[LINK] Of nomads and nanotech [Was: 'New mobile phones will double as credit cards']

[Ivan Trundle]

On 29/04/2007, at 8:16 AM, David Boxall wrote:

> Kim Holburn wrote:
>>
>> On 2007/Apr/28, at 10:16 AM, Howard Lowndes wrote:
>>> Ivan Trundle wrote:
> ....
>>> I notice that my local Telstra Shop (Albury) has an in-store  
>>> clear dump bin for discarded mobile phones.
>>
>> Actually I believe it's the law now that companies selling phones  
>> have to take them and the batteries back for "recycling" or  
>> "proper disposal" or whatever.

Which is flawed, in itself. The 'Green Point' laws in Germany began  
this madness. Although it sounds like a good idea, it is now  
mandatory in many industries to return all packaging (and in some  
instances, components) to the originating factories.

So, here in Australia, packaging used in car parts made in Sweden  
(just one example - there are many) which are sent via container ship  
to Australia is then transported back from the car parts shopfront to  
the distributor, who then flatpacks the packaging and ships it back  
to Sweden.

The original legislation was intended to make producers responsible  
for all outputs, but the process of delivering the material back to  
the originator makes a mockery of conservation and green practice.

>>
> An interesting sidelight (pun intended) <http://www.abc.net.au/ 
> science/news/stories/2007/1907341.htm>:
> "People also wanted the units to be able to charge up their mobile  
> phones"
>
> The focus of molecular nanotechnology is the manufacture of goods  
> from the molecular level.  To me, the more interesting promise is  
> the opposite: destruction to that level.  If we could dismantle  
> stuff down to individual atoms, it would be much easier to recycle  
> the raw materials.  It would be the end of trash.

I doubt it, but in any event, the deconstruction of an item would  
take energy, which could otherwise be spent in producing goods with a  
better (i.e. longer) lifetime of use. This argument (that if it is  
easy to return something to its original state), only PROMOTES the  
further construction of materials which in a sane world would either  
not be needed, or would be unprofitable to make in the first  
instance. We would end up with more 'stuff', and the promise of  
returning this stuff to its natural, original state is a false promise.

Interestingly, a recent survey of Americans showed that 70% are  
unaware that most plastics come from oil. 40% believed that plastics  
biodegrade, too (okay, technically this is correct - but the  
timescale is far greater than the survey participants).

iT