
Why are new Samsung and HP computer parts being dumped in Guiyu? - anonymous_eng
http://shanghaiscrap.com/2012/04/why-is-new-samsung-and-hp-material-being-dumped-in-guiyu-follow-the-bar-codes/
======
aes256
Title should read: Aspiring author with evidence of a relatively minor issue —
finding small quantities of harmless e-waste at an e-waste recycling site — is
peeved that tech companies were more interested in resolving the issue than
providing material for his book, launches an unsuccessful campaign to smear
said companies' reputations and get free publicity for his book

~~~
moreorless
|evidence of a relatively minor issue|

A minor issue? The people suffering people in the surrounding area will
definitely disagree it being a "minor" problem.

------
tobiasu
These are really small quantities. The companies involved are way too large to
bother with two boxes full of HP drives or a bunch of defect graphic card
PCBs.

Interested in writing a book, indeed...

~~~
stephengillie
_> Interested in writing a book, indeed..._

The author makes a big point about NEW hardware being dumped, but fails to
deliver. This looks like numerous companies bought HP hardware over the past
10 years, and have been tossing it here as they upgrade.

The HP drives look older to me - one is a 146GB 10K Fibre-channel drive that
Amazon doesn't sell anymore. One of the labels shows "Tested Jul '05". The
other is a 72GB 15k Wide Ultra320 SCSI.

The monitor is a 14.1" WXGA, which looks to max out at 1366x768. The label
shows "Date of receipt: 10-May-10"

The crop of the 3rd barcode is very blurry, I couldn't figure out what was in
it. Apparently they're supposed to be Samsung-branded, but the box isn't
branded at all. (other than mentioning Korean assembly)

The next 2 images are really trying hard - one is the AMD-labelled PCB for an
AMD/ATI Radeon, and the other is its ATI-branded heatsink. The author tries to
grow his list of offending brands by including both of this company's brands.
You can find one for sale on Ebay. ([http://www.ebay.com/itm/ATI-Radeon-
Graphics-Card-Model-B403-...](http://www.ebay.com/itm/ATI-Radeon-Graphics-
Card-Model-B403-ATI-102-B40319-B-109-B40341-00-DP-N0C120D-/250966372914))

Apparently Panasonic Aviation is part of Panasonic.
(<http://www.mascorp.com/>) Still, the pink label in the photo notes the
manufacture date as "28 Feb 06".

~~~
dfox
The HP drives are certainly not manufactured by HP, only HP branded.

Partnumber on label on 3rd photo is clearly Samsung's (S3C...) and seems to be
some semi-custom CPU for TVs so it's entirely possible to be discarded by
Samsung's customer instead of Samsung. Also parts that are discarded because
they don't pass QC testing are usually not packaged (as packaging invalid
parts is large mostly avoidable cost) or at least visibly and irreparably
destroyed (like drilled through) to make them unsellable and unusable for
counterfeiters, not thrown away with complete original packaging.

The AMD board was certainly discarded during manufacturing, I would quess that
by automated optical check after reflow (through hole components are not
assembled, there seems to be missing component marked by the arrow label). Due
to various process limitations, discarding such boards tends to be cheaper
(and maybe even more green and eco-friendly) than trying to fix them.

------
sbierwagen
Title asks a question, article doesn't actually answer it.

~~~
brudgers
Neither did HP or Samsung.

~~~
anonymous_eng
Samsung has since responded:

"Based on our internal investigation, we confirmed that the boxes were not
discarded by Samsung Electronics or by one of Samsung’s recycling partners.
Furthermore, the semiconductor components contained in the boxes were
manufactured in 2004 and had been shipped to a customer overseas. In the case
of components – unlike finished products – all rights and ownership are
transferred to the customer after a sales transaction has been completed."

The full response: [http://www.techinasia.com/samsung-denies-dumping-ewaste-
chin...](http://www.techinasia.com/samsung-denies-dumping-ewaste-china/)

~~~
viraptor
> "unlike finished products – all rights and ownership are transferred"

Does this make sense to anyone? What kind of rights / ownership would they
preserve when they sell a finished product?

~~~
blantonl
It just a fancy PR way of saying: "When someone buys it, it is theirs"

~~~
rntksi
I think s/he meant that in the statement, they used the wording "unlike
finished products", meaning that if it actually was _finished products_ , some
rights and ownerships would've been retained by the seller. In which case,
what rights and what kind of ownership rights would be retained?

~~~
nl
In some jurisdictions the manufacture is partially responsible for the
disposal of finished goods (ie, they have to offer recycling programs).

This doesn't apply to components.

------
aes256
” … your main priority seems to be your book, while ours is to investigate and
resolve this matter.”

The representative from Samsung nailed it.

------
seclorum
As an avid dumpster diver, nothing irks me more than seeing people throw away
perfectly functional equipment that they just don't have a 'fashion sense'
for, any more.

I'm rapidly accruing enough material for my own data center. My kids have
their own little mini-studio of keyboards, samplers, and whatnot, to deal
with.

I'd love to be putting the thrown-away computers to better use in my area. If
only there were some sort of really big cultural effect that could occur that
would make it utterly unacceptable to take your "old computer" anywhere other
than a school or education facility put in place to prevent exactly this kind
of ridiculous waste from occurring ..

~~~
SamReidHughes
The last thing we need is old computers. Old computers suck. They have old
failing components and they use too much energy.

~~~
shinratdr
You'll get down voted for it but its completely true. Anyone who thinks they
are helping the environment by still using their ancient P4 instead of junking
it is kidding themselves.

~~~
icegreentea
As if it costs no energy to make a new computer? If you want to minimize total
energy costs, you have to consider manufacturing energy costs. The case for
just getting a new computer gets even worse if you put all of your old
computer's energy costs as a sunk cost. This study shows that amongst the
early 2000s generation of laptops that even if you use a laptop for 7 years
[1] (you have to squint at the first graph), manufacturing still accounts for
~50% of energy costs. Even assuming that manufacturing efficiency increased
even more than operating efficiency since then, the answer is still not clear
cut.

Now obviously at some point, it becomes better to get a new computer period,
and most P4s may already be in that range, but as a generalized statement,
should be taken carefully.

[1]
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652611...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652611000801)

------
mtkd
Why would you write a blog post with a question for a title and close the
comments?

------
nivertech
There is a thing called "longevity" - i.e. ability to source the same SKUs for
5 years. It's very important in Embedded / Industrial / Military markets.

The only reliable way to achieve longevity is to buy spare parts and store
them for entire period. Of course the supplier will charge much higher price.
After longevity period is over the parts should be destroyed.

------
DanBC
Wouldn't "e-waste" - properly handled - by an income source for developing
world nations? For sure there's plenty of health and safety problems to be
handled carefully, but allowing people to salvage various minerals and metals
would seem a useful idea.

~~~
watmough
Right, but put together a 'recycling company'. What's the cheapest way when
you don't have access to skilled labor? Probably to just melt it all down and
skim off the 1% or 2% of gold...

~~~
DanBC
But even with semi-skilled labour you can recycle copper reasonably easily. At
least, it could be done a lot better than just burning the insulation off
cables.

There's so much stuff which could be reasonably easily recycled - the lead,
aluminium, copper are all easy. Then stuff like gold is extractable. Then the
rare earth minerals - is it easier to scrape all the surface mount components
of a board and then extract the tantalum etc than it is to mine those things
from raw ore?

I understand the need to protect developing nations by not just dumping
garbage on them in the guise of "second hand computing good enough to use".

As I understand it, one of the problems is that in some places the safety
equipment you give people has a high re-sale value, thus people sell their
boots / gloves /masks to get cash. I'm not sure how that'd be fixed.

------
DanBC
BBC had a better, although still sensationalist, article.

(<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17782718>)

> _The soil in Guiyu has been found to be so saturated with heavy metals such
> as lead, chromium and tin that groundwater has become undrinkable._

> _According to China's Shantou University, the town has the highest level of
> cancer-causing dioxins in the world, and local children suffer from an
> extremely high rate of lead poisoning._

This is a serious problem, but it's one that could be fixed with some strict
eco and H&S law in the country concerned.

