Talk:Electronic waste

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sunnyskim. Peer reviewers: Barbroam.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sysemic bias towards the US
I have added the globalize tag since recent (unreffed) edits quote the US EPA. This article is about info relating to global ewaste. There is an Electronic waste in the United States article for US specific info. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a need for the tag, so I'm removing it. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Lots of bias towards the US. This page has loads of information about e-waste recycling in Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.98.72.18 (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Electronics and the environment
Can you please reconsider your proposed merge of the Electronics and the environment‎‎ and Electronic waste articles? They are quite separate and quite notable topics. Also since the Electronics and the environment‎ article is higher up the article hierarchy the merge should go opposite to that which you propose. However, this is not a satisfactory solution since the electronic waste article is a very notable topic and a well established article. If you will not reconsider the merger can you set up a section on the talk page outlining your concerns and put a merge tag on Electronic waste? You may also be interested in my essay "On filling the gaps". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (Moved from my talk page...article discussions go on article talk pages, not on random user pages.)
 * "Electronics and the environment" hasn't been edited substantially by humans for most of its career. The title is vague and ill-defined; are we also talking about weather balloon instruments, or keeping the water out of MP3 players? E-waste is at least a nicely bounded topic and is most of the actual content at "electronics and the environment". I wasn't aware that Wikipedia topics are organized in hierarchical fashion and I don't see why one is "higher" than the other, especially f the one has essentially no content. A merge is in order.  If someone someday feels moved to write a well-referenced article that goes under the "electronics and the environment" topic...well, there's no deadline now, is there? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be slightly better to say "Environmental impacts of electronics" but even that is a bit tenuous; what we mean is environmental impact of greenhouse gases produced during manufacture, the impact of electronic waste, and the impact of electrical power use - all of which already have articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Something" and "something else" is usually a weak way to title something, with perhaps some notable exceptions. "And" doesn't necessearily imply cause or effect. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: When Alan Liefting said that "the Electronics and the environment‎ article is higher up the article hierarchy", he probably meant that the article "Electronics and the environment" is more encompassing (more inclusive) than the article "Electronic waste", the topic of the latter being a subset of the topic of the former. Also, Category:Electronics and the environment‎ is higher than Category:Electronic waste in the hierarchy of categories.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That is correct. An example of a hierarchy is:

History ↓ History of the world ↓ History of Europe ↓ History of France ↓ History of Paris
 * As you go up the hierarchy less of the bottom article is included in those above. The same goes for the other direction. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of separate points here so I will address them individually for ease of replying. The merge notification still needs placement on both of the affected pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Electronics and the environment is a notable and distinct topic. The fact that it has not had substantial editing is in itself not a reason for a merge. The article needs expanding. Also, it is always harder to extricate content out of an article to create a new one. IMO it is better to have a stub topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A "vague and ill-defined" topic name can be solved by renaming and is not a reason to merge. Electronics and environment (biophysical) are two defined topics. The intersection of the two is therefore also defined. There will, however, always be a grey area at the outer limits of the topic range. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The contents of this page should not be merged into electronic waste since they are not relevant to that page. Green computing, standby power etc are not relevant in the e-waste page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Pastry chefs" and "atomic power workers" has also a well-defined intersection, but it's not a topic for an encyclopedia article. What do you want this article to be about? What should it be called?
 * Perhaps the reason this article has had so little human editing is precisely because no-one can figure out what is supposed to be relevant to the topic. A very good way to develop Wikipedia articles is precisely to extract long, but coherent, sections from an article that has grown. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Using "Pastry chefs" and "atomic power workers" as examples is a bit of a straw man argument. Here is another chart of part of the article hierarchy that might help to explain things:


 * As you can see there are gaps in the articles that WP should have. Articles that editors have not got around to writing yet but should be on WP. The simplified chart above shows that thers is a need for an Electronics and the environment article as well as a number of others.


 * If you don't like the article name then move it, but I would like to discuss it first. I am happy with the article name. It is a succinct title for an article that describes the negative, positive and neutral effects that electronics has on the environment, as well as methods to mitigate the negative effects. That is why I set up the initial structure with headings to that effect. Have a read of my essay "On filling the gaps" for some further info. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review of List of personal computer refurbishment and recycling centers in the U.S.
I've asked for the subject article (which I'm still adding to bit by bit) to be Peer Reviewed for both direction and hopefully Featured List status. Please comment? Simesa (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: There is a companion internationally-oriented article. Simesa (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This article appears to have gotten some biased editing. In particular, the original first paragraph originally had a sentence questioning whether the dangers have been exaggerated. The sentence appears to have been rewritten to convey the exact opposite meaning, which would imply univeral agreement on a subject which is actually very controversial. As another example, the original article included nuance in the definition of secondary markets and dumped items, it has been re-edited as "Used electronics which are destined for reuse, resale, salvage, recycling or disposal are also considered as e-waste." That is certainly not the case in Basel Convention or Doha Round of World Trade Association, and is certainly in dispute.

"Scrap industry and USA EPA officials agree that materials should be managed with caution,and environmental dangers of unused electronics have not been exaggerated." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.25.161 (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Extensive BIAS towards US Environmental Protection Agency:

Work carried out by the US EPA over the past decade has been limited, with many states acting independant of the US's Governing body. California for instance has seen fit to implement a statewide ban on the landfilling of electronics. By contrast, the EU and it's assoicated nations implemented a strategy and subsequent legislation during the first decade of the new century, some 5 years before the US even considered introducing specific environmental legislation. However, the EU's WEEE directive (2006) contains loopholes that permit the repair, refurbishment and subsequent export of EEE to other continents. Prior legal cases have tackled this issue head-on, often resulting in fines or imprisonment for those exporting WEEE under the guise of EEE. During 2010, the amount of WEEE exported to developing countries was seen to fall, predominantly as a result of public condemnation and increased competition among private recycling companies, operating with a limited client base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.143.217 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, now cite. Though I should point out your focus here is primarily on policy and regulation and not on any empirical work as to whether the items in question are toxic, which is what is really called for here.  References to public perception and government policy are really only valid (as regards wikipedia content anyway) for detailing those subjects themselves.  Too speak to whether the items and the substances within them are potentially hazardous (as many of them undoubtedly are), we have to cite credible experts from the relevant fields associated with that question.  In that regard, you're going to be facing an uphill battle, because, from what little I've seen, the work is rather one-sided on the conclusion that many devices have significant environmental concerns as regards their disposal.  But if you can find references to the contrary, then I don't see why the caveat can't stay.  As stands though, I don't think there is a single reference which is supporting it staying in.  But again, both sides need to supply more appropriate sources.  Or, since this discussion is rather old, I suspect I will be. Snow (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello I would like to step in and make a small reply to this. I am new to editing but been reading and on Wiki for a very long time. Now What you said about credible experts is very important to make sure the right info gets out and is not one sided. Now on the same breath as saying one sided (some may feel what I would have to say would be just that and is why I have not said or acted on the info I have) but I am a company owner and we are experts when it comes to the e-waste and the PM markets. Now I would not mind spending the time needed and help find and or make the needed references so help people understand what they have inside there homes. Some of the e-waste is and could be very toxic and hazardous but at the same time the shampoo that you use could have some toxic things in it. Now I could go into more detail and explain this but I do not want to violate any rules. Now if someone requests more info from me I would be more than happy to explain more and talk with you here or off of here to maybe work on this page or make a new page with related info! Linden.940 (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

NYT resource
Toxic Metals Tied to Work in Prisons by LESLIE KAUFMAN published October 26, 2010, excerpt ... 99.181.141.143 (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This was due to the money that can be made in the e-waste markets but at the same time there where and still are a lot of people and companies (even the gov) who do not fully know what they have or what they are doing when it comes to the e-waste. Reason why I saw the gov is for this reason. Not every is trained like epa. So taking note of that, there plan was on good grounds but on bad plans and ideas. They need a better understanding of that they are doing and what they need to do. You also have to give training to the "workers" in this case the people who are in jail, on what to do and what not to do. Just because something went bad dose not mean its bad. You just have to change the way you go about doing it.Linden.940 (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Create a Wikipedia account and be bold WP:BOLD. It seems like suitable material but it has to be paraphrased. Alatari (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

electronics and reduced critical thinking?

 * Hello! I am doing a research paper and am considering  as my topic `How electronics have reduced our critical thinking'.  I am wondering if any studies have been done on this subject, or if there is any credible authority on said subject.  My thought process goes to how, at least in America (from my own experience in watching and listening to my dad), we used to take items that were broken and opened them up to try to fix them and make them last longer.  We no longer do so, but rather, we throw them away because we don't even want to TRY to troubleshoot any problems(we don't want to face our troubles, just get rid of them; even our relationships?  Hhhmmm.), we even toss relatively new devices for the "latest and greatest" (which opens up discussion on our greed).  Any and all GOOD input would be appreciated.         P.S.   I need any data/input ASAP......research paper due in late November and I need time for edits and citations.   THANK YOU!  Dcox12 (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

`How electronics have reduced our critical thinking' isn't even a topic, it's an attempt to explain your own opinion, after accepting it as a fact, when it isn't a fact or even an occasionally accepted theory, just something you made up, and the title takes it from there to explain how it occurred, when it hasn't.75.79.161.13 (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Recycling plant
Perhaps the recycling plant set up in 2008 by Feng Wang can be discussed. See Feng Wang bio, Feng Wang's plant briefly discussed in this paper 109.130.211.111 (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Weak points
Appearantly, companies introduce weak points in PCB's/consumer electronics they design so the device becomes defect quicker, with the result that the consumer need to buy new devices quicker. Appearantly, in motherboards it's mostly caused by capacitors they place on the boards (not sure why these are needed at all). Perhaps mention in article.

Also mention that there will be 65 tons of e-waste produced in 2017, every year KVDP (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps go read WP:MADEUP instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Capacitors placed on PCBs for electronics are sometimes used for electronic noise reduction. I'm currently taking a class where we will eventually design a PCB for a project, and the professor has mentioned that we should consider placing some capacitors on the board in a certain configuration to reduce noise to the circuit. --134.88.180.211 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Reuse organisations
Perhaps we can mention http://www.freegeek.org/ ? 109.130.180.222 (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Electronic waste. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000621233638/http://www.apmag.com/ to http://www.apmag.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electronic waste. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101130085009/http://www.fourgreensteps.com/infozone/featured/features/what-is-e-waste-a-how-can-i-get-rid-of-it to http://www.fourgreensteps.com/infozone/featured/features/what-is-e-waste-a-how-can-i-get-rid-of-it

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Some suggestions
- References 18 and 76 now lead to 404 error pages.

- Citation needed for the following statement in the Consumer Awareness Efforts section: "CEA research has found that 58 percent of consumers know where to take their end-of-life electronics".

- In the Guiyu section, would it be better for the main article to link to the 'Electronic waste in Guiyu' article rather than the 'Electronic waste in China' article?

- In the Guiyu section, the final line states: "A suggested preventative step involves the major electronics firms removing the worst chemicals in their products in order to make them safer and easier to recycle." It is not clear to me whether this suggestion comes from a source or the writer.

- Citation needed for the following statement in the Hazardous section concerning nickle-cadmium rechargeable batteries: "These batteries tend to contain between 6 and 18% cadmium".

BeepS (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Electronic waste. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110815230326/http://ewasteguide.info/files/Amoyaw-Osei_2011_GreenAd-Empa.pdf to http://ewasteguide.info/files/Amoyaw-Osei_2011_GreenAd-Empa.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140424192458/http://corporatemobilerecycling.co.uk/enviroment/ to http://corporatemobilerecycling.co.uk/enviroment/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106161107/http://www.ce.org/News/Environment/eCycle.aspx to http://www.ce.org/News/Environment/eCycle.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106162925/http://www.simsrecycling.co.uk/Resources/WEEE-Recycling to http://www.simsrecycling.co.uk/Resources/WEEE-Recycling
 * Added tag to http://www.learningace.com/doc/4352558/4f7ade1e955b0100f4b000490b9ac82a/kwiat_environmental-education
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106175444/http://www.hardrawgathering.co.uk/the-environment/ to http://www.hardrawgathering.co.uk/the-environment/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

POV tag
I'm not sure if I understand this cleanup tag on this article. Are there any specific biases or inaccuracies that need to be corrected here? Jarble (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes,, and I got diverted IRL before I had a chance to catalog them—thank you for tagging and asking for clarification! It isn't an issue of one, article-wide, non-neutral position, but individual paragraphs and sentences that are non-neutral in their own ways. The overarching issue is that a mishmash of different advocacy groups' positions are unquestioningly stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice.  I suspect that there have been COI editors from those advocacy groups at work on the article, but I also suspect that student editors who don't have tremendous experience in critical assessment of sources have added content based on advocacy groups' publications without realizing that they are perpetuating a non-neutral POV. One example: "In the US, the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) urges consumers to dispose properly of end-of-life electronics through its recycling locator at www.GreenerGadgets.org. This list only includes manufacturer and retailer programs that use the strictest standards and third-party certified recycling locations, to provide consumers assurance that their products will be recycled safely and responsibly. CEA research has found that 58 percent of consumers know where to take their end-of-life electronics, and the electronics industry would very much like to see that level of awareness increase." Whose "strictest standards"? When did Wikipedia get into the business of helping the electronics industry achieve their "very much" wished-for "level of awareness" among consumers?  It will be several hours at the earliest before I'm able to do substantive editing but since there have apparently been WikiEd students working on the article in the past week or so, I wanted to throw up a red flag regarding this issue. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  16:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A new section "health and safety"
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I plan to create a new section called "health and safety" at the end of the "Electronic waste" article to summarize all the health effects that already exist here and there in the article. I think it will make this article more clear because the section "electronic waste substances" give readers a clear overview of all the harmful effect so it may be better to talk about health and effect after that section. I also plan to add something related to e-waste recycling workers health and safety. What do you think?--Lihui Pan (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Controversy has been erased, single point of view now on disputed aspects of Secondhand and Surplus Property sales
DISPUTED NEUTRALITY, SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE PEER-REVIEWED SOURCES

I don't have time to constantly re-visit the page, but my attempts at providing nuance seem to be thrown out, so I'm offering some third-party independent review suggestions for the following points.

1. Electronic Waste certainly does NOT cover non-waste, at least under consensus or law. For example, Annex IX of the Basel Convention (B1110) explicitly calls export for repair not to be covered by the waste rules. NGOs have protested that language in writing and currently call for it to be amended, therefore it's certainly worth noting that it is not resolved at best and I'd argue that the burden of proof is on the persons deleting that reference. Clearly, anything once owned by a rich person has not by definition been "discarded" if sold on the secondary market - the "circular economy" does not revolve around the perceived liabilities of the privileged.

2. The "export hoax" of 2002-2012 has been discredited by most peer reviewed articles. The claims that 80% of used electronics purchased by African and Asian agents are "primitively" managed was falsely made and has been abandoned, and therefore any presumption in the article that those agents prefer or accept to ship non-reuseable material begs attribution.

3. World Bank and IMF funded studies for projects like hydroelectric dams since the 1960s (Agosomba in Ghana, e.g.) frequently included a census of household consumers. The TVs per household in nations like Ghana and metropolises like Lagos are well documented, and the question is why are there so few used electronics at their city scrapyards given the units in use 20 years ago (answer - they reuse and repair them several times longer).

Dr. Josh Lepawsky Josh Lepawsky, Joshua Goldstein, and Yvan Schulz Dr. Jenna Burrell Huabo Duan, T. Reed Miller, Jeremy Gregory, Randolph Kirchain Grace Akese and Peter Little Emmanuel Nyalete Bloomberg columnist, author, Adam Minter (see also Smithsonian etc)

I'm a former environmental regulator (first CRT waste ban author, MA DEP 1992-2000), EPA consultant, degree in International Relations (semester at UN WHO Geneva), founder of fairtraderecycling.net but do run a used electronics (waste, scrap, surplus, parts reuse, etc) business so I'm willing to be sidelined, but if a moderator will check out the links I've provided, I think there's evidence of zealousness and an absence of #ownvoices in the current Electronic Waste Wikipedia article. I'll come back in if invited, but suggest the peer reviewed Ph.D's work above (and there are many others). Whether the zealotry is funded by Planned Obsolescence, Big Shred, or is evidence of a Charitable Industrial Complex does not belong in this article per se, but a link may raise astute questions. The assumption that all the junk in emerging market scrapyards was exported and dumped there by Western recycling companies is proven false by the projected generation of those cities units per household 20 years ago (which itself cannot be explained by new unit purchases in those nations). Perhaps the current author expected to see banana peels and coconut shells in the largest cities in Africa (sorry, my attitude is showing).

Peter Buffett NYT

Retroworks (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Robin Ingenthron @retroworks

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024
— Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)