Solution: EOMA68 standard will let you re-purpo by ledow · · Score: 1

    Great.

    Tell me when every computer chassis is like that, every laptop chassis, and I can pick up the upgrade boards in PC World (not that I would, but there you go).

    Until then, it's nothing more than "yet-another-standard"

  38. Re:Good grief! by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 3, Informative

    They could have just copied from the last time this same story was posted back in May... or this one on the same topic from April of last year... or maybe this same story from December of the year before (2013)... or the Australian version from 2010... the UK version from 2014?... Or maybe from this one in 2009... or this other story in 2010?... or this other version in 2008... or a charitable version in 2010.

    I knew I'd seen this "story" somewhere before, but at that point, I admit I got bored and stopped looking for more.

    If this is still considered news, or newsworthy... well, let's just say it takes the concept of repeated stories on the same topic to a new level...

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  39. GPS trackers for planes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't we attach some of those 2-year GPS trackers to planes, such as MH-370?

  40. Why your "donated" computer is probably worthless by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Nobody in this country wants to keep using my old Pentium 4, which is why I threw it out. But in 3rd world countries, for free, that's a hell of a useful item.

    You are making the potentially (likely) faulty presumption that it is economically worthwhile to send it there or that crappy, beat up, second hand electronics would have substantial utility there. In all likelihood by the time you refurbish the gear, ship it halfway around the world, and by some miracle hope that there is someone on the other end with an economic interest in doing something with the gear, the "lucky" recipients would probably be better served by getting something new for similar amounts of money that actually fits their needs which you probably know nothing about.

    I know all those older WiMax cell phones are considered trash in the US, but other countries still have WiMax networks, so why disallow exports to where they can keep being used?

    If they have that sort of network chances are 100% they already have equipment available to use it. The probably do not need your beat up old second hand equipment. After all there IS a reason you are getting rid of it. I've been to more than a few "third world" countries over the years and most people here have a hugely mistaken idea about what life there is actually like. Geeks hear a few anecdotes about clever cases of re-purposing old gear and falsely extrapolate that this is something that can be economically repeated on a large scale. Reality is that your old gear is in most cases not terribly useful, requires substantial expensive labor to set up into something useful, is expensive to transport, has no one at the other end of the line with an economic interest in doing something with it, and wasn't asked for by the people you are trying to help.

    Export of used vehicles to 3rd world countries seems to work wonderfully...

    Used vehicles work wonderfully domestically too because the economic model for them makes sense. Basically if you cannot economically sell/donate used equipment here with all our advanced infrastructure and distribution channels and technological expertise, what makes you think it is going to make economic sense to send a device halfway around the world to a place with limited infrastructure, limited distribution and limited IT manpower? You're just hoping that there will be someone on the other end of that chain that somehow miraculously will find a use for your old equipment so you don't feel guilty about getting rid of it. I respect the impulse to not want to waste something with residual value but I don't think you are really thinking the economics of this through properly.

  41. Re:Why your "donated" computer is probably worthle by evilviper · · Score: 1

    If they have that sort of network chances are 100% they already have equipment available to use it. The probably do not need your beat up old second hand equipment. After all there IS a reason you are getting rid of it.

    The reason people are getting rid of their WiMax equipment, is because the network is being shutdown here. How does that translate to other countries that still have active networks? Your logic there... needs some work.

    I'm sure they "have equipment". Just as they have cars to drive on their roads. Does that mean they're full-up and don't want any more? Do you really think nobody would buy working used equipment for pennies?

    I've been to more than a few "third world" countries over the years and most people here have a hugely mistaken idea about what life there is actually like.

    More often, people with a trivial amount of experience mistakenly think their own personal anecdotes are actually significant. There's a LOT of 3rd world country out there, I'm sure you haven't been to much of it. I've seen the shops where they salvage working systems out of scrap and sell them to locals, precisely because new equipment is orders of magnitude more expensive.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  42. Simply put, the Economics of Recycling. . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

    . . . . just isn't there for most ***CONSUMER*** materials. other than Aluminum cans. Or to quote Penn and Teller:

    Recycling is. . . bullshit

    Now, for metals, on an industrial level, recycling can make sense, steel also makes particular sense, in sufficient quantity.

    For consumer recycling, things are hard to recycle ON PURPOSE. Just like they're impossible to repair: giving the consumer no option than to go out and buy a new one.

    I'm showing my age, but I can still remember when there were vacuum tube testers in most hardware stores: you'd pull a tube you suspected was bad, test it, and if it WAS bad, you'd buy a replacement from the rack built underneath the tube tester.

    The entire consumer industrial base is designed around obsolescence and replacement, rather than repair and/or upgrade. . .

  43. So fuck it then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I just destroy the hdd and dump my computers in the ocean. And Mercury, too.

  44. Wait Wait Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the summary, it's not profitable to recycle e-waste.

    But, profiteering companies are able to profit by shipping the e-waste overseas, where it is recycled by someone else?

    The whole thing doesn't really add up. The story, very much, seems to have an underlying agenda.

    I can tell you, by way of my own anecdote, that there are no government incentives for recyclers in my area. Yet, there are a couple or three e-recyclers(some come and go) in my area that I frequent. They're always very busy separating out various components and materials and shredding the rest into "gravel" piles of metal, plastic and whatever. They take e-waste fro free and even shred my hard drives for me while I watch.

    That at least one of them has survived for years suggests that they are making some form of meager profit, without government assistance. I see them as no different than the numerous scrap metal companies collecting (even paying) for scrap metal.

  45. Re:All recycling costs should be born by manufactu by PingSpike · · Score: 1

    I think that is generally a good idea. Although America has the most innovative slimy corporations in the entire world, its really what we do best. It should be a simple matter of creating a shell company, moving the extra revenue set aside for recycling away from it and then spinning it off so it can fail to alleviate the problem of actually paying for your own mess.

  46. Re:Good grief! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

    That's cos there's no transmission of smell in the browser. With all that fluff, a dancing llama builds up a really stinky sweat dead quick, particularly given that they mostly dance to upbeat Latin American rhythms.

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  47. Re:Good grief! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

    Smells like teen spelling....

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  48. Re:Good grief! by skids · · Score: 1

    While there are dupes a lot of those stories are actually different stories on the same subject.

    It is important for consumers of recycling services to be informed of this (It would be more useful to
    have a list of bona-fide recyclers) and not everyone reads every article in the feed, so it's not
    a huge deal to have periodic reminders on the subject -- though, the actual dupes we could do well
    without. In other words if we all just pointed a problem out once when it is first discovered and then
    never mentioned it again, a lot less people would know about it.

    Reminds me I have a cellar full of old PCBs to eventually figure out who to dispose it with.

  49. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, the recycled stuff is sent overseas. So? If those people can find value in it, good for them. They are exposed to toxics? Not our fault. Instead, lean on their govts to regulate the industry to limit exposure. BTW, you don't think US recycling workers are exposed to toxics? Hahahaha.

  50. Counterfeit Electronic Parts by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1
    Export of e-waste is a major source of counterfeit parts. Counterfeit operations in Asia identify parts in the market that are of value, then scavenge parts of similar appearance from e-waste, wash them to make them appear as unused, put new markings on them, then sell them as NOS or new. They have been found in the supply chain of critical electronics such as aerospace and medical electronics and have cost industries a lot of money. From this article:

    Counterfeits can come from trashed or recycled products as well as inexpensive products that are spiffed up and made to look like the new, higher-end products on the market.

    More and more counterfeit parts are showing up in consumer, automotive, industrial, and any other industry that relies on electronic components. Federal law has been passed to confront the problem at the supplier end, but only for the military industry.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  51. Alternative to trashing CRTs by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    The push to "recycle" old CRTs by sending them to places that claim to properly dispose of them is probably misguided to begin with. There's a mentality that CRT = ancient, worthless technology. But until 2006 or so, these were still being manufactured and sold in stores. The dropoff in sales was sharp and sudden, once LCD and plasma technologies took hold.

    The fact is, you still see a number of motel chains using CRT TVs in the rooms. And why not? They're perfect for that purpose! Being heavier/bulkier and known as of "no value", it prevents theft, while still serving their intended purpose just fine.

    And the concerns that they contain toxic substances are overblown too. By the time the personal computer was invented, the front glass of CRTs stopped using lead and replaced it with barium. Monochrome CRTs don't even contain enough lead, period, to fail an EPA test for it. The *rear* glass of a color CRT is still often leaded glass, but that lead won't ever leak out of intact glass. You'd have to crush it up to release the lead that's vitrified into the glass itself.

    Instead of spending money to tear these things apart, I think it'd make more economic sense to hang onto the working ones and to refurbish the defective ones using parts from broken ones. Especially as time passes, there will surely be some renewed interest and fascination in the technology. (Maybe even collectors and enthusiasts wanting to buy one to watch at home, just like we saw the resurgence in popularity of vinyl records?)

  52. Re: Good grief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean people actually believe that waste is taken care of environmentally??? Those are the people who don't care and don't listen to facts anyways.

  53. ..what happens when they don't ship it overseas by xiando · · Score: 1

    I live in a small town in a typical modern fascist dictatorship with an illusion of freedom in the northern of the fascist union (EU). The local newspapers announced that a new Recycling Plant(TM) would be opening in our little town. This was apparently huge local news because start-up that employed more than five people.

    The news articles detailed how this Recycling Plant(TM) would Recycle old mobile phones and computer equipment.

    The CEO explained: There are small amounts of gold and other metals in all electronics. We will burn the electronics we receive up to slightly above the melting points for the metals we are interested in (primarily gold?) and harvest them.

    I still wonder how the word "recycle" could possibly apply.

    Here are some figures to consider: 1000 kilograms of cell phones can yield around 280 grams of gold, around 140 grams of platinum and palladium, and 140 kilograms of copper. That means that there is a lot of "stuff" that's just burned and not recycled.

    The local "recycling" plant didn't make it. They lasted less than a year before going under.

  54. Recycle Sham by aurizon · · Score: 1

    E-waste is not landfilled in China. They salvage all the metals by molten salt immersive extraction. The copper and aluminium are too valuable to throw away.

    Just read a few of these. https://www.google.ca/search?q...

    1. Re:Recycle Sham by aurizon · · Score: 1

      and other recycling methods, parts and motors are often hand removed first

  55. ore processing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet ores that are far less rich cost less? How do mining companies do it?

  56. Money is fungible (doh!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever READ the budget of a state? Thought not. Nobody does, not even the lawmakers.

    Every state, and particularly California, places all sorts of "fees" on all sorts of stuff they can easily convice a slight majority to tolerate as a "good thing" (recycling fees, fees on "premium" services which it is asserted are mostly for the rich, etc). The dirty little secret that no Republicans or Democrats want you to think about is this: There's only on type of money and only one budget. All state taxes and fees, no matter how they were justified, flow into that state's single state budget and become part of one huge pile of money where nobody can tell which dollars came from which source. Each state then has a budget which chops up that pile of money and allocates it to various spending programs. Each annual budget is a LAW, which can contain "fine print" clauses that override any other laws on the details. No matter how much the voters are told otherwise, there is nothing that forces state lawmakers to actually spend that money anywhere other than where they WANT to spend it. If somebody complains that a particular fee was supposed to go to children's health programs, the lawmakers can simply put a clause (which the public never notices) into the budget that makes an exception. The same thing happens at the Federal level with the Federal budget and taxes and spending.

    As long as people are stupid enough to keep feeding the beast, there will be no end to the number and scope of niche "fees" (targeted taxes) that lawmakers will heap onto the backs of taxpayers in order to raise the money needed to support the groups who in-turn support the incumbent politicians. In California, the vast majority of political money flows to politicians from two sources: government employee unions, and indian tribes. Two things that will never be reduced in California are (1) the number of unionized government workers and their benefits, and (2) indian casinos.