On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 21:47:22 +0100, "Ian Field"
wrote:



"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 19:33:19 +0100, "Ian Field"
wrote:

I doubt it. This is how it's done:
http://www.okinternational.org/lead-batteries/Recycling
It's not pretty and probably unsafe, but workable.

Problem is; some dodgy characters have found after employee health &
welfare
costs & environmental precaution, its just cheaper to export the old
batteries to a developing country with slums & street urchins to reclaim
the
metal for a days food.

Would you deny the slum dwellers and street urchins their miserable
income by blocking or taxing such exports? It can be done, but it
would create an "unemployment" problem at the bottom end.

It poisons and sometimes maims the kids that are shoveling molten lead in
their bare feet, and it pollutes large areas of ground & possibly
groundwater.

Ok, so you would let them starve instead. At least the environment
will be safe and someone else can trash their back yard. Given the
choice between the two options, I don't suppose it would be of any
interest to ask the street urchins if they prefer to be poisoned or
starved to death?

They also had a "nice little earner" decommissioning scrap warships - which
involved shoveling out literally tons of asbestos lagging.

Yeah, I saw the horror videos and news reports. Same issue as before.
Lacking any other means of support, if you kill the unsafe scrap
business, the workers starve. I wish I had a solution, but I don't
(and government aid is not a long term solution).

Unless you think the slum dwellers should be euthanized because they're
poor, they'd probably be better off without this hazard dumped on their
doorstep.

Has anyone bothered to ask them?

Thick as they are, I doubt this is what the Brussells suits had in mind when
they passed the WEEE directive.

Brussels methods are a bit excessive. They pick an area of interest,
build a crisis, mount a PR campaign, and before anyone has a chance to
do any research, imposes draconian regulations to solve the problem.
Of course, that creates additional problems for Brussels to solve at a
later date. I have yet to see an environmental regulation that does
not involve some level of collateral damage. However, the consensus
seems to be that this is the price of ecological progress. I
generally agree, but often wonder if there's a better way.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558