Mike

I believe this kind of irresponsibility is small. The article is
obviously intended to be sensationalist and may reveal a very minor
problem. The cost of transporting such waste is more than it would cost
to dispose of it locally, legally.

The real problem is that refurbished computers and suchlike are not
necessarily reliable, so that they may be used for 6, 12 or 18 months
and are then scrapped. In the meanwhile, the computer was sold for, say,
$75 and this paid for the refurbishment, trasnport and a few bucks along
the line. Certainly, the idea of taking them apart to scatter the parts
along the waterways and in the fields is simply ludicrous.

Many of Europe's computers are seriously refurbished and end up in
Africa. One company has stated that they re-use about 75% of the
incoming parts. It is obvious, for example, that if the PSU of a
computer has rendered its soul, then taking the PSU from a computer that
has faulty hard disk drive will restore it to working condition, and so
on. This is a profitable business.

The real problem is much more profound: it is one of sustainability.
Intel and Microsoft, between them, are the real culprits in their stupid
drive towards ever-performing upgrades. Typically, for example, Windows
XP cannot be used on a computer more than a year or two old, so
computers are scrapped long before what should really be the end of
their useful life. Probably 98% of PCs are used under conditions where
the only input data is through a human interface (e.g., keyboard) and
the extra performance is required, not because of speed, but because of
bloated operating systems and other software. Word processing on a 286
under DOS, with 1 Mb of RAM and a 10 Mb of hard disk worked just as well
and as efficiently as on a Windows-driven Pentium 4 at 2 GHz with 512 Mb
RAM and 60 Gb of drive, even if the latter is now a fraction of the
price we paid for the former. This programmed obsolescence is simply not
sustainable, except to Bill Gates and Co., who can get ever-richer by
their scam which is causing landfills throughout the world to fill up.
Unfortunately, I know of no way to stop this race.

What I am saying is that, if computers (including software) were built
to last 10 years instead of 2 - 3, life would be a lot more profitable
and pleasant. If each major software and hardware upgrade took place
every 5 or 6 years, the manufacturers would have time to develop them
and debug them properly, instead of throwing what are essentially beta
versions of everything on the unsuspecting public, who spend vast
fortunes on buying faulty goods and then paying more for the service of
getting upgrades purporting to correct the faults of the previous system
and introducing just as many new ones and which will never work on an
old machine.

Just ask yourself, what do you do if the graphics card in your computer
fails? Do you repair it, or have it repaired? Never! You spend a hundred
bucks on a new one or a thousand on a brand new computer, if you are
gullible enough to listen to the guy whom you call in to "sort out" your
dead beast. All because a 5 cent capacitor has given up the ghost.

Best regards,

Brian

[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> The forum may find this of interest.
> --Mike
>
>  Old computer parts hauled into California's recycling
>  centers are more likely to wind up as toxic trash in
>  Asia's waterways than as reused high-tech materials on
>  store shelves, according to a report to be released today.
>  While many consumers are led to believe their outdated
>  equipment will be given a new life after being turned in
>  for recycling, most often it winds up on a boat bound for
>  China, India or Pakistan, where is it burned in rice
>  fields or dumped into irrigation canals.
>    http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/2740767.htm