I woke up this morning and one of the first things I did was to reopen the study posted about "E-Waste" processing in Ghana. I am trying to find a French language version, so that I can share it with Jean Frederic Fahiri Somda, the attorney (and former Attorney General) of Burkina Faso who stayed in Middlebury at my home for 6 months, researching international law about "commodities", "wastes", "process wastes", points of generation, etc. The report by Andreas Manhart and Siddharth Prakash deserves attention and it's a big mistake on my part to "poison the well" by implying it's difficult to read.
In looking for the link to the study, I went to my blog, and I was embarrassed by the "Blah-blah" I originally put in the title (I was looking for a way to shorten the actual title of the report, which didn't fit in the Blog Title part, and I tritely put in "blah-blah" in my own post). In doing so, I was making light of the study, while at the same time rereading it and gobbling it up. A tad hypocritical, I might say. Was it not me who called for more scientific and academic research at the Interpol forum in DC last summer?
The study basically needs to define "e-waste" at the very beginning as being non-commodity, non-reuse. Except for the slight misstep in defining the EOL equipment, it's actually one of the best studies written. I apologize for making light of it in my descriptions of academic writing. It adds to the scholarly thesis written by Brenda Wijnen, the WR3A intern who wrote a paper on "Fair Trade" approaches to e-scrap exports, and bolsters the paper written in French by Mr. Fred Somda.
How well could I write the paper in Dutch? Even French, a language I know, would be a major challenge. What an ugly American I am this week.
There needs to be even more research. I presented a thesis in this blog that an export load of CRTs (TVs or monitors) needs to be at least 70% repairable or functional to be economically repeatable, based on shipping costs to West Africa and value of scrap in the load. This study is better written than my post, and moves this discussion forward. I hope it's not too late, and I hope other readers don't repeat my mistake and write dismissively of studies they haven't had time to consider carefully.