Dear Dr. Macho Anani, Thanks. I am convinced with your view point and Moore's prediction. There are some side and serious social impact which lower income group people has to face. The other point is why not tp create awareness of E-Waste through embeddding in our curriculum.

Yes, the biggest cause is necessarily Moore and his law of evolution, however, this market generates a turnover which totaled billions of dollars and then the machine should continue to run otherwise it is the insured world revolution.

Dear Dr. Macho Anani, Thanks. I am convinced with your view point and Moore's prediction. There are some side and serious social impact which lower income group people has to face. The other point is why not tp create awareness of E-Waste through embeddding in our curriculum.

The predictions given by Moore are correct but at present the pace is far more rapid in comparison to what Moore had predicted.

the procession speed is getting almost doubled in 06 months in comparison to Moore's prediction of 18 months,

At present the cost of hardware with latest features has become affordable to masses which has lead to E-waste. Looking at the rapid growth in development of electronic Industry and reduction in size of the gadgets, I am of the opinion it is the need of the hour to address this situation and we must surely include E-waste management, E-waste re-refurbishment, Green Technology Development and subject related to environment must be included in the curriculum.

By including the courses in the curriculum, the awareness about the subject won't spread to masses as it is very important to educate a common man about the E-Waste and its management. Therefore it is very true that E-Waste management awareness programmes for masses will help us as a society to get ready to deal with the crisis of Huge E-Waste in the near future.

Dear Mr. Philipp Sommerhuber, Thank you very much for participating and regenerating the question.

If producers (manufacturers) are responsible then who is going to put check and balance criteria or setting a guidelines for them.

Hugely important question...thanks for tabling it here...i still have 1998 desktops in my basement...they recycle them in Bangladesh, Vietnam, Burma, India... the kids who do it suffer chemical burns and toxic inhalations...the public health scientists on RG should research the issue... the more i think of it, the 2nd best solution lies in effective recycling... can't fault either the producer or the consumer [in a free market]...

I have no illusions about environmental consciousness. Firstly the so-called "developed" states should limit themselves and introduce strict rules which prescribe that the manufacturers are responsible for the waste they generate. That would force them to take into account recyclability beginning with the design phase.

See a very interesting article:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es032373g

But, I beleieve the strongest driver will be if several rare components (rare earth magnets, certain metals) concentrate so much in the electronic waste that it will be cheaper to recover them from the watse.

Dear Dr. Gyorgy Banhegyi, Thank you very much. Your both the points are very much valid and conclusive. However, your both points need further propagation for the knowledge of at least RG community.

Points:

"the manufacturers are responsible for the waste they generate. That would force them to take into account irreconcilability beginning with the design phase."

"I believe the strongest driver will be if several rare components (rare earth magnets, certain metals) concentrate so much in the electronic waste that it will be cheaper to recover them from the waste.

Thanks again

Dear All, Can we collect some data on e-waste? Thanks.

Dear All,

Short product life forces a complex social problem in economically poor society.

Dear ALL,

Why not to share our views in context to

"Targeted durability, not immortality, should be a design goal".

Dear Dr. Gyorgy Banhegyi,

Thanks for referring the article. The 12 Principles of Green Engineering Principle are to be looked into.

1: Designers need to strive to ensure that all material and energy inputs and outputs are as inherently nonhazardous as possible. Principle 2: It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it is formed. Principle 3: Separation and purification operations should be designed to minimize energy consumption and materials use. Principle 4: Products, processes, and systems should be designed to maximize mass, energy, space, and time efficiency. Principle 5: Products, processes, and systems should be “output pulled” rather than “input pushed” through the use of energy and materials. Principle 6: Embedded entropy and complexity must be viewed as an investment when making design choices on recycle, reuse, or beneficial disposition. Principle 7: Targeted durability, not immortality, should be a design goal. Principle 8: Design for unnecessary capacity or capability (e.g., “one size fits all”) solutions should be considered a design flaw. Principle 9: Material diversity in multicomponent products should be minimized to promote disassembly and value retention. Principle 10: Design of products, processes, and systems must include integration and interconnectivity with available energy and materials flows. Principle 11: Products, processes, and systems should be designed for performance in a commercial “afterlife”. Principle 12: Material and energy inputs should be renewable rather than depleting

Dear participants,

If we can think in this way that changes are exponential and the resources to adapt that changes are linear. Only government cannot meet out to catch those pace of changes until and unless NGO are involved.