Recycling Electrical and Electronic Equipment

[0iD]

From 1 July 2007, any organisation that manufactures, brands or imports electrical and electronic equipment is responsible for the cost of collection, treatment and recycling of obligated WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) generated in the UK.

Is this a cost the consumer is ultimately willing to pay for?

[iranu]

I don't think the consumer has any choice in the matter. IIRC this was an EU directive (no doubt gold plated by our own administration to cause even more grief)

[JPreston]

The idea that the alternative of dumping it in your bin and letting someone else worry about it is 'free' is total garbage, pun intended.

Electronic waste contains all types of heavy metal pollutants making it one of the most toxic waste products. Currently it normally finds its way to dumps in China and Africa where it contaminates the ground and water, leading to birth defects.

In order to reclaim the gold and other precious metals, items are then bathed in acids and other noxious chemicals by workers who are normally unprotected, often children, inevitably leading to serious health damage from fumes and spills.

So don't worry if you really need a plasma TV and object to paying pennies extra to have it properly and safely disposed of once you've finished with it on the principle that it's all just the EU bureaucrats creating red tape, because some crushingly poor worker or child in the devloping world will pay the price for you instead

[redlight]

JPreston one day I would like to buy you a drink.

[badass]

Originally Posted by JPreston

The idea that the alternative of dumping it in your bin and letting someone else worry about it is 'free' is total garbage, pun intended.

Electronic waste contains all types of heavy metal pollutants making it one of the most toxic waste products. Currently it normally finds its way to dumps in China and Africa where it contaminates the ground and water, leading to birth defects.

In order to reclaim the gold and other precious metals, items are then bathed in acids and other noxious chemicals by workers who are normally unprotected, often children, inevitably leading to serious health damage from fumes and spills.

So don't worry if you really need a plasma TV and object to paying pennies extra to have it properly and safely disposed of once you've finished with it on the principle that it's all just the EU bureaucrats creating red tape, because some crushingly poor worker or child in the devloping world will pay the price for you instead

At last! Something we agree on!

This is a Tax that only hits luxuries and is genuinly beneficial unlike the carbon nonsense.

[iranu]

JPreston - I am fully aware as a professional metallurgist as to exactly what goes into electronic components along with hazadous materiel used in their manufacture (along with the manufacture of a wide range of aerospace parts)

I'm currently doing plenty of Hazmat work on JSF F135 myself and worked with some pretty nasty crap in my time (including handling gold cyanide solutions for the touching up of components in the satellite industry - which is about as nasty as you can get i.e. having someone stand bye with poppers to keep your heart going if you collapse until someone qualified comes along and injects you with adrenaline).

I certainly believe in reclamation of precious metals and use of non hazardous materials where economically possible. However, you may well find that in alot of cases the actual extraction of precious metals is more harmful to the environment due to the processes used, especially if this is done in third world countries where standards are not high. It may well be better, in some cases, to landfill at properly surveyed sites in the UK, which is common.

Nowhere in my original post do I say that I disagree with the principle of the directive.

However, I can certainly attest to some dubios decisions being made on the grounds of health and safety and the environment whereby I must comply so that the company that I work for stays within the law.

This reminds me of the classic case of DDT, whereby we were all brainwashed at school into believing it was all bad, bad, bad. If DDT was allowed to be manufactured and used properly, such as impregnating peoples houses and bedding in tropical regions then this would prevent huge numbers of people dying from malaria including the many African children that you seem to care so much about.

Just because a law is deemed to benefit the environment does not necessarily make it do so.

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by iranu

JPreston - I am fully aware as a professional metallurgist as to exactly what goes into electronic components along with hazadous materiel used in their manufacture (along with the manufacture of a wide range of aerospace parts)

I'm currently doing plenty of Hazmat work on JSF F135 myself and worked with some pretty nasty crap in my time (including handling gold cyanide solutions for the touching up of components in the satellite industry - which is about as nasty as you can get i.e. having someone stand bye with poppers to keep your heart going if you collapse until someone qualified comes along and injects you with adrenaline).

I certainly believe in reclamation of precious metals and use of non hazardous materials where economically possible. However, you may well find that in alot of cases the actual extraction of precious metals is more harmful to the environment due to the processes used, especially if this is done in third world countries where standards are not high. It may well be better, in some cases, to landfill at properly surveyed sites in the UK, which is common.

Nowhere in my original post do I say that I disagree with the principle of the directive.

However, I can certainly attest to some dubios decisions being made on the grounds of health and safety and the environment whereby I must comply so that the company that I work for stays within the law.

This reminds me of the classic case of DDT, whereby we were all brainwashed at school into believing it was all bad, bad, bad. If DDT was allowed to be manufactured and used properly, such as impregnating peoples houses and bedding in tropical regions then this would prevent huge numbers of people dying from malaria including the many African children that you seem to care so much about.

Just because a law is deemed to benefit the environment does not necessarily make it do so.

Interesting perspective. It supports something I'd often wondered - whether well-intentioned legislation always actually achieves what it intends, or sometime makes things worse.

I also remember seeing a documentary several years ago on thalidomide. Apparently, it's about as close to a wonder drug as we have, and is extremely efficacious in dealing with a large number of very serous conditions with minimal adverse effects ..... provided you absolutely keep it away from pregnant women. As recently as last year, the US FDA gave accelerated for thalidomide to be used in conjunction with other things for treatment of early stage multiple myeloma.

Yet the connotations and widely-held perceptions of thalidomide ......


Anyway, that's starting to get rather far away from WEEE.

[JPreston]

Originally Posted by iranu

JPreston - I am fully aware as a professional metallurgist ....I'm currently doing plenty of Hazmat work...worked with some pretty nasty crap....about as nasty as you can get i.e. having someone stand bye with poppers to keep your heart going if you collapse until someone qualified comes along and injects you with adrenaline).

So, then you should know better! If you are saying that in your professional opinion there is no issue with illiterate children working with noxious chemicals without so much as pair of marigold gloves for protection and earning 50p a day then perhaps you should outsource your work?

Originally Posted by iranu

I certainly believe in reclamation of precious metals and use of non hazardous materials where economically possible. However, you may well find that in alot of cases the actual extraction of precious metals is more harmful to the environment due to the processes used, especially if this is done in third world countries where standards are not high. It may well be better, in some cases, to landfill at properly surveyed sites in the UK, which is common.

Nowhere in my original post do I say that I disagree with the principle of the directive.

Nice backflip and dismount. I actually said 'properly and safely disposed of' which you appear to have read as 'still recycled by children, only under Fairtrade remuneration'. This legislation makes the manufacturers/importers bear the financial cost of mandatory proper disposal. If this is eventually passed on to consumers, so what, the best-case alternative is proper disposal funded by taxpayers in the country of disposal who are the same people anyway. What actually is common, is the cheapest option of exporting waste to low regulatory regimes where it is left in big toxic piles awaiting reclamation without any consideration for worker or environmental safety at all. What's wrong with making the consumer pay for disposal of their waste?

Originally Posted by iranu

This reminds me of the classic case of DDT, whereby we were all brainwashed at school into believing it was all bad, bad, bad. If DDT was allowed to be manufactured and used properly, such as impregnating peoples houses and bedding in tropical regions then this would prevent huge numbers of people dying from malaria including the many African children that you seem to care so much about.

I'm afraid that last bit is rubbish, beyond any hope of economic reclamation. Far from being a 'classic case', it appears to be something you have just made up having first confused DDT with DEET - two completely different chemicals.

Attempts were made to control mosquito populations using DDT 50 years ago however these failed completely. Mosquito populations developed total immunity to DDT within only seven years. DDT is a systemic pesticide i.e. it's very effective against herbivorous insects feeding on sprayed plants (and then birds and fish, and so on up the food chain) and therefore comparatively ineffective against mosquitoes even on first use - you need every mosquito within an area to come into direct contact with the aerially sprayed DDT. Even though it is believed that all mosquito populations in malarial zones were resistant to DDT by the 1970's, DDT is still manufactured in China and is exported solely for use in anti-malarial programmes - perfectly legally. So in fact, and in direct contradiction of your assertion, the use of DDT is still allowed - it's just not very effective.

DEET on the other hand is the chemical used to residually treat houses and fabrics in the manner you describe - it works by confounding the mosquito's sense of smell, so they are unable to feed in treated areas. This is quite neat, because it does not result in strong selection pressure in favour of resistance. DEET is probably about as toxic as DDT is to humans (i.e. a bit toxic, though not very - it can cause nervous disorders especially in infants) but is used in every country in the world without issue. You can buy it in Millets. If you would like to learn more, try reading a book on the subject. Otherwise -

Oh, and your sneering reference to 'the many African children I seem to care so much about' - you seem to be implying that it's hypocritical to be concerned about children handling toxic chemicals because they will probably be dead from communicable disease long before they suffer any long-term health issues from the chemicals anyway. WTF? As to how much I care, all you can infer from my post is that I care just enough to pay a quid or two on top of the price of a plasma TV so that noone has to suffer chemical burns from clearing up after me. More than you then, is it?

[JPreston]

Originally Posted by Saracen

....
I also remember seeing a documentary several years ago on thalidomide. Apparently, it's about as close to a wonder drug as we have, and is extremely efficacious in dealing with a large number of very serous conditions with minimal adverse effects ..... provided you absolutely keep it away from pregnant women. As recently as last year, the US FDA gave accelerated for thalidomide to be used in conjunction with other things for treatment of early stage multiple myeloma.
...

It's more fiendish than that. Thalidomide contains a molecule that can exist in one of two chiralities* - exactly the same chemical formula but there are left-handed ones and right-handed ones, each being the mirror image of the other. One of those chiralities is perfectly safe - the other causes the birth defects. Through some amazing feat of pharmaceutical engineering, it's possible to manufacture Thalidomide in such a way that every single molecule is the safe chirality....hence it is in current use.


I don't know what point people are trying to make. Dismissing a piece of legislation as knee-jerk, ill-conceived, uninformed, European rubbish and then giving examples that actually show the exact opposite - because DDT is still perfectly legal (though ineffective) for anti-malarial use despite our 'brainwashing', and Thalidomide is effective, safe and prescribed today....both examples of well-thought-out legislation that are the opposite of 'received knowledge'! Just like this 'green tax'



I think it's because the use of the words 'green', 'tax' and especially 'green tax' causes knees of a particular political persuasion to jerk maniacally. Anyhow, most folk agree with me on this so I win!



*Another example is the molecules limone (the smell of lemons) and citrone (the smell of oranges). Exactly the same atoms make them up in exactly the same proportions, except one molecular structure is the mirror image of the other and even our dumb noses can easily tell the difference. Weird......

[Andy3536]

This is a nice idea but the only way it'll ever work is if they make it easy, like giving us a small box to put out next to the rubish bin, or most people will not bother.
There is of course the other problem of disposing of electrical 'bedroom' toys. You don't want to put those out for the rubbish men to find local yobs have strewn your rubbish accross the road. A different kind of rabbit in the garden!

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by JPreston

It's more fiendish than that. Thalidomide contains a molecule that can exist in one of two chiralities* - exactly the same chemical formula but there are left-handed ones and right-handed ones, each being the mirror image of the other. One of those chiralities is perfectly safe - the other causes the birth defects. Through some amazing feat of pharmaceutical engineering, it's possible to manufacture Thalidomide in such a way that every single molecule is the safe chirality....hence it is in current use.

Very interesting. The chemistry is beyond me, not my sphere at all. But at the end of the day, if it can be used, and be safe, great. Or at least, relatively safe - just about any form of drug treatment has risks.

Originally Posted by JPreston

I don't know what point people are trying to make. Dismissing a piece of legislation as knee-jerk, ill-conceived, uninformed, European rubbish and then giving examples that actually show the exact opposite - because DDT is still perfectly legal (though ineffective) for anti-malarial use despite our 'brainwashing', and Thalidomide is effective, safe and prescribed today....both examples of well-thought-out legislation that are the opposite of 'received knowledge'! Just like this 'green tax'....

If "people" and "examples" includes me, then I can clarify a bit.

My "example" was merely that widely held perceptions aren't always accurate. The word thalidomide has very negative connotations, and for very good reason. But, and I admit it isn't my subject so I'm largely going by that documentary I mentioned, and according to that, thalidomide does have the ability to make a very valuable contribution despite that negative connotation. Whether that's down to changes in slick pharmaceutical engineering or changes in prescribing practice, or both, I don't know. But the point that was made in the documentary (assuming it was correct) was that it was in widespread use in many parts of the world while still (at that stage) banned in the UK, US etc, despite the claimed fact that it could be very therapeutic.

As for knee-jerk legislation, European or not, my only comment was that I wondered if such well-intentioned legislation actually ends up having the intended effect. I, at least, wasn't making any point beyond that. Iranu, or anybody else, I don't know.

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by Andy3536

This is a nice idea but the only way it'll ever work is if they make it easy, like giving us a small box to put out next to the rubish bin, or most people will not bother.
There is of course the other problem of disposing of electrical 'bedroom' toys. You don't want to put those out for the rubbish men to find local yobs have strewn your rubbish accross the road. A different kind of rabbit in the garden!

Iranu was right when he said you won't have any choice - referring to Oid's question about whether the consumer is willing to pay for it. You, and the consumer generally, already is paying for it. Most people just don't know that they are.

WEEE is a UK regulation (law) that implements the bulk of an EU Directive, but the direct impact is on business. As an example, a supermarket chain decides to upgrade its checkout IT. Seen the touch-screen systems many are now using? Well, since the start of this year, when they make such a change, they are constrained in how they dispose of the old kit that is taken out to allow the new stuff in. It has to be disposed of in a way permitted by the regulation. The cost of doing so is either taken by the manufacturer, or in some cases, importer/retailer, but in any event, is going to end up reflected in the prices paid for equipment. When that supermarket changes it's systems, the cost will have gone up due to the existence of WEEE, and that will be reflected either in retail prices, or in profits and hence share values, or both.

WEEE has no direct impact on consumers. You're not bound to follow it, and you won't get any form of direct bill for it, and it doesn't compel you to "recycle". It attacks the issue from the other end. That's precisely why Iranu is correct that you won't have any choice - it'll be buried in the overall cost structure and you'll never know you're paying it, but you are ..... and have been for a while now.

But while you aren't compelled to cooperate with the scheme, the intention is to encourage Joe Public to be responsible - by compelling business to make provision for "free" reclamation, and by providing "civic amenities".

[iranu]

Thank you saracen. I do not know why JPreston attacked me for my original post and he continually tries to twist anything I have said even when using my quotes. I guess readers can judge for themselves.

With regard to the DDT issue I have not confused my chemicals. I know about DEET because I have used it and yes mine came from Millets. I have innumerable sources for why I said what I did. eg. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5350068.stm (2006 article btw) but I don't believe we'll agree on it.

Here's a personal example of a well meaning regulation that did not achieve it's aim and cost a lot of money because it was a well intentioned move by people without the right knowledge.

I once worked for a firm producing helicopter gearboxes. Alot of the casings were manufactured from a cast aluminium alloy that has been around for decades, that every manufacturer uses without problem. However, a directive by the MOD stated that they were phasing out all Beryllium within their products due to it's hazardous nature. (i.e. Beryllium dust desease erodes the lungs - This is well known and measures are taken when handling Beryllium, which I did when working on SOHO http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/ for Matra Marconi Space, now Astrium)

The presence of Beryllium in some castable alluminium alloys allows a higher Fe (Iron) content. The reason for this is that it reduces the amount and average length of iron bearing phases, can transform some platelet like shapes (beta-Al5FeSi) of iron intermetallic phase to comparatively harmless Chinese-script shapes (alpha-Al8Fe2Si), and can also refine the eutectic silicon.

Adding Be (and optimising the solution heat treatment) results in fewer fracture initiating sites and greater precipitation of strengthening phases, with a consequent improvement in tensile properties.

Ok - in laymans terms this means that certain cast aluminiums with Be additions (which is standard practice for the alloy we were using) produces a casting that is stronger and has better fatigue properties than one without.

There is no danger whatsoever, from Be lung disease, when casting or machining these alloys. However, because of this directive the firm had to spend big bucks (£150,000 plus alone just requalifiying/testing the new alloy to be used i.e. one without the Be and with an Fe content lower than 0.5%.) Because of this lower Fe requiremnent and non-standard alloy the casings were now going to be more expensive too.

When I finally got all the numbers back and did the calculations I then had to break it to the Lead Stress Engineer that our intitial fears were correct and that we would have to revise the numbers down. This meant a redesign, even though the previous designs had been signed off and manufacturers given the go ahead. The redesign was now heavier than the original as would be all the other castings on the aircraft using this alloy and subsequent designs.

So in a nutshell - the new component was heavier, more expensive and had a longer lead time than the original.

Now get this. This ruling would not affect legacy designs. Therefore, castings using the Be containing alloy would still be produced for existing aircraft thereby negating any so called health and safety benefits.

I have a lot more of these examples but they become rather long winded and technical and I'm probably not allowed to discuss some of them.

I am not against legislation that is thouroughly thought through. Infact you may even be surprised to know that the company I work for takes it's impact on the environment and it's workforce very seriously and we work quite closely with regulators and manufacturers to ensure we don't have the scenario described above. We now have alot of our manufacturing in India and China (that's outsourcing JP) and one of the biggest headaches we have in my dept is making sure they comply with all aspects of our specifications. In the far east they have a tendancy to do their own thing regardless of quality, human or local environmental impact. TBH it's a bloody nightmare making sure they don't produce high end parts out of plasticine because it saves them money!!

To end on a positive note. A good example is the phasing out of 1,1,1 trichloroethylene which is rather nasty and was used for degreasing component parts.