Ian A. Nichols schrieb:
>
> On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, John A. Lind wrote:
> > Don't categorize "digital" as a completely "green" alternative to film and
> > photochemistry. It's definitely not.
>
> I think magnitude is important here. The chemical waste generated by
> making the electronics for a digital camera is a one-off thing - once
> the camera is made, that's it for the rest of its life (or at least
> until a circuit is replaced due to failure).
Callculations made for PC indicate, that the manufactoring of
electronics is a _very_poluting_ technology. There are extrem agressiv
acids, poisonous elements and and an enormous amount of energy
neccessary.
> I think that advances in (relatively)
> non-polluting printing technology (e.g. inkjets),
Relativly "non poluting inkjet technology", still polutes during use
and production.
I believe the general public grossly underestimates the polution
conected with the use of electronics.
> Until
> you factor in the 18 month redundancy cycle that seems to be expected of
> PCs at any rate.... but that's another rant.
Exactly _that_ makes it even more poluting, the build in obsolescence
and irepairability of this "she danced only one summer" toys. Just
compare the three decades lasting OMs with a digital camera which might
be used only for one or two years.
Regards
Richard
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|