Student 1 Jill Student Professor Elliott-White English 111-0011 31 March 2015 Banning E-waste It is estimated that over 84 million broken or obsolete television, 200 million phones, and millions of computers and electronic devices sit collecting dust in homes, garages, attics, and basements (Infotrac Newsstands). Imagining a world in which no computers, cell phones, or televisions existed is not an easy task because the world has become fast paced complete with sophisticated electronic devices to match. Rapid technological innovations are rendering most electronic devices obsolete quicker than ever and creating a littered urban picture filled with the carcasses of the digital age called e-waste. E-waste is a generic term covering a variety of electronic devices that are nearing their end of life cycle and are discarded, donated, or given up to be recycled and is classified as the fastest growing part of global waste streams. The Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, estimates that the United States produces about 2.37 million tons of e-waste annually of which only about 25% of that is recovered with the remainder finding their final resting place in landfills. When considering the imminent danger of e-waste, there is a clear need to ban the flow of e-waste exports from the United States to developing nations due to the importance of ensuring that e-waste exports do not threaten national security, the strategic interest in recovering valuable materials, and the toll that it is taking on human health and the environment. With the advancements in technology, also comes the advancements in counterfeit techniques which creates a potential for threats against national security. Counterfeit chips have been discovered not only in military equipment, but also government entities, that were refurbished from old e-waste and then sold to the United States. The counterfeit technology now has the potential to cause equipment failure and malfunction (Olds). Not only is it costly to remove malware, but also the man hours needed to remove any affected devices can be time consuming and expensive. In addition to counterfeit chips, there is evidence of fake routers being sold to all branches of the military, again in the form of refurbished and recycled e-waste components, which not only puts the government at risk but also the military (Olds). Secret information within the government and military could be at threat for espionage due to the fake routers which could then be accessed and exploited. There are multiple reports that state the majority of fake materials stem from plants located in China, specifically Guiyu which is a leading e-waste recycling plant (Olds). With a ban on e-waste exports, potential foreign enemies wouldn’t have access to government and military electronic devices that may not have been wiped cleaned before being discarded because the devices would all be recycled and refurbished within the national borders thus significantl.

1. Student 1
Jill Student
Professor Elliott-White
English 111-0011
31 March 2015
Banning E-waste
It is estimated that over 84 million broken or obsolete
television, 200 million phones, and millions of computers and
electronic devices sit collecting dust in homes, garages, attics,
and basements (Infotrac Newsstands). Imagining a world in
which no computers, cell phones, or televisions existed is not an
easy task because the world has become fast paced complete
with sophisticated electronic devices to match. Rapid
technological innovations are rendering most electronic devices
obsolete quicker than ever and creating a littered urban picture
filled with the carcasses of the digital age called e-waste. E-
waste is a generic term covering a variety of electronic devices
that are nearing their end of life cycle and are discarded,
donated, or given up to be recycled and is classified as the
fastest growing part of global waste streams. The Environmental
Protection Agency, or the EPA, estimates that the United States
produces about 2.37 million tons of e-waste annually of which
only about 25% of that is recovered with the remainder finding
their final resting place in landfills. When considering the
imminent danger of e-waste, there is a clear need to ban the
flow of e-waste exports from the United States to developing
nations due to the importance of ensuring that e-waste exports
do not threaten national security, the strategic interest in
recovering valuable materials, and the toll that it is taking on

2. human health and the environment.
With the advancements in technology, also comes the
advancements in counterfeit techniques which creates a
potential for threats against national security. Counterfeit chips
have been discovered not only in military equipment, but also
government entities, that were refurbished from old e-waste and
then sold to the United States. The counterfeit technology now
has the potential to cause equipment failure and malfunction
(Olds). Not only is it costly to remove malware, but also the
man hours needed to remove any affected devices can be time
consuming and expensive. In addition to counterfeit chips, there
is evidence of fake routers being sold to all branches of the
military, again in the form of refurbished and recycled e-waste
components, which not only puts the government at risk but also
the military (Olds). Secret information within the government
and military could be at threat for espionage due to the fake
routers which could then be accessed and exploited. There are
multiple reports that state the majority of fake materials stem
from plants located in China, specifically Guiyu which is a
leading e-waste recycling plant (Olds). With a ban on e-waste
exports, potential foreign enemies wouldn’t have access to
government and military electronic devices that may not have
been wiped cleaned before being discarded because the devices
would all be recycled and refurbished within the national
borders thus significantly decreasing the threat of outside
adversaries gaining access to private and secure documents.
Though disposed electronics are classified as waste, they are a
source of precious and rare earth metals, which is why a ban on
e-waste exports would allow the United States to recover the
valuable materials within its own borders consequently
becoming less dependent on foreign suppliers for materials and
minerals. The United States does not currently have the rare
earth metal supply to meet the growing demands of producing
new devices therefore if those materials were harvested from
national e-waste products, as opposed to being imported from
foreign countries, than all the revenue generated from the

3. materials collected would be profit. Electronic devices are
complex and consist of thousands of different components such
as arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, zinc, and nickel with the
average pile of e-waste containing about 60% metal (Alcorn,
Clarke, Smith, Thomas, Debaise). The EPA says that for every
one million recycled phones that 35,000 pounds of copper, 772
pounds of silver, and 75 pounds of gold are recovered and on
average retails for 45-58 cents per pound equaling an average of
one million dollars in revenue annually. The potential to make
profit is there however current practices do not recover most
elements and rare earth metals. With higher demand, the
development of new strategies would rise, state of the art
recycling facilities would be designed, and growth in the
effectiveness of procedures would occur improving procurement
rates. Creating more effective practices would mean more
metals being recovered and generating even more revenue.
E-waste is a very complex, non-biodegradable, toxic mashup of
different parts and substances that include plastics, metals,
glass, organic and inorganic compounds that are highly
dangerous pollutants when haphazard recycling techniques
occur presenting serious health and environmental risks.
Current recycling techniques frequently include open air
burning and acid baths in which working conditions are
unregulated, unlike the same environmental laws demanded of
developed nations like the United States. These techniques
cause irreparable damages to human health and also the
environment (Benge). Open air burning generates toxic
pollution because the plastic components are treated with a
flame retardant that undergoes a chemical transformation,
creating noxious fumes that not only affect the workers tending
the burning piles, which are tended by children, but also affects
villagers in surrounding towns that suffer from chest related
diseases caused by breathing in toxic laden air (Information
Today, Sullivan). Workers are unskilled, poorly paid and work
in conditions that range from unsafe to lethal due to the fact
that they are regularly exposed to toxic chemicals and

4. components without proper protective gear.
In addition to poor working conditions, e-waste recycling sites
are prone to leaking which leads to the leaching of heavy metals
and toxins into the soil contaminating the soil and water
supplies of the plants and surrounding villages (Sullivan). Soil
erosion, deforestation, water and air pollution are all common
repercussions stemming from improper recycling techniques
further supported by reports that state lead levels in Guiyu,
China soil have been found 2,400 times higher than the WHO
states as acceptable and 80% of the children of Guiyu have also
been found to have elevated blood lead levels (Olds, Sullivan).
A ban of e-waste export would maintain that e-waste would be
recycled in accordance to environmental laws regulating how e-
waste is recycled. The United States also has OSHA that
protects American workers from toxic and harmful situations,
something that is not found in developing nations. With strict
regulations, and laws protecting American workers and their
health, the environment would be less at risk for irreversible
damages.
A common argument for not banning e-waste export is that the
United States also lacks the infrastructure to properly recycle e-
waste however it does have the technology, manpower, money,
space and resources to create the required infrastructure while
creating a variety of jobs in the process. The new plants would
be state of the art recycling facilities, taking advantage of all
recent advancements in e-waste recycling techniques, and
creating facilities that are the most efficient at obtaining
valuable materials. In contrast, the developing nations also
seriously lack the infrastructure to handle the high volumes of
e-waste while efficiently recovering materials in a safe, non-
toxic manner. The amount of e-waste produced by developing
nations is expected to increase dramatically with figures saying
that developing nations would have double the number of
obsolete computers compared to developed nations like the
United States (Olds). Eric Williams, a professor at the
University of Arizona corroborates those findings saying that as

5. early as 2016 the developing nations will start to generate more
e-waste with 400-700 million units by 2025 in which the
numbers do not represent imported e-waste. Import countries
like China, already have bans in place that prevent importing e-
waste which creates even fewer options for developed nations to
export e-waste too, so instead of waiting for the problem to
escalate, the United States should spear head the innovation
now, create a job market nationally while building state of the
art facilities capable of safely recycling e-waste and collecting
the most amount of materials possible so that an export ban
would be a very feasible idea.
The e-waste problem is not helped by the fact the general public
remains largely unaware of the repercussions that stem from
improper disposal of unwanted electronic devices. Not only
educating the general public on options, but also making e-
waste recycling mandatory, will aide in helping effectively
reduce the amount of e-waste discarded carelessly.
The United States is a major contributor to the global e-waste
flows, thus national legislation should be put in place to ban the
country’s exports to developing nations in an effort to generate
more revenue by harvesting precious metals and materials
creating less dependence on foreign dignitaries to supply the
national demand. National security is not to be taken lightly and
in the interest of protecting the public from foreign adversaries,
recycling e-waste within the national borders would cut down
on the threat of accidentally exposing information within the
government, or military. In considering passing a ban on
exported materials, the impact of improper, and poorly
monitored, recycling techniques in overseas plants should be
taken into consideration. With developing countries lacking the
infrastructure to properly disassemble e-waste now, the
expected growth within those borders will only cause more
harm than good. The techniques now only include the imports
from other countries and does not take into consideration the
expected growth that will happen soon for them within their
borders. The United States is far better equipped to handle the

6. growth by already having the land available, the money to
create new facilities, and would also aid in creating a plethora
of new jobs all over. By creating a mandatory recycling plan for
the general public, it would help to recall more e-waste from
across the nation, thus creating a constant cycle and generating
revenue across the board.
Works Cited
Benge, Raymond D., Jr. "Electronic Waste." Salem Press
Encyclopedia (2013): Research Starters. Web. 4 Feb. 2015.
DeBaise, Collen. "Finding Rewards, Financial and Spiritual, in
E-Waste." The New York Times. N.p., 16 Jan. 2014. Web. 4
Feb. 2015.
"EPA." Cleaning Up Electronic Waste (E-Waste). N.p., 27 Oct.
2014. Web. 05 Feb. 2015.
Griffin, Donovan. "Electronic waste hazards." Information
Today 2014: 1. Academic OneFile.
How E-Waste Is Becoming A Big, Global Problem. n.p.:
National Public Radio, 2013. Science In Context. Web. 5 Mar.
2015.
"State e-waste Disposal Bans Have Been Largely Ineffective."
Targeted News Service (TNS) 2013: InfoTrac Newsstand. Web.
3 Mar. 2015.
Sullivan, Jack. "Trash or Treasure: Global Trade and the
Accumulation of E-Waste in Lagos, Nigeria." Africa Today
2014: 89. JSTOR Journals. Web. 4 Feb. 2015.
Townsend, Timothy G. "Environmental Issues And Management
Strategies For Waste Electronic And Electrical Equipment."
Journal Of The Air & Waste Management Association (1995)
61.6 (2011): 587-610. MEDLINE. Web. 8 Mar. 2015.
Ursery, Stephen. "E-Waste Bills On Capitol Hill." Waste Age
42.7 (2011): 12. Associates Programs Source. Web. 5 Mar.
2015.
Williams, Eric. "3 Reasons Why a Ban on E-waste Exports Is
Wrong: DNews." DNews. N.p., 11 Mar. 2013. Web. 03 Mar.
2015.

7. "WM, Alcoa back e-waste export ban bill." Waste & Recycling
News 2012: General Reference Center Gold. Web. 5 Mar. 2015.
Student
1
Jill Student
Professor
Elliott
-
White
English 11
1
-
0011
31 March
2015
Banning E
-
waste
It is estimated that over 84 million broken or obsolete

8. television, 200 million phones, and
millions of
computers and electronic devices sit collecting dust in homes,
garages, attics, and
basements (Infotrac Newsstands). Imagining
a world in which no computers, cell phones, or
televisions
existed
is not an easy task because t
he world has become fast paced c
omplete with
sophisticated electronic devices to match. Rapid technological
innovations are rendering most
electronic devices obsolete quicker than ever and creating a
littered urban picture filled with the
carcasses of the digital age called e
-
waste.
E
-
wa
ste is a generic term covering a variety of
electronic devices that are nearing their end of life cycle and
are discarded, donated, or given up
to be recycled and is classified as the fastest growing part of
global waste streams.
The
Environmental Protecti
on Agency
, or the EPA,
estimates that the United States produces about

9. 2.37 million tons of e
-
waste annually of which only about 25% of that is recovered
with the
remainder finding their final resting place in landfills.
When considering the imminent dange
r of
e
-
waste, there is a clear need to ban the flow of e
-
waste exports from the United States to
developing nations due to the importance of ensuring that e
-
waste exports do not threaten
national security, the strategic interest in recovering valuable
mate
rials, and the toll that it is
taking on human health and the environment.
With the advancements in technology, also comes the
advancements in counterfeit
t
echniques
which creates a potential for threats against national security.
Counterfeit chips have
Argument Paper Guidelines
We argue all the time, don't we? We have our own views and
opinions on most any topic. We debate, discuss, and try to get
our point across. We listen to other views to decide if we agree
with them, and we usually want proof that those views are valid.
Your task is to write a 1000-1500 word argumentative essay that
focuses on a social issue and the solution to that issue.
Remember, one of your goals is to propose a solution to the

10. problem, so keep that in mind as you search for a suitable topic.
You will begin with an attention-grabbing introduction, then
offer background information on your topic and, finally, lead
into your thesis statement. The thesis statement should be 1-2
sentences that identify the problem, its primary causes or
effects, and its potential solution.
You must argue at least two sides of the topic/issue. In other
words, you must have a primary argument and a counter-
argument. The counterargument is the “other side” or "opposing
side" of the issue. Make sure you highlight 2-3 discussion
points on your side of the issue. You can present 1-2 discussion
points on the opposing side.
You must incorporate at least five (5) credible sources into your
paper. The sources must come from the FTCC library (or
another library you have access to).
The Works Cited page should have at least five (5) sources
listed.
The paper should be formatted according to MLA guidelines. If
your paper does not contain in-text citations and a Works Cited
page, you will earn a zero on the assignment.
The paper must be written in 3rd person. The paper is not about
you or the reader, so remove yourself and the reader from the
text.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Annotated Bibliography Guidelines
Your task is to find scholarly resources you plan to use in the
final assignment, the argument paper.
*****************************************************
******************
Your annotated bibliography should meet the following criteria:
You should create annotations for five sources that you might
use in your argument paper. Your sources should come from the
FTCC Library or other libraries you have access to. You are

11. also allowed to use websites ending in .edu, .gov, .mil, or .org.
If you cannot find sources, contact your instructor immediately
for help. Call the library for help, too. The librarians can help
you find sources.
In the first paragraph, summarize the source. Then, discuss how
you will use the source in the paper. Each annotation should be
about 150-200 words. Your summaries should be written in 3rd
person.
One goal of the argument paper is to present at least two sides
of the issues. At least one of your sources in this assignment
should address an opposing view. The opposing view often
disagrees with the stance you take on the issue.
Format your bibliography according to MLA guidelines. Please
review the sample annotation.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Last Name 1
Student's Name
Professor Elliott-White
English 111-2905
05 April 2015
Annotated Bibliography
Benge, Raymond D., Jr. "Electronic Waste." Salem Press
Encyclopedia (2013): Research Starters. Web. 4 Feb. 2015.
The main point of the article is to give the very basic of
overviews concerning e-waste and recycling procedures. The
article provides the definition of e-waste while providing
examples of the topic at hand. The article also discusses
problems, and hazards, that arise from e-waste and the recycling
techniques that pertain to e-waste. This source will help to

12. introduce readers to the topic at hand by providing a credible
definition of the topic. However, the simple format of the
article left a lot of information unexplored, while creating
further questions regarding certain points made in the article.
This article will serve as a transition into the argument portion
of the paper. Comment by HP: The first part of the annotation
is a summary of the source. The second part of the annotation is
a brief discussion about the credibility of the source. The last
part of the annotation is a brief discussion about how the
student will use the source in the final paper.
This 3-part annotation should be used for every source.
Last Name
1
Student's Name
Professor Elliott
-
White
English 111
-
2905
05 April 2015
Annotated Bibliography
Benge, Raymond D., Jr. "Electronic Waste."
Salem Press Encyclopedia
(
2013): Research

13. Starters. Web. 4
Feb. 2015.
T
he main point of the article is to give the
very basic of overviews concerning e
-
waste
and recycling procedures.
The article provides the definition of e
-
waste while providing
examples of the topic at hand. The article also discusses
problems, and hazards, that arise
from e
-
waste and the recycling t
echniques that pertain to e
-
waste.
T
his source will help
to
introduce readers to the topic at hand by providing a credible
definition of the topic.
However,
the
simple format of the article left a lot of information unexplored,
while
creat
ing further questions regarding certain points made in the
article.

14. This article will
serve as a transition in
to the argument portion of the paper.