From the files. BAN uses photos of sea containers, and allows industry and press to assume THIS is the same as THAT. Technically, BAN says, the correct interpretation of Basel Convention, Annex IX, B1110 would not allow the Indonesian factory on the right.
is the same as this 
But read the press release. They are not being transparent about what they are objecting to. They imply the 2002 Guiyu photo is what they stopped in Indonesia. When I object, they ask for proof of the inside of the containers (which arrived back in the USA with seals still on them, NEVER inspected by Indonesians).
As in the disputed photos of the outside of sea containers in Chicago (Intercon Solutions), BAN photographed the outside of sea containers in Boston in 2010, and then LINK to photos they took of Guiyu China in 2001.
This is intellectually dishonest. In the technical world, where people understand that Taiwanese engineers have contract manufacturing capacity in several Asian Tiger countries, the photos BAN uses may as well link to the Wrong, Wrong Lithuanian TV sculpture.
But read the press release. They are not being transparent about what they are objecting to. They imply the 2002 Guiyu photo is what they stopped in Indonesia. When I object, they ask for proof of the inside of the containers (which arrived back in the USA with seals still on them, NEVER inspected by Indonesians).
| From Contract CRT Manufacturers Album |
As in the disputed photos of the outside of sea containers in Chicago (Intercon Solutions), BAN photographed the outside of sea containers in Boston in 2010, and then LINK to photos they took of Guiyu China in 2001.
This is intellectually dishonest. In the technical world, where people understand that Taiwanese engineers have contract manufacturing capacity in several Asian Tiger countries, the photos BAN uses may as well link to the Wrong, Wrong Lithuanian TV sculpture.
