
Your Smartphone's Dirty, Radioactive Secret - sc68cal
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/11/rare-earth-elements-iphone-malaysia
======
DanBC
This article isn't very good. It starts by mentioning some information about
Foxconn. Suicides, for example, are less common at Foxconn than in the general
population. So things are a bit more complicated than this article
portrays.[1]

The article talks about the radioactive waste products. That's normally
thorium. But the Lynas site (Mount Weld) has high concentrations of rare
earths, is a huge site, and has low levels of thorium contamination. People
are rightly concerned about radioactive waste being left in Malaysia. Lynas
wanted to ship the radioactive waste back to Australia for processing, but
they are forbidden from doing so by Australian law.

Some people are suggesting that Lynas is using Malaysia to avoid environmental
laws thus cutting costs. But Malaysia gave them a 12 month tax break, and was
already cheaper than Australia, so environmental laws don't appear to be the
main motivator. (Although cheaper costs because of less strict environmental
protections is probably an important factor.)

It is frustrating that all reporting about this is emotive or otherwise sub-
optimal.

[1] I think that conditions at Foxconn are appalling and need to be improved.

~~~
jotux
>Suicides, for example, are less common at Foxconn than in the general
population.

I see this often cited when talking about suicides at Foxconn but comparing
suicides at a company to the general population is not that useful. The
population of Foxconn workers are young(typical age reported to be 18) and
100% employed. That's not a group of people you want to compare to a span-all-
socioeconomic-classes general population.

~~~
tolmasky
Actually, if you compare to that age group specifically, it would seem to make
the number even "better". In America, suicides in the age group of 15 to 24
are the _third_ leading cause of death, with 4000 suicides in 2004 [1]
(whereas if you compare to the general population here it is the 11th leading
cause of death).

Of course, its difficult comparing suicide rates in different countries, and
other factors may be at play, but this just goes to show that suicides are not
a good metric to make this otherwise perfectly valid point (when more
teenagers kill themselves here than in foxconn plants, the argument becomes
more difficult that everyone is killing themselves because things are _so_
terrible). Suicide itself is an incredibly complex topic that should probably
not be trivialized. This is of course not to say conditions there are in any
way good, they're not. I just think its better to rely on the other much more
ample and obvious evidence.

1\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_suicide_in_the_United_S...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_suicide_in_the_United_States)

~~~
Someone
_"Actually, if you compare to that age group specifically, it would seem to
make the number even "better". In America, suicides in the age group of 15 to
24 are the third leading cause of death, with 4000 suicides in 2004 [1]
(whereas if you compare to the general population here it is the 11th leading
cause of death)."_

Not necessarily. The #10 cause for the general population may be deadlier than
the #1 cause for 15-24 year olds. That Here are some made up numbers:

    
    
       15-24 year olds: 0.1% deaths/year, of which 10% due to suicide
    
       general population: 1% deaths per year, of which 5% due to suicide
    

That would have 0.01% of all 15-24 commit suicide each year, but 0.05% of the
general population.

As I said, I made up the numbers. However, I do not think they are completely
out of range. 1% deaths in a stable population gives a life expectancy of 100
years, but the US population is growing and hence relatively young. Also,
looking at <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf>, Figure 3,
I think 1% is a reasonable guess at that figure.

The x% due to suicide numbers likely are exaggerations (a Zipf curve will have
trouble getting to 5% in rank 10)

------
rdl
It is always amusing when people without even a high school science education
seem to write science/engineering articles.

A long half life is inversely related to activity. Heavy radioactive metals
like uranium and thorium are toxic heavy metals, but negligible radioactivity,
precisely because their half lives are so long. Until recently we didn't even
think natural thorium isotopes were radioactive, since the half life is close
to the age of the universe.

The really dangerous radioactive isotopes either have fairly short half lives
or decay into isotopes with short half lives. A few hundred thousand years is
the upper bound for caring, and most of the bad stuff is under a decade.
Basically by simple logic none of this will be naturally occurring or it would
be gone already.

Plenty of non radioactive material is dangerous, though.

~~~
uvdiv
_Until recently we didn't even think natural thorium isotopes were
radioactive, since the half life is close to the age of the universe._

Huh? Thorium was the 2nd element Marie Curie discovered to be radioactive, in
1898 according to wikipedia [0]. In fact the whole thorium decay chain [1] was
classified even before anyone could identify what elements they were,
resulting in the historic names "mesothorium", "radiothorium", etc [1].

Were you thinking of bismuth? [2]

[0] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie#New_elements>

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain#Thorium_series>

[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismuth-209>

~~~
rdl
Yes, I was thinking of Bismuth :(

------
guelo
When western countries moved their manufacturing to China and other developing
countries they also shipped their pollution over there, which is one of the
reasons it is so much cheaper. But we are all living on one single planet.
That is why free trade agreements aren't really free, they should include
western environmental standards as well as labor standards. Of course that
will never happen since giant corporations are the ones that really write our
laws. At the current rate we won't be leaving much resources for our
grandchildren.

~~~
Symmetry
I think we should be very conscious of our material privileges as rich
westerners before we start demanding that people in third world countries live
up to the same safety and environmental standards that we hold ourselves to.
$1000 in safety equipment isn't a big deal in the US, but it could be more
than a third world-worker makes in entire year.

And if you complain that the problem is that we aren't paying third world
worker enough, that's because they don't have enough capital to be as
productive as workers in developed nations. You would need a really massive
transfer of wealth from the developed world to the third world for their
adopting western labor standards to not result in mass starvation. Safety
conditions in third world factories might be bad, but third world farms are
actually much more dangerous.

All of this isn't to say that the specific behavior in the article is
acceptable, it's obviously going beyond the pale and ought to be stopped. It's
just that your proposed solution is entirely unworkable.

~~~
omegaworks
>$1000 in safety equipment isn't a big deal in the US, but it could be more
than a third world-worker makes in entire year.

We're not talking $1 a day subsistance farmer when we talk free trade
agreements. We're talking about the standards billion dollar multinational
companies must comply with to do business between countries. Indeed, $1000 in
safety equipment means almost nothing to these companies, but they'll only do
it if we force them to. Our efficient free market system favors those that can
reduce their costs of operations to the minimum level possible. If we don't
make the rules of the playing field encompass these standards, everyone will
be beholden to the guy that meets only the bare minimums, because he can sell
his stuff the cheapest.

~~~
maratd
> We're not talking $1 a day subsistance farmer when we talk free trade
> agreements.

Yes, you are.

He is part of the same local economy and by placing a cost on those higher up
the chain, you will affect him just as much.

> Indeed, $1000 in safety equipment means almost nothing to these companies,
> but they'll only do it if we force them to.

If that was the case, they wouldn't have out-sourced the manufacturing to
begin with. They wouldn't be buying expensive robots to replace that minimal-
cost labor as we speak. Every penny counts.

> Our efficient free market system favors those that can reduce their costs of
> operations to the minimum level possible.

This is true, but to a point.

> If we don't make the rules of the playing field encompass these standards,
> everyone will be beholden to the guy that meets only the bare minimums,
> because he can sell his stuff the cheapest.

Frequently, consumers take many other factors into a purchase decision. Not
just the price. If I know that a product was manufactured in a responsible
manner, I'm willing to pay more for it.

If this wasn't the case, the organic movement wouldn't exist. Neither would
the local-food movement.

People _are_ willing to pay for higher quality goods and even identical goods
that were manufactured in a more responsible manner.

------
stcredzero
The radioactive waste discussed is Thorium. If we develop Thorium reactors, we
could have carbon-free power with greatly reduced weapons proliferation risk,
two orders of magnitude more plentiful fuel, and less waste which only lasts
300 years, as opposed to 100,000+. Also, this would open up domestic US
reserves of rare earth metals.

~~~
tarre
I do hope, that we will have thorium reactors soon, but I don't completely
agree with the reduced proliferation risk. In thorium reactor you would have
weapon-grade uranium (isotope 233 and a hint of 232), which can be chemically
isolated. Sure due to U-232 it will have radioactivity of levels, which in
long term are harmful. However the levels aren't so high, that they would
prohibit the handling of the material by people, who don't care about
radiation safety that much and I can easily think that to be the case with
nations and groups most eagerly trying to achieve a nuclear bomb.

------
tomaskafka
I feel sad that no comments got to the core - the unchanging corporate
mentality of "man, here's some fertilizer, cement or whatever, dump it
somewhere and you'll get bonus if it's fast".

This happens right now too, as you can see from the totally void answers of
anyone from Lynas, and that's the main reason why they want to spend huge
ammounts of money for shipping to Malaysia - it's still much cheaper than
respecting the western environmental laws.

------
downandout
I may be alone in this, but I have a hard time giving credence to any article
posted on a site with a specific political agenda.

~~~
Karunamon
Forget the political slant; either their writing is correct or it is not. Fox
isn't evil because they're a right wing propaganda machine, they're evil
because they lie.

This article is weak, not because Mother Jones is left slanted, but because
the writing shows a profound lack of basic science understanding and carries a
lot of unsourced scaremongering.

------
guscost
An efficient modern wind turbine uses at least 82kg of neodymium. Older
designs use much more.

[http://www.vestas.com/en/about-
vestas/sustainability/sustain...](http://www.vestas.com/en/about-
vestas/sustainability/sustainable-products/life-cycle-assessment/rare-earth-
elements.aspx)

<http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5094/pdf/sir2011-5094.pdf>

------
johngalt
Motherjones as top result on hacker news? Linkbait article rife with poor
understanding of radioactivity and economics. Who's up for another erlang day?

------
agentultra
Maybe this is a crazy idea, but wouldn't market forces drive down the costs of
mining/processing the material if the consumer or the companies
purchasing/processing REEs had to pay into cleanup efforts?

Apple makes some pretty serious claims about its environmental impact
(<http://www.apple.com/environment/>). But it doesn't mention refining REEs.
Lots about carbon, reducing chemicals such as PVCs, and recycling... Perhaps
the market forces that brought carbon to the fore could help correct REEs and
reduce the impact on the environment these mining operations incur.

If I were a resident of that area I would be concerned about the plant. While
I am suspicious of the technical reporting it seemed clear to me that Lynas
isn't being entirely transparent about its environmental assessments and who
exactly is approving their projects. When engineers involved are talking to
reporters about suspicious activity and large firms are pulling out of the
project it does raise some concern that perhaps Lynas isn't doing as much as
it could be to ensure even minimal safety concerns are met.

Either way I don't think it's unreasonable for Malaysia and other countries in
these sorts of situations to raise awareness about the environmental impacts
these kinds of projects have and to enforce a higher degree of scrutiny in
approving them. It may raise prices on consumers receiving these goods but
it's clear that enough wealth is being generated that we could afford a price-
bump.

With enough investment in better recycling technology and hazardous materials
management we might be able to slowly reduce that price-bump over time.

But then again, I don't understand enough about economics to believe that is
even possible.

The article may be making a rather strong appeal to emotion but it does raise
the question of whether there is enough being done from an investigation and
regulation angle to protect people from the hazardous side-effects of mining
REEs.

------
shawn-butler
It should come as little surprise for readers to learn that the US government
has used its occupation of Afghanistan to survey regions rich in rare earth
deposits [0]. USGS geologists working under direct cover of military
protection in a war zone. I can't wait for the movie version.

Some have argued that part of the reason for prolonging the US engagement has
been that these resources are located in regions of Taliban control, but that
seems highly speculative. Developing that resource would certainly alter the
economic history of that nation.

[0]
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=afghanistan...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=afghanistans-
buried-riches)

------
briandw
Are there any journalists that understand radio isotopes? "OMG a half-life of
14 billion years" as if thats a bad thing. An extremely long half-life means
it's not very radio active, thus not a big problem. Just wait until they hear
how long the half-life of a proton is, 6.6×10^33 years! I'd be much more
concerned with the swimming pools of sulfuric acid and chemical by products
than the radioactivity.

------
anonymous
So is there any product that hasn't been somehow manufactured with the help of
chinese atrocities?

Tomorrow: The insane secrets behind bottled water (spoiler: the guys driving
the trucks hauling the water check their deliveries on a touchpad device that
uses one gram of a rare earth metal that came from China!)

------
sp332
How is the waste radioactive? Doesn't that mean that the original materials
were also radioactive?

~~~
stcredzero
When you mine rare earths, you often get Thorium.

~~~
sp332
OK I guess my question is, how does processing make the radiation more
dangerous? Can't they, I don't know, put the material back near where they
found it?

~~~
sc68cal
It's a question of exposure. When the material is encased in solid rock
hundreds, if not thousands of feet blow, the exposure risk is very low.

Once you pull it out of the ground - exposure becomes a real problem. They
mention that some of the materials must be kept in liquid, so it does not
become a dust that can get blown away. At the same time, they need to line the
storage pool with a material that will block it from seeping into the
groundwater. For centuries.

~~~
ars
> At the same time, they need to line the storage pool with a material that
> will block it from seeping into the groundwater. For centuries.

Not for thorium. The stuff is almost harmless, and is insoluble in water, so
tends to just stay put.

Plus, even if you did have to isolate it, centuries would be nothing. It's has
a half life of 14 billion years! Just bury it back in the ground and that's
all - it's really not very radioactive. (Just deep enough that it won't be dug
up by accident and that's all - you don't need to block the radioactivity,
since even a piece of paper is enough shielding.)

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing since you are confusing cesium from
nuclear reactors and thorium.

------
venomsnake
The problem with the radioactive waste is not its radiation. Its usually in
check unless it is pulled out of reactor core. The problem for the people in
contact with it more often is that it is extremely poisonous.

------
Karunamon
Something that bothered me about this article was the subtext that "treating"
the waste wasn't good enough. How much of that scaremongering is justified?

------
natar
Well, I hope <http://www.fairphone.com/> will do a good job, then.

------
fleitz
Wait til motherjones finds out that their servers are just as dirty as Apple's
iPhone. Rare Earths are essential to all electronics, not just smart phones.

~~~
hdevalence
> Walk down the aisles of your local Best Buy and you'll be hard-pressed to
> find a phone, laptop, or TV that doesn't contain at least one of the rare
> earths. The elements are also key to all kinds of green technology:
> Neodymium is found in wind turbines; hybrid and electric cars often contain
> as many as nine different rare earths. Yttrium can form phosphors that make
> light in LED displays and compact fluorescent lightbulbs. Rare earths are
> also crucial for defense technology—radar and sonar systems, tank engines,
> smart bombs.

From the second page of the article.

Nobody is denying whether or not they're essential. The issue is that they're
produced in poor countries so that the refiners can offload most of the cost
of refining rare earth metals in the form of environmental damage.

