riddle@woton.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle ) (07/20/87)
I've been hearing more and more criticism of the purported benefits of the
"computer revolution" lately from those who point out that the electronics
industry, despite a lot of claims to the contrary, is a very dirty one. As
one book I have read recently complains:
Communities dominated by the computer industry are plagued with
severe groundwater contamination from cyanides, arsenic, toxic heavy
metals and a wide range of carcinogenic chemical solvents, all
essential ingredients in the manufacture of silicon computer
chips...
The electronics industry claims a rate of occupational illness two to
three times the average for manufacturing industries, with frequent
complaints of severe acid burns, chemical-induced disorders of the
nervous system, kidneys and liver, menstrual irregularities and
frequent miscarriages. The most routine and the most hazardous
operations are often moved to countries in Latin America and
Southeast Asia, where local water supplies are routinely destroyed
and young women workers find their eyesight and reproductive health
to be permanently damaged after just two or three years of assembling
computer chips.
[Source: "The Green Alternative: Creating an Ecological Future" by
Brian Tokar, 1987. The author cites as his sources a March, 1985
issue of "Science for the People," an article in the November, 1984
issue of "Sierra," and the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, 277 W.
Hedding St., San Jose, CA 95110.]
My question is this: are these problems inherent in the manufacture of
computers, or are there trade-offs involved? Assuming that there were a
desire to do so, would it be possible to manufacture computer components by
environmentally safe processes, given certain increases in cost and decreases
in performance? And for those of you with a taste for a good deus ex
machina :-) , are there any breakthroughs looming on the horizon which might
create a shift to clean computer technology?
--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
--- Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Shriners Burns Institute.
--- riddle@woton.UUCP {ihnp4,harvard,seismo}!ut-sally!im4u!woton!riddleeugene@ames-pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) (07/22/87)
> I've been hearing more and more criticism of the purported benefits of the > "computer revolution" lately from those who point out that the electronics > industry, despite a lot of claims to the contrary, is a very dirty one. There are some trade-offs, but it takes pioneering to discover what those tradeoffs are, and I am not certain many companies check out all tradeoffs in manufacturing. Especially in economically competitive markets. One thing to point out when I was working for a thin-film lab. The basic ingredients of SiO2, Cu, and Gold are not the big problems, the problems are the tools used to work with them: Gold is chemically difficult stuff to work with and Aqua Regina is very hazardous stuff (recalling the lecture we were given to handle it). HF to etch glass is also pretty dangerous. {So we can't argue that optical computing will be `cleaner' for instance.} So it is frequently the tools which are the problem, many are irreplaceable. This problem also promises to get worse as we work with more and more difficult compounds: GaAs, some of the rare earths. (major point) And the lead (not Pb) times to detection are long and the materials effects are not well understood. The quantities, however, are probably smaller than the petro-chemical industry (growing up not to far from where Dow Chemical made naplam in the 1960s). Ask this question again in 2020. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center