Thanks for posting the link to the LA times. Good data on the dirty secret of Gates and other "rich" folks trying to use money to solve poverty.

"Using the most recent data available, a Times tally showed that hundreds of Gates Foundation investments — totaling at least $8.7 billion, or 41% of its assets, not including U.S. and foreign government securities — have been in companies that countered the foundation's charitable goals or socially concerned philosophy.
This is "the dirty secret" of many large philanthropies, said Paul Hawken, an expert on socially beneficial investing who directs the Natural Capital Institute, an investment research group. "Foundations donate to groups trying to heal the future," Hawken said in an interview, "but with their investments, they steal from the future."

I wanted to validate the claims that Gates is guilty. Gates related money is actually limiting the health of people in nations the West considers poor. If Bill Gates really wanted to save the lives of people in poverty he would agree that patents don't matter for medicine in many situations. It's a myth that progress in medicine depends on putting patents before people. We must allow generic and patent free drugs to reach more people, and it would not cut into the massive profits of the drug company stocks held by the Gates Foundation.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2003/06/mother-jones-daily-briefing-0?page=3
>> see the reporting by John Litchfield of the London Independent 2003
Litchfield quotes Doctors without borders and notes the lack of affordable generics

>> Read reporter Greg Palast
"let me let you in on a little secret about Bill and Melinda Gates so-called "Foundation." Gate's demi-trillionaire status is based on a nasty little monopoly-protecting trade treaty called "TRIPS" - the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights rules of the World Trade Organization. TRIPS gives Gates a hammerlock on computer operating systems worldwide, legally granting him a monopoly that the Robber Barons of yore could only dream of. But TRIPS, the rule which helps Gates rule, also bars African governments from buying AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis medicine at cheap market prices"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4103.htm

"The Bush Administration has also prevented a positive resolution to one crucial issue left unresolved at Doha. Currently, TRIPS allows countries to produce generic drugs through compulsory licensing, but requires that such drugs be used predominantly for the country's domestic market. That means that countries cannot export generic products thus produced - even to countries where there are no patents"
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/vi/node/285

As an English intellectual property and antitrust lawyer I read the piece by David Resnik and Kenneth De Ville (2002) with both interest and surprise. It is startling to suggest that a country with the democratic credentials of the United States should, as a matter of public policy and indeed on apparently "moral" grounds, prefer private monopoly rights to the lives and welfare of its citizens.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ajb/summary/v002/2.3smith.html

By pouring most contributions into the fight against such high-profile killers as AIDS, Gates grantees have increased the demand for specially trained, higher-paid clinicians, diverting staff from basic care. The resulting staff shortages have abandoned many children of AIDS survivors to more common killers: birth sepsis, diarrhea and asphyxia.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gates16dec16,0,3743924.story

Hi Anonymous. You bring up some good points. I don't think anyone has all the answers here. The questions that remain are important. Yes, please share your Nairobi report showing 80-90% re-use. How did the report define "re-use" in 2006? Where are those devices now six years later? What data would we have If tracking devices were put on a random sample of those re-used units in 2006?

I read the GreenBiz URL regarding Peru. Peru can only track imported equipment that is reported. A lot of imported tech stuff is not reported. Greenbiz cites an article quote "The Environmental Protection Agency estimates roughly 400,000 tons of e-waste goes to recyclers every year, and that up to 80 percent of the materials sorted for recycling end up in operations in China, India, Southeast Asia and West Africa where it is disassembled and burned or dumped."

BAN and the EPA estimate that a majority of working and broken electronics sent to Africa and China are disposed of in ways that harm the environment. There is very little documentation to show that Africa and China have safe facilities to capture the toxins. Electronics arrive new and used, working and not.

Can a moderator delete the post above #39016023 I posted it in error as anonymous. Late Sunday night for a teacher. Sorry.

I'm a teacher and I'd like to share some great free teaching lessons on e-waste
http://www.teachchange.org/ewaste

I very much doubt the claim in this report that 70% of our old electronics are "used". Any electronics sent to Africa or Asia are toxic, and 99% will eventually be dumped or burned in countries that have almost no enforcement and few laws.

E-waste researchers made 2 movies, and I created a 10 minute cut of both.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnqvfNstr_4
credit to http://www.ban.org
The movies are "Exporting Harm" and "Digital Dump" 2002 & 2005

A simple and great lesson for classrooms is to have students take apart dead computers and haul off the metal. Then show the e-waste movies or short version. Leave the other parts in the classroom for a few weeks and say you are having trouble finding a safe way to get rid of all the toxic stuff. There is even homework with a prize for students who inventory the most toxic e-waste in their own basements and closets.

I've traveled to Latin America to haul back e-waste others have donated. To use old technology the recipient need lots of electricity, and to safely process e-waste you need money and gasoline to haul it. This report is flawed in thinking that 30% is ewaste and 70% of used computers are "used".

peace out! . . sorry for posting this as anonymous in error.

Technology often sedates students and harms learning. Without excellent planing and implementation it decays into chaos or becomes masked as success because child and adult learners show fewer negative symptoms. Should we be following the lead of parents who install screens in the minivan?

Please join me. I'm researching technology and education. Does the prize of technology hide the punishment? More screen time and web only courses are not really building learing or relationships. There's very little agreement that technology boosts k-12 state test scores, even if you believe in them.

Please read or help me edit this draft google document: Sedation or Salvation - Education & Technology

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1umIJ_XanBrF4PAvPiB6EGGCBQ1Jxilsy3MzrXnQvr8I/edit?authkey=CKGo06sE

There's a huge technology & education trade show that rivals the size and hype of macworld. The ISTE conference is full of people who ignore the pitfalls noted by such reports as "Let them eat data" and "Fools gold". I want to collect more research on all sides of this topic. Contact me if you or people you know are questioning the myths of technology in education.

my short bio: After working at Adobe & HP I managed IT for six years at a technology high school in San Francisco. ( the 2nd Cisco academy ) I've taught middle and high school for 6 years full time in low income schools. I was once a proponent of one-one computers and laptops, but I've now changed sides after my first hand experiences with the wide array of symptops ignored by most educators. This includes but is not limited to the massive costs, and quickly growing mounds of obsolete computers thrown out by schools.

Here's a great cartoon that says it all:
http://www.claybennett.com/images/archivetoons2/theaters.jpg

Neil, Thanks for the amazing personal story. You're in a masters program, and you travel to 4 countries. You're from a privileged class and this post was about k-8 schools, Where 1 in 5 kids live in poverty, and most classrooms are getting more crowded. Neil, like you I took hybrid and web only classes where most students printed out the PDF readings. I put them into google docs. I can search, and I wish I could highlight the PDF and annotate in docs. My master's research is focused on this topic: Is technology in education a form of salvation or sedation. I invite people to join me in editing something I'm throwing together today. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1umIJ_XanBrF4PAvPiB6EGGCBQ1Jxilsy3MzrXnQvr8I/edit?authkey=CKGo06sE

Here is a good page with maps, charts, and data on e-waste
http://www.retrevo.com/content/blog/2010/08/why-arent-americans-recycling-their-old-gadgets

correct. It would be nice if our lawmakers regulated "stuff" so that it could be fixed easily. Sadly our lawmakers are owned by lobbyists. Consumes don't care about lobbyists, nor care about things that wear out. This is what happens in capitalism. We trust that consumer demand would regulate things be made with a long life.

The reader comments are far more intelligent than the original false claim here.

- the lower cost of flat screens has created homes with more screens. same toxicity or perhaps worse per pound.
- the light weight screens of today are not built to last as long as the heavier CRT screens
- flat screens are not made to be modular or easy to repair, and it rarely happens
- even in countries that ban exports of dead flat screens under the Basel Convention, significant toxic waste is exported to Asia and Africa
- about half of the states in the USA don't regulate e-waste
- the USA refuses to ban toxic exports under treaties, we also won't ban landmines etc etc.
- Most ewaste is passed from customers to a series of waste traders. Those "safe" drop off spots have almost no laws that keep the waste from going to Asia or Africa as toxic e-waste
- Auctions of Federal computers often get exported as dead e-waste
- Only one city has any statute to prevent the series of waste traders from unethical export
- E-waste is extremely complex, from the birth and assembly of the components, beyond the death, transport and disassembly of the device. The toxins live far longer than most of us would guess.
http://resource-recycling.com/node/1877
http://ban.org/ban_news/2011/110317_call_to_stop_exporting_ewaste.html
http://www.teachchange.org/ewaste