Blog 4: “Dealing with electronic waste: modeling the costs and environmental benefits of computer monitor disposal” by Molly Macauley et al.

The previous blog was about an article that assessed the social aspect of e-waste. However, the social view on an issue can be very different from a manufacturer’s point of view. Thus, “Dealing with electronic waste: modeling the costs and environmental benefits of computer monitor disposal” by Molly Macauley et al. would help to develop a solution from a developer’s perception. The article takes a large component of electronic waste, computer monitors, and models the cost and benefits of reducing the waste caused by CRT monitors. Macauley certainly takes into account the environmental effects of E-waste like Robinson. For example, the statement “A primary concern in managing this large quantity of obsolete electronics is that the hazardous materials they contain can be released into the environment during disposal with potential adverse effects on human health”. However, ultimately the main concern of Macauley was the cost effectiveness of the disposal of these monitors. In the results, it is shown that the cost of handling the waste would be about $1 per monitor. This doesn’t seem to be very much but in the experiment with a controlled amount of monitors it added up to about $13.5 million compared to a human health cost of only $2.7 million. Thus according to a manufacturing point of view, recycling the E-waste would be less cost effective than just allowing them to be dumped where they can cause harm.

How shocking are those numbers? I mean, if i were the manufacturer i wouldn't want to bother dealing with the recycling of my products either. However, ethically it would be the correct thing to do, right? I mean is it really their responsibility, or is it the responsibility of those who purchased the product?

Dealing with electronic waste: modeling the costs and environmental benefits of computer monitor disposal

Blog 3: “E-waste: An assessment of global production and environmental impacts”, B.H. Robinson

In “E-waste: An assessment of global production and environmental impacts”, B.H. Robinson attempts to “assess the global production of E-waste, the contaminants and contaminant fluxes associated with E-waste, and the likely environmental impact of E-waste associated contaminants”. In other words, Robinson takes a social stand point and attempts to explain the impacts of E-waste caused by society and what the consequences against society will be. Robinson starts his review by displaying the world’s production of E-waste. He calculates that by 2015 E-waste will reach a volume of 9.8 million tons. That is only 8% of total municipal waste, but that 9.8 million tons is important because it is nearly double the projected 5.5 million tons for 2010. The review continues on and explains the effect of E-waste on many aspects of the environment, using a case study on Guiyu, a city in China, and other E-waste recycling centers. The results of the case study showed negative effects from E-waste on the aquatic systems, air, soils, and humans themselves. E-waste contaminants enter the water near dumpsites, escape into the air as dust, and into soil by leaking through the ground under dump sites. These contaminants contain many different chemicals that can affect the ecosystems as well as the inhabitants of the regions around dumpsites and recycling plants.

This article was absolutely shocking! Its obvious that the author was looking for society to react to this negatively. I can tell that he used this study to show to people that e-waste is a major issues not only in the U.S. but all over the world. My question is though, why doesn't he explain how we can fix this huge problem.

E-waste: An assessment of global production and environmental impacts

Blog 2: "Satisfaction" by Lisa Frehill ( The ME Magazine)

The article “Satisfaction” by Lisa Frehill in The ME magazine addresses the concern that the amount of engineers who are not retaining engineering jobs after they graduate is on the rise. In summary Frehill talks about the surveys that display retention of engineering jobs.

To start off, one thing that intrigued me about this article is the form of writing. Recently in class, we discussed the difference between science writing and scientific writing. Now, at first glance and by assumption, I anticipated this article to be more in the form of science writing. A simple form in which the author gives information on the topic without going very in depth and specific. However, as I divulged further into the article, I began to find graphs and charts. These were my first clues that this article was truly a scientific writing.

Frehill scientifically breaks down the surveys about retention from gender, to year graduated, and then even further into field of study. The most important break downs in my opinion are year graduated and gender. These are the most important because if you don’t break them down, they could be greatly misinterpreted. For example, the article says “The survey data show that there was not much difference in women’s and men’s retention in engineering when looking at new graduates. The gap widened, however, among groups that had graduated earlier.” The article further goes on to display the numbers. Without these numbers and explanation one could just say that more and more engineering graduates are not going into engineering jobs. When truthfully it is mostly those who have been in the field for quite a while who are moving away from engineering.

Another thing that Frehill did that I believed was important was the fact that she displayed the difference in overall numbers between women and men in engineering. See, at the beginning of the article she explains that women had been looked at as the greater falling retention because of the fact that there are so few women in engineering. When however, “These stories seemed to zero in on women’s leaving as problematic, without understanding the larger context of job turnover in engineering.” I think it was important for the article to correct the misconception of women being the only ones leaving the field.

Ultimately, the article was a great success in my opinion because it allowed me to focus on the information I was intrigued by. The author did this by addressing each of the fields I specifically. For example each graph separated its information between chemical, civil and architectural, electrical and electronics, and mechanical engineering. As a mechanical engineer I was mostly interested in that information, and with everything separated it allowed me to focus on what I wanted to know rather than getting bored with information I didn’t care about.

Twilight of the Books by Caleb Crain

Before starting this article i was extremely intrigued in what I was about to read. I had always been concerned of the way TV has affected the amount of reading in the world. However, once i dove into the article i found it to be extremely over exaggerated. To be honest, it seemed as if the author was trying to over emphasize the issue when, for example, the numbers and statistics at the beginning just didn't invoke the reaction i believe he was looking for. The words and tone seemed to be excellent for developing a reaction out of the reader, however, the numbers just didn't match up with this reaction. Thus for me it took a bit of the credibility and seriousness out of the over all article.

At the same time, Crain did a great job with going into depth and using the sources he used in a manner that supported his argument very well. Even though i didn't agree with his use of the statistics, he managed to do a good job of using the numbers that would make his argument the strongest.

About Blogging.....

Blogging for the first time was actually pretty easy. The setup of the blog was simple. And it was actually kind of interesting to be able to put my own writing and my own ideas up on a web page. I liked the fact that u can kind of personalize the blog with different designs. I didn’t expect that I actually thought it was going to be very plain. Also the blog itself was easier to use than I expected, in fact I’ve already let my friends know on Facebook that they can access my blog.

Blog 1: Why Engineering?

Well to start off I have to say that engineering wasn't even close to my first choice for my life path as I grew up. Of course, every kid runs through those ideas of a doctor and a lawyer, but surprisingly I never contemplated those careers. In fact, for years I wanted to be an accountant. Now I know it doesn't sound like the dream of a usual kid, but the reason I wanted to be an accountant was because I was great at math and I loved to do it. But here we are, years later and I'm sitting in an engineering class room, why? Well the reason for that is my creativity. I consider myself a creative person, and so when I sat down to decide what I wanted to do with my life, engineering was the most appealing because it allowed me to exercise my love for math as well as my creativity.

Then I explored further into the engineering field and realized that there were so many different sections for me to explore and study. So when I came into my first semester of college I was an undecided engineer. But then as I went through that first semester, I began to weed out the different fields I didn't want to deal with and those I was extremely interested in, finally settling on mechanical engineering. So I guess the next question is why mechanical engineering?

Mechanical engineering was the field that I was most interested in because I felt it was the field in which I could make the most difference. Even though I didn't want to be a doctor, I have always wanted to help people. With mechanical engineering I can help design things that will help people in so many ways. I could design products that make peoples everyday lives easier. So I'll be able to apply my passions for math, drawing, and designing to help others and in my opinion that would be an amazing career.