Showing posts with label facts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label facts. Show all posts

Google AI Is Wrong. Expired Aspirin Will NOT Give You a Stroke

Hallucination by Google Search AI Explained


While tidying up at my mother's home in rural Arkansas' Ozark Mountains, I found two bottles of aspirin, in the same bathroom medicine cabinet.  Maybe I could combine them in to one bottle?

But I noticed - by sight and by taste, that the bottle on the left was considerably older than the one on the right. Does it matter? Does aspirin "expire" or deteriorate in effectiveness with time? It's an acid, so acids probably do weaken over time if there's anything non-acid to interact with.

So I googled "Does Aspirin Expire?"  And Google AI suggests three responses, without links to easily check them out - though there are dates.

First - Aspirin is most effective within five years, and is safe and effective for years after the expiration date on the label - looks very accurate.

Second - OEM Bayer advice that aspirin should be discarded after Bayer's suggestd 2-3 year expiration date. No link to Bayer's study, and no citation of FDA recommendation.  Sure, Bayer wants us to buy more aspirin from them, and may be paying Google to place this "self interested" content.

Third - Insanity.


"Taking expired aspirin could raise your risk of serious health issues, such as stroke". Nov 1, 2022

So it sounds like Google AI is saying that I may have a stroke for taking the older aspirin.  And there's no easy way to see where the AI is getting that, but I eventually found it.

Q and A: The Bitter End of UK's E-Waste Safari Exploitation

More information turned up on the Band Placebo and how the Agbogbloshie dump kids were chosen to launch the Band's Australia tour.  

The band's reps are researching us.  And we are researching the filmmaker and the band.  Feelings of saviorism and feelings of exploitation are both valid, and both come from good hearts.  We are all running uphill, fighting for higher moral ground.

Here is "Running Up That Hill", a song about trading places.  It is one of the band's hits from the past that got USA airplay, at least on college radio.  ... I remember this.




There's no direct communication between us (yet?), but a lot of evidence people are reading the blog and adjusting their message.  For example, the OfficialPlacebo Facebook page no longer ID's Abgo as "the largest e-waste dump in the world", and reciprocally, I can state this headline was also fake news ("Brian Molko highest paid singer on earth")


"The ‘People’ section is a humorous parody of Gossip magazines, all stories are obviously not true."
























This is NOT TRUE, the lead singer of Placebo does not out-rank Mick Jagger, Beyonce, Eminem, etc.  But the fact that it shows up as the top Google listing for "net worth Brian Molko" shows that Brian has something in common with Wahab, Chendiba, Joe Benson, and other Tech Sector entrepreneurs in Ghana - who do NOT import 80% waste to what is NOT the "biggest e-waste dump on earth".  More in common than he ever knew.

Since my earlier blog and tweets, Placebo has taken down this claim on Facebook - that Agbo is the "world's largest e-waste dump".



Now watch out for someone simply swapping the words "in Africa" for "on Earth".  Some people imply that sounds like a small mistake.  But is is quite a correction. "The Tallest Man in the NBA" and "The Tallest Man on North Korea's High School Basketball Team" are two very different "Tallest Men". Because fewer Africans owned TVs and computers decades ago, their junkyards have fewer of them than ours do. Here's a photo of a pile in Addison County Vermont...
























Seriously - we got WAAAAAAY more e-waste in Middlebury Vermont (pop 10k) than Accra has in Agbogbloshie.  Maybe I can pay Michael Anane to tell people he played mini-golf here as a boy, and we'll get some MTV screen time.

The photo of Agbogbloshie is, to us, even funnier and more obviously a joke than the MediaMass (Onionish) fake news.  The kid is standing on a single TV, on a barren landscape, carring a bag (no doubt on his way on some errand) and a Alsdair Mitchell pulled a McElvaney and said "kid, jump up on here a second".  Using it under the headline "the world's largest e-waste dump" a single kid standing on a single TV in a city of 3M is rather hilarious (and I'm not the one that choose that screenshot for that headline - Placebo's Facebook manager did).

Look, Brian Molko is closer to being the richest rock star than Agbogbloshie is to being the largest e-waste dump, but that's irrelevant.  My point is that good people - Ghana's Tech Sector and Brian Molko - can get thrust into conflict through misinformation and misunderstanding, and no one has to get bent out of shape.   It's dialectic. I know more about the band, and at the end they'll know more about Ghana, and the UK Press portrayal of its slums (no chaps, t'isn't about you).

So for the benefit of Placebo fans, it's ok to enjoy the video.  The camerawork is some of the best I've seen there (a little cheating with extra gasoline of the fires).  But below is a quick Q and A about Agbogbloshie, the myths and the facts.  Everything stated below has been the subject of many blogs.


10 Tools & Techniques To Change the World from the Inside



Here, briefly, is my advice to college graduates seeking to employ social justice and change, and to use their idealism within the economy to earn their own way, make a living, and still change the world "from the inside".  If any famous people are planning Commencement addresses and haven't started, feel free to use this.

Twitter is a good utility. I usually praise it for its "search box", you can find breaking insider news if you ignore the "feed" and search for something.  Amazing links show up.

Another good thing is that forcing yourself to make a point in 140 characters can make for better journalism.

Here are my 10 Techniques to "Change the world from the inside", something my friends told me would be impossible when I left Fayetteville Arkansas to attend an MBA program in Boston.  You can choose something, some industry you want to change, and make a living doing so, and in the process actually alter the way the entire world does and sees things in the industry.

In order (Tweets below posted in reverse order).

Tool #1 Humility.   
Tool #2 Math and Secondary Research.
Tool #3 Psychology (including your own)
Tool #4 Networking
Tool #5 Humor (can combine with #1)
Tool #6 Scout Everyones' Perspective (clients, suppliers, regulators, everyone)
Tool #7 Pacing
Tool #8 Statistics and risk analysis and lifecycle analysis (see #2)
Tool #9 History of the field
Tool #10 Be a good citizen.

More

E-Waste Tolstoy Syndrome: Best Answered by Africa Tweet?

Like the time limits in High School Debate tournaments, Twitter forces us to present a central thesis in a concise way.


This blog has been criticized for being "wordy" or "nerdy" and has certainly often been repetitive.  My "spaghetti on the wall" approach did work, however.  We only needed a small number of the posts to be read by an influential and respected group of journalists, academics, and regulators.

While Basel Action Network is still in the business of demonstrating its "Ayatollah of E-Waste" powers in the state of Washington, bringing its might to bear against Total Reclaim, the "export virgin" it heralded as a model for a decade, they have been completely ineffective at intimidating me.  That's because I'm using scientific method, logic, and transparency.



Ethical Photojournalism or Manufactured Victims, Packaged Nurture?

2011 Crock of *#%^ Agbogbloshie 
Part of me knows the way American Hillbillies were portrayed.  My kin certainly had a chip on their shoulders.  But on the other hand, I do understand that to run a company or a non profit or NGO or government organization, you gotta do some things that you gotta do.

Environmental writer Dave Currey posted a blog this morning which, I think honestly, takes up the same ethical questions about what I call "nurture packaging" or "victim manufacturing".  It's the first time I've read Currey's blog, and I haven't been much deeper into Environmental Investigation Agency (a non-electronics EIA)  that Twitter or Animal Detectives.

But since I've been dishing out a lot of criticism of photojournalism in the #ewastegate hoax, it's time to take pause and recognize a thoughtful, ethical post about how photography drives fundraising, and how ugly the fundraising business is.

Currey sees it.  And in my interviews with StEP, BAN, and R2 staff, they are aware, too.  The business of "solving a problem" or cause-based fundraising is a tricky ethical maneuver.  At a certain point, "ethical professionals" need to send "ethical passionates" out into the field to raise dough.

My retweets of Currey's blog center on the power of photojournalism, respecting the way it leverages exoticism and nurture, but also calling on ethical scrutiny.  The photos sent out by NGO Basel Action Network in 2009 were used to manufacture a "hoax" victim - Africa's "Eden".  Greenpeace also filmed ludicrous claims (by AMA "journalist" cough-cough Mike Anane) that Agbogbloshie was a lush fishing and swimming greenfield before used electronics were imported.

EU E-Waste Policy: White Knights Seeking Middle Ground On a Slippery Slope (Part A)

"Solving the E-Waste Problem"  (StEP) is a European association of highly respected professional and academic experts with strong policy pedigrees.   The "Problem Solving" effort is coming into its eight year.  American environmentalists are keen for European environmental leadership.   The electric windmills fanning the landscape are a testament to proactive policy.

StEP represents itself as a "middle ground" organization.  A lot of us have pandered for that position.  BAN labels us as "apologists".

It is natural to seek to leverage the sensational press around "ewaste exports" and the growing tome of facts about international city junkyards.  Agents of conscience naturally seek a middle ground between the Basel Action Network and...  Facts.  Or is it a middle ground between us and "The Other?"   Otherization, or exoticism, the "informal" six out of seven billion people, who have been labelled so likely to poison their children that it warrants a billion dollars in shredding machines and arrests of African traders.  Since BAN has imposed a kind of "original sin" on anyone who has ever purchased an electronic device, replaced one, or sent one for recycling, we begin with a sense of guilt.   "Agents of conscience" once included exporters, a previous generation of ICT and Internet Access "white knights", organized to heal the "digital divide".

These forces have given rise to another EU based organization seeking "middle ground" between internet access and environmental risk of computer waste.  RecyHub has posted an essay on ICTWorks which follows the path into the "middle ground", or "best of two worlds".  RecyHub has asked me, via Twitter, to review it.    ("They asked for it" is an English idiom).

On the one hand, they get the easy A.  A for "Applaud Anything" that moves Europe from the extremely bizarre far-left arrests of African businesspeople, geeks, and technicians.   Any correction from the 2009-2010 "years of breaking CRT glass", is a gift horse.  But since they asked, I have to tell them... they are at a halfway point between alter-globalization (WR3A) and racist slander.
"Electronic components contain toxics and their manipulation without proper tools can easily release them, resulting in environmental damage and health hazards. Up to now electronics have been mainly used in the most industrialized countries and dumped somewhere else when they reached their (perceived) end of life. Although this trade geography is slowly changing, some countries continue to be known e-waste recipients. Ghana, for instance, is trapped between the desire to modernise by acquiring and refurbishing technology and the damaging effects of it when it’s not reusable...
"After all, they don’t have the technology to process that material properly. E-waste exports must therefore end. That’s why a strict ban like the one proposed under the Basel Convention makes sense (taken even further to forbid any e-waste trade), and why the work of countering illegal trade must be supported. 
One thing I've always loved about Europe is the tradition of arguing sophisticated philosophical positions from a historical perspective.  The Europeans often assume Americans don't do that, that we operate in business from some kind of a "lizard brain", seeking efficiency and profit.

OK, Critique of Part A, in pure reason.
  1. Toxics are not "easily released".  Europe had to build shredders, which certainly releases them.  Hand disassembly, harvesting parts and components (down the chips and capacitors and power supplies) is not going to yield toxics.  
  2. Up to now electronics have not "mainly" been dumped somewhere else at the end of their perceived life.  
  3. "Some countries continue to be known e-waste recipients.  Ghana, for instance, is trapped..."  This is absolutely contrary to the study RecyHub refers to, which says Ghana is NOT an "e-waste recipient" but is a 85-91% reuse recipient which generates 90% of its own "e-waste".
  4. "Proper tools"?  A downstroke baler is the most complicated tool we use in Vermont.   The best one we bought used for $2,000.
On the third point, simply visit RecyHub's website, where an entire tab titled "Ghana" offers very scientificky looking "statistics".  It links to a Google Documents Page, with "comment function" enabled, which mostly takes statistics from the E-Waste Assessment (Ghana) study (they should also read the larger Nigeria E-Waste Assessment report).
"9% of the total imports of used equipment is non-repairable and is directly passed on to collectors and recyclers."
The very report they cite disproves most of the allegations.  Nigeria's Assessment was more precise, finding 91% repair and reuse, but we'll accept the 80% estimate from the Ghana study (statistics taken from interviews in the latter case, from actual sea container sorts in the Nigeria study).  In either case, brand new product is as bad or worse.  In either case, the studies explain how Nigeria came to have (World Bank 2007 statistic from 2006 assessment) 6,900,000 households with television.  And cities which have had TVs since Prince Nico Mbarga was on the top 10 are generating junk TVs, just as American and European cities do.

What do developing nations really need?  More development.  And taking away "trade" from the toolkit is exactly what they need least.

Where do "tinkering", "reuse", "recycling", "dumping" etc. fall in Harvard's new Social Progress Index?  If you spend time with people who live in the emerging markets, the developing nations, the cities of the "not yet OECD", their aspirations and measures of progress make Europe and America's obsession with "used electronics dumping" seem obscured by clouds of disinformation.

TIME OUT: Free the Geeks! Release E-Stewards Rules!

In reviewing Parts 2 and 3 of the essay "Environmental Malpractice", I'm a bit stumped... because I don't know what the "Practice" E-Stewards requires actually IS.

E-Stewards markets itself as being superior to R2.  But R2, the Responsible Recycling standard developed by environmental organizations and EPA, is PUBLIC.  They have their document up for 2013 compliance changes, and are soliciting comments this month.

There is no similar public comment period for the E-Stewards Standards, and in fact you have to pay them money to see the rules, and agree not to republish them.   "Licensing" the path to goodness, it's a remarkable cause.  It's kinda now, kinda wow, kinda 1400 AD.  Just which "Madonna" are we talking about?

If there is a way to heaven, and you demand donations to tell the secrets that will free me from hell, just how noble is your cause?

FREE THE GEEKS!!!!!!!!!!

UPDATE:  Following this publication, we received news that Joseph Benson settled his case, after 3 years defending himself in court, for 11,000 British pounds.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/owners-and-employees-of-a-string-of-waste-disposal-companies-fined-over-200000-for-exporting-dumped-electronics-to-the-developing-world-8386688.html

Facts And Strategy in Recycling Business: Part 1

Time to share some experiences about the export market and used electronics.  I've now spent more than a decade building the Fair Trade Recycling aspect of the business, and growing my companies (American Retroworks, Retroworks de Mexico, and Good Point Recycling) to be healthy and fully functional.  There is not as much strategy and trade secret to the business.

Commodity value of fiber = ?
In this Part I, we can see how electronics recycling is basically just like curbside recycling.  There are three key differences which we will explore in Part II.   Part I starts with simple and factual observations about the recycling business, and then wades into how government can or should involve itself in regulating that "waste" or "raw materials" business.

1.0  Similarities between E-Scrap and Consumer Recyclables:  

Like curbside recycling, the revenue comes from different grades of raw material which must be separated, graded, and cleaned to replace virgin raw material from feldspar mining (glass), smelting (metals), forestry (fibers), and refining (polymers).  Each of these products can be sold, at some stage, for cash, but they have drastically different values, grading, and transport requirements.

1.1  Commodity Value:  Glass is a bane for both curbside and e-scrap recycling, in that it's heavy, easily contaminated, distances to furnaces are enormous, virgin production is fairly simple and raw material - igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks all have abundant silica for feldspar mining.  Metals are easy to manage (magnets and eddy currents) and easy to sell, and the pollution from metal mining and smelting is colliding worldwide with growing population.  More people, with more money, want more things made of metal, and no one wants the smelters to impact their property values through pollution.  Even in China and India, the incomes and expectations have grown to where people are less and less tolerant of a lead-zinc smelter which spills noxious toxins into the rivers and water supplies.   Fiber is much more or a part of the curbside business, but the difference isn't as great as you'd assume when you look at the declining tonnage of newspapers and the huge volume of wood from console televisions, speakers and stereos which our plants manage.

1.2  Labor:  If all of the materials in a computer, tablet, TV or printer were pre-disassembled, you could run them down the exact same Mayfran sorting belt that you run curbside recyclables through.  Magnets and eddy currents can grab the steel and aluminum, blowers could separate the lighter plastics, shaker trays could get the small light pieces into a different direction than the big pieces.  But in every Materials Recycling Facility (or Material Recovery Facility*), labor is high.  You need humans to pick out and grade different raw materials.   You can add two people and further grade (glossy magazines from newspaper, for example) or one person and send the bales to a paper mill with easier tolerances.   But each laborer adds value.  The problem is when the value added by labor (e.g. sorting plastics by resin, paper by ink and clay content, green from clear and brown glass) produces less than minimum wage.   If you pay a woman $8 per hour to separate two tons of material and only make an additional $5 on the sorted material, you cannot afford her.  This labor-to-value dynamic is just as important in E-Scrap recycling as it is in collection.

1.3  Collection:  The distance between residents in a city and a countryside is a part of the cost of both recycling and waste collection.  The economics and competition between waste and recycling collide.   Since you cannot affordably recycle road kill, dirty sponges, spoiled food, wet tissue, many high heeled shoes and chicken skin (sorry Zero Wasters), you are committed to running the Waste truck.  If you don't, ask Naples Italy and Seattle Washington (recent Waste Management strike) what happens to property values and pest control.  The recycling truck is therefore an "also ran", and has to collect material valuable enough to offset the convenience of running a single waste truck to a single landfill or incinerator.

Fortunately, despite know-it-alls like Penn and Teller saying otherwise, this works for a couple of reasons.  First, like a subway, you don't have to prove that the subway is faster than the cars on the commute.  Going to work by car may be faster, but if you eliminate the subway the people are all in cars and it's no longer faster.  Similarly, if you try shutting down recycling, you find that avoided disposal costs are more than the per ton at the landfill.  When you add the "value added" from income of sale of the commodities, you find a lot of multipliers and higher employment - not just at the sorting line but at the paper mills and refiners as well.

1.4   Markets:   There are "niches" in collection besides rural (high mileage costs) and urban.   Some recovered materials - especially glass (and especially especially CRT glass) have a small number of buyers around the world and face huge transport costs after collection.  This transport cost affects labor - you may decide to pay someone to sort plastic by color because the transport distance to a mixed-color market is higher.

1.5  Government involvement:  Both electronics recycling and curbside recycling involve government, through procurement law (government contracting), labor law, environmental law, transport law, etc.  Every time there is a real problem with waste management - a recycling fire, an abandoned speculatively accumulated pile, a fraud, illegal dumping, alleged malfeasance (usually a claim by a competitor with a different or better process) - we pay for a regulator to enforce rules and public contracts.   Recycling businesses must know the laws (ignorance is no excuse), but also anticipate how regulators are interpreting the laws.

Fact Check on E-Waste Recycling: 11 POINTS

Do exports of electronics need to be handled with care?  Yes. Should electronics recyclers be certified?  Absolutely.   Professional recycling companies are proud to have the bar raised, and for standards for reuse and recycling to be level.  With that said, should the Green-Thompson Bill banning "ewaste exports" be passed?  Here are the facts.

1.  Are 80% of USA's "EWASTE" exported to non-OECD Nations?

Non-OECD nations represent 83% of the world population.  While there has never been a source for the "80%" export statistic, it is logical that 83% of the buyers in the world could represent 80% of the market for USA goods.

2.  Are most USA electronics scrapped in primitive recycling yards, creating pollution?

No.  The largest importers by volume of items like computer monitors and desktops are the contract manufacturing factories which originally made them.  Most of these are located in, or owned by, Taiwan based companies such as Foxconn, Proview, Wistron, and BenQ.   They take back items under warranty for repair, but also take back non-warranty items if they can be refurbished for reuse.  The other big overseas markets are for raw materials - plastic, copper, aluminum, zinc, lead, steel, etc.  Those are the same markets for everyone, and whether the used electronics are shredded first, or not, does not change the recycling outcome.

3.  Do most of the European and USA electronics shipped to Africa wind up burned in primitive conditions?

No.  In depth research provides concrete evidence that 85% of the exports to Ghana (the site filmed by BAN.org and Greenpeace) are reused.  Only 30% of the electronics imported to Ghana are brand new.   African buyers station inspectors to carefully screen items they are buying in the country of export in order to make sure shipping costs (80% of the cost of the item) are not spent on junk.  The percentage of product not reused is similar to the percentage of store returns at Wal-Mart in the USA.


4.  Are e-Waste reuse and recycling operations a significant source of pollution?

No.   By far most of the pollution in Asia, Africa, and Latin America comes from the mining of raw materials to make brand new electronics.  In comparison, the percentage of toxics released by repair and elective upgrades is practically not even measurable.

5.  Will a ban on e-Waste exports help poor people?

No.  The proposed bans on e-waste exports will harm poor people.  The emerging democracies in Africa and the Middle East have made connections via internet.  The cost of new display devices (monitors) is more than a month's pay, out of reach for most Egyptians, Libyans, Syrians, etc.  The alternatives to recycling jobs are mining for metals like tin, tantalum, and tungsten in rain forests, and mining for lead in Kabwe.  No reputable professional has ever said reuse or recycling is worse than mining... even those who would ban recycling concede the mining in Africa and China is far worse.

6.  Do a significant number of USA recyclers mix "toxic along for the ride" with exports?

According to interviews with importers and technicians in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, bans on export in California, Oregon and Washington resulted in a "sellers market" for used electronics, and quality has decreased whenever good people refuse to trade or ban trade with geeks in developing markets.  While the quality of loads went down, the cost of shipping (especially to South America and Africa) generally makes it impossible to ship more than 30% junk.

7.  Where do the electronics shown in photos at dumps like Guiyu and Agbogbloshie come from?

By all accounts, most of the scrap shown in primitive recycling yards in China comes from China, and most of the scrap in the dumps in Ghana has been used productively for years in Ghana.  Photos by organizations like Greenpeace clearly show (in their own footage) nice black televisions taken out of sea containers, and show very old white computers, in small numbers, at the dump.  Greenpeace commits fraud if they say that the sea containers are unloaded at Abbogbloshie, BAN commits fraud if they say that sea containers sent to China are unloaded at Guiyu.

8.  Is modern shredding technology superior to hand disassembly?

Hand dis-assembly is certainly superior to shredding by machine.  Hand disassembly recovers products like batteries, rare earth magnets, chips, reuseable parts, and can separate high grade copper from low grade.   Burning wires is bad but is actually rare, most of the wires shown in Africa have been sorted for reuse, and most of the wires in China are graded in modern chopping and washing systems.   Shredding technology is only used in nations who cannot find labor to hand disassemble.  Hand disassembly creates more value and more jobs and more affordable computers.

9.  What is the alternative to legislation banning "e-Waste" exports?

Fair Trade Recycling agreements require exporters to clearly label and identify electronics shipped (not simply to load junk into a container), and to have the buyer agree on a price which demonstrates the Cost of Goods Sold cannot support simple scrap dumping.  The exporters must allow importers to hold back a portion of payment (e.g. 20%) to use to cover the cost of properly recycling bad units and parts by hand.

10.  Do reused and refurbished goods produce bad jobs and pollution?

The only source which makes this claim, BAN.org, receives nearly 100% of its funding from Original Equipment Manufacturers who are opposed to secondary markets (like an Auto Manufacturer contributing to a campaign against used car sales), or high capital shredding companies which have trouble competing with reuse and hand-dis-assembly operations.  Under the E-Steward label, companies which agree not to deal with refurbishers overseas pay thousands of dollars and a percent of their gross revenues to the non-profits which use pictures of African and Asian children to market against reuse and hand disassembly.

Not a penny of the donations goes to the children in the photos.  Their images are used to market a campaign to take their parents jobs away.

11.  Does International Law ban the export of computers for repair, refurbishing, and reuse?

No.  International law (Basel Convention) explicitly says these activities are not waste treatment.  Laws have been proposed to outlaw the reuse export practices, but have not been passed.

This is not a renunciation of efforts to improve recycling.  Certification and improvement of reuse and recycling exports is good. But most African, Latino, and Asian buyers do not resemble the exaggerated pictures distributed by some non-profits.   Please look into Fair Trade Recycling, and Responsible Recyclers practices.  It makes a lot more sense than export bans and subsidies to destroy working computers.

Why WR3A Certification (2007) Woulda Shoulda Coulda

R2 Certification and E-Stewards Certification Growing Pains:  Been There.

silver label for working, repairable, scrap, and dumping
The crybaby e-scrap companies, the public outings of single export loads, the fees to see non-published standards, the waffling by EPA over which standard to endorse... It's a category killer.  The public already discarded ewaste once, and is bound to lose interest if we don't prioritize our goals.   This week someone I know in our business got confused and thought a company in Chicago was "under indictment" (he got confused over the Executive Recycling Colorado indictment).  No, having BAN publicly end your application to be the best company ever does not result in prison.  What my friend's confusion illustrates is the perils of using "certifications" as a substitute for rule of law. We are all attracted to the idea of a simple solution to a complex, robust, multi-niche industry.  As the developer of an earlier fail-to-thrive certification program, I know.

"e-Waste" Travel in Scrap Metal

The most common mistake humans make is thinking that a century is a long time.  Extinction is apparently forever.  Consuming something non-renewable is more important to me than, say, correspondence about dating and relationships.  There is little going on today of more environmental importance than non-ferrous metal consumption.

Consuming finite earth natural resources is something all humans have in common.  But compare readership of "recycling" articles and blogs to, say, Jezebel's website.  Many more people are obsessed with "crap email from a dude" - or CEFAD - and thousands of posts and sub-posts comment on these poor guys' nerdy correspondences to lost girlfriends. It's humbling.  People seem more interested in what some lady's ex-date wrote in an email than they are in undersea mining and coral reefs.  Those crap emails from dudes about wrecked relationships seem inexhaustible, but people seem fascinated.

My obsession is about other wrecks (or wrechs, a new recycle tech term  first coined here) ... I'm into recycling. I write endlessly about junk, wreckage, breakage, and scrap.  The photo above is from 2002, when I toured a metal scrap shredder for automobiles at Guangzhou Iron and Steel, and arc metal furnace in Guangdong.  They had purchased a large used auto shredder from the USA.   At that time, it was a big deal.  Since then the company has bought MBA Polymers, the USA plastic recycler, and has seen its own operation dwarfed by larger ferrous recycling investments, particularly in northern China.

I was recently asked about the export category of "breakage" and "printer scrap" and miscellaneous small wrechs, computer speakers, keyboards.  Compared to refurbishing at contract manufacturing factories, it's a tough export to defend.  But it's not easy to be proud of the domestic solutions either, if you really do a mass balance and lifecycle analysis.  Right now, there are 3 ways of dealing with the printers, VCRs, speakers, keyboards, and other somewhat unregulated e-knick-knackage, sold for plastic and/or metal value, with less than 25% reuse:
  1. Hand dis-assembly.  We can do this in Mexico, and Unicor can do it with prison labor, and of course they can do it in China.  It means taking the printer or telephone or computer speaker apart and sending the plastic value to the plastic recycler and the metal value to the metal recyclers, and maybe catching a few reuse items (This week we sold a queer thing called a Power Technology Portable Fiber Optic Fusion Splicer for over $300 which someone pulled out of "breakage").  Not all hand disassembly joints are alike.  I have also seen Chinese women with razors carefully stripping copper wire by hand (photo).  I was proud of them.  Recently Adam Minter commented on the relative success of women like this in the scrap field in China.  It's not a job to be ashamed of.                                                 
  2. Shredding.  Most of the shredders out there get the steel with a magnet and the aluminum with an eddy current.  The plastic, the circuit boards, the copper all winds up in a pile of waste known in the recycling business as "fluff".  Because of the way electronics are screwed together, a lot of the plastic and glass and boards stay on the aluminum and steel.  What results is actually very similar to ZORBA scrap.  If you look at it, it can have stones and plastic and wood and glass and  debris all in it... but it is still richer in copper, aluminum than anything coming out of a metal mine.  There are very high end shredders which can apparently get even circuit boards out of scrap metal, and there are ones which basically make big stuff smaller.  Not all shredders are the same.  But generally, the more clean they make the grind, the more carbon and energy they have to spend... there are diminishing returns on re-re-re-re-grinding ZORBA, and at some point the recycler or certification process has to make a somewhat arbitrary decision as to where to draw the line, how much plastic-shard per wire segment is enough processing.  Then they need a law or a regulation to make people pay for their machine.             
  3. Burning.  This gets most of the  anti-export film. It happens in this country, too.  Burning wire to get the copper out is the ugliest recycling.  There are 'materials of concern', i.e. solder and small boards on these items. The only thing that prevents it from being downright "bad" are the alternatives to recycling - throwing it away and mining more to replace it.  A recycler told me she'd rather throw wire away then let poor people burn it.  Having seen poor people without even copper to burn, and having seen virgin mining, I'd put burning down above "safe disposal", as a next to next to last resort.  Another novel form of burning was done as a trial at our partner's smelter in Nacozari.  Ten years ago, when they upgraded the office computers and copiers, they tossed them all at once into a 1200+ degree centigrade smelter furnace capable of getting out the copper, gold, silver, and zinc.  They have a wickedly modern smokestack that estracts pollutants and extracts them into other raw materials... but it's probably not an efficient option.
So... the rest of this post is about a common but unknown management practice.   I didn't put it on the list above, because it could wind up to be any or all of the three.  Just as our smelter engineers threw all the obsolete office machines into molten metal ore, most people in the USA throw a lot of different stuff - hair dryers, lawn mowers, spent PCs - into scrap metal bins.  When those items are collected at a one-day event, they are called e-waste collected, but when they are thrown into a scrap metal bin, where do they show up in the numerator and denominator of MSW management?

Here is a reminder of a post last spring, the "Toaster Recycling Test", describing the 'materials of concern' on a toaster.  Toasters have pretty high failure rates, they have copper and little circuit boards.  Not many are handled as 'ewaste'.  Pound per pound, however, it would be pretty difficult to tell a shredded ton of toasters from a shredded ton of VCRs.

When the electronics and electric appliances wind up in the river of scrap steel, with the bikes and file cabinets and cars, they are heading to an unknown - their numbers are diluted in a river of steel, and they become a statistical footnote.   There is so much steel out there, a lot of recyclers just throw telephones, printers, computers and even monitors into scrap metal bales.  All the e-waste in the country could be diluted into all the steel and it would go "away" like bike tires and plastics in an old fridge.  Like in Goodfellas, you can throw bodies into the trunks of cars at the auto yards, why not a TV or a dot matrix printer?  Would it surprise or shock any of us to find toasters and VCRs in America's #1 export - scrap ferrous metal?   ISRI does an amazing job bringing legal terminology to a chaos of devices and publishes the bible on scrap metal terminology.

In fact, many of the CPUs and printers and other scrap I saw in China were being pulled out of bales of scrap steel.  Huge quantities of scrap ferrous metal arrives in the port of Hong Kong.  The CPUs and microwaves and printers and other machines arrive inside loads with cars (which have their own computers in them now) and white goods and lawnmowers, etc.

What really confuses people is when the Price of ABS and HiPS plastics pass the price of metals, as happens more and more frequently.  Then Chinese will pay a lot more to keep the plastics out of the shredder, figuring they can always sell the metals afterwards.  I will write a totally separate post about plastics recycling in China.   Here is a photo of a Chines plastic recycling business for electronics plastic.

The USA companies which are shredding  e-scrap are largely giving up on the value of the plastics, which wind up in 'fluff'.  If 1% of steel scrap is used electronics, and this company imports 1,000,000 metric tons per year of scrap, then 1,000 tons of computers and other e-waste is coming in as a very small percentage of bales.  And this is just one scrap metal company in China.  In 2009, the USA exported 2,030,000 tons per month of ferrous scrap:  at 2% "e-waste", that would account for 100 sea containers per month just going out with the regular scrap metal.  SteelOrbis runs monthly export figures (like this one from Sept 2009):
"According to the latest statistics released by the United States International Trade Commission, the country's ferrous scrap exports totaled 2.03 million metric tons in September, increasing by 31.19 percent year on year and down 13.72 percent over August.
In September this year, the US' largest ferrous scrap export market was South Korea, with exports of 511,993 metric tons. South Korea was followed by China, with ferrous scrap exports of 384,500 metric tons, and by Turkey with 309,160 metric tons.
On the other hand, in the January-September period of this year the US exported 17.33 million metric tons of ferrous scrap, down 1.15 percent year on year. In the period in question, China imported 5.16 million metric tons of ferrous scrap from the US, Turkey imported 2.77 million metric tons from the same source, while South Korea imported 2.49 million metric tons."
 When the PCs are shredded by poor first generation shredders, they can be more easily sprinkled into this outgoing ferrous metal. 

My point is that the number of containers of "obsolete" PCs blended in with good and repairable equipment must indeed be improved on.  But if no one is providing numbers or data, we don't actually know whether bad apples inside repairable PC loads is as bad a problem as the obsolete scrap going into scrap steel bales, shredded or unshredded.  Whether or not WR3A's loads could be improved from the 15% recycling rate, the 100 containers per year we export would yield 15 containerloads per year of recycling.  1% of steel scrap is a lot more than 15% of good computers.

Modern and sophisticated Chinese integrated metals companies, like ARMCO (which trades in ore, scrap, and metals) actually LIKE e-scrap mixed into their metal scrap.  According to their website:
"The needed raw materials of this project product are the waste automobile, waste machinery, building materials, waste machinery equipments, dismantled ships and steel scraps in the society and so on. Along with the development of iron and steel industry, the existence of steel scraps resources in the society as well as the increment of the waste ships and automobiles have provided large amount of resources for the recycling and processing of steel scraps."
In my opinion, the much of the current recycling story is "man vs. machine", a John Henry ballad about which will happen first, a shredder which doesn't ruin the plastic and copper and reuse, or a sweat shop with an air conditioner which people trust not to set stuff on fire.  When the USA does it by hand, we use immigrants, prisoners, retirees, charities... I think it's too tough to call, some of the newer shredders look impressive, and the notorious non-transparency of the scrap dealers in China is maddening. But from the past decade, I'd say the hand dis-assembly wins environmentally.  And it's a much higher job creator, and tends to capture more reuse.

WR3A has been labelled a "reuse" organization.  The fact is that we focused on reuse first because the technicians overseas are the farthest from the racially bigoted stereotypes that it was easiest case to make that organizations like BAN had painted exports with too broad a brush.  The case for "export for recycling" will be more difficult, as companies with shredders that work better raise the bar on certification standards from the decade-old shredders which simply require the ZORBA etc. to be re-sorted overseas.  As Chinese companies like Soundera and ARMCO continue to invest in their own high-tech shredding operations, the lines will be further blurred.

In five or ten more years, when everyone knows that China is generating most of its own "e-waste", when China and India and Brazil are OECD countries, and when most of our computing power is in a cloud run from our cell phone (or wristwatch), a lot of this debate will seem archaic and quaint.  The blogs about dudes who write crappy emails to ex-dates will probably be more relevant.   The only question is how much rain forest and coral reef we preserve over the next ten years while filling the insatiable demand for metals and plastics.  Anyone who gets in the way of recycling will have blood on their hands, and if they got in the way of affordable recycling with lies, they will got a lot of 'splainin' to do.

My 2004 proposal for UNICOR still stands.  Rather than complain about Unicor, the federal prison industry recycling program, why not send them all the keyboards and printers, the things that even owners of big shredders cannot want to process?  It would keep them busy, which is really all that the Unicor program is asking for.  Unlike computers and monitors and TVs exported for reuse, tracking plastics and metals disassembled by hand is really,  really hard to document and certify.  I'm confident our Mexico operation is doing it right, but I also know how hard it is for us just to verify data on the factory we own.

It's really hard to track your commodities around the world.  People surprise you. 

First surprise, Arkansas hillibilly named Mr. Fire Cloud is building a genuine French castle within an hour of my parents' home in Searcy county.  See today's NYTimes.

Second surpise, kids from South Park convince me that "hate crimes" are mistaken. (12.2011 removed video, found it causes posts to be blocked in some countries)