Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!think!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor From: eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) Newsgroups: comp.society Subject: Re: Environmentally safe computers? Message-ID: <2249@hplabsc.HP.COM> Date: Tue, 21-Jul-87 17:57:17 EDT Article-I.D.: hplabsc.2249 Posted: Tue Jul 21 17:57:17 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jul-87 06:43:58 EDT References: <2242@hplabsc.HP.COM> Sender: taylor@hplabsc.HP.COM Distribution: world Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. Lines: 26 Approved: taylor@hplabs > I've been hearing more and more criticism of the purported benefits of the > "computer revolution" lately from those who point out that the electronics > industry, despite a lot of claims to the contrary, is a very dirty one. There are some trade-offs, but it takes pioneering to discover what those tradeoffs are, and I am not certain many companies check out all tradeoffs in manufacturing. Especially in economically competitive markets. One thing to point out when I was working for a thin-film lab. The basic ingredients of SiO2, Cu, and Gold are not the big problems, the problems are the tools used to work with them: Gold is chemically difficult stuff to work with and Aqua Regina is very hazardous stuff (recalling the lecture we were given to handle it). HF to etch glass is also pretty dangerous. {So we can't argue that optical computing will be `cleaner' for instance.} So it is frequently the tools which are the problem, many are irreplaceable. This problem also promises to get worse as we work with more and more difficult compounds: GaAs, some of the rare earths. (major point) And the lead (not Pb) times to detection are long and the materials effects are not well understood. The quantities, however, are probably smaller than the petro-chemical industry (growing up not to far from where Dow Chemical made naplam in the 1960s). Ask this question again in 2020. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center