130 MILLION CELL PHONES WILL BE DISCARDED ANNUALLY IN THE US BY 2005 STUDY RECOMMENDS WAYS TO REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL

AND HEALTH IMPACTS OF CELL PHONE WASTE New York, NY Cell phone use has grown dramatically in the United States, from 340,000 subscribers in 1985 to over 128 million in 2001, reports Waste in the Wireless World: The Challenge of Cell Phones, a study released today by the national environmental research organization INFORM. Cell phones are typically used for only 18 months before being replaced, and by 2005 about 130 million of these devices, weighing approximately 65,000 tons, will be retired annually in the US. Most of them will initially be stored away in closets and drawers, creating a stockpile of about 500 million used phones that will soon enter the waste stream. Waste in the Wireless World analyzes the environmental problems created by cell phones, which also apply to other wireless electronic devices, such as personal digital assistants, portable e-mail devices, pagers, pocket PCs, and MP3 music players. All are made of similar materials and present similar problems with respect to the waste they generate. Wireless waste poses particularly acute problems when these small devices are sent to landfills or incinerators, where releases of the many toxic materials they contain create threats to human health and the environment. Because these devices are so small, their environmental impacts might appear to be minimal, said Bette Fishbein, INFORM Senior Fellow and report author. But the growth in their use has been so enormous that the environmental and public health impacts of the waste they create are a significant concern. Now is the time to address them.

Waste in the Wireless World presents a series of specific recommendations for minimizing the environmental and health impacts of cell phone waste: Design-related Recommendations The use of toxic substances in cell phones particularly lead and brominated flame retardants should be reduced. Toxic substances contained in cell phones include a number of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic chemicals, or PBTs, which have been associated with cancer and a range of reproductive, neurological, and developmental disorders. PBTs pose a particular threat to children, whose developing organ and immune systems are highly susceptible to toxic insult. PBTs in cell phones include arsenic, antimony, beryllium, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. Additional health threats are posed by brominated flame retardants used in plastic components. These toxic substances can leach into soil and groundwater from landfills and form highly toxic dioxins and furans during incineration and recycling. Manufacturers in Europe and Japan have already eliminated lead and brominated flame retardants from electronic products or have announced plans to do so. In the European Union, a forthcoming directive will require the phase-out of these substances in products made or marketed in the EU. US companies are developing alternatives to lead and brominated flame retardants but have made no commitments to eliminate them from products. Many US electronics producers, and the industrys main trade associations, continue to lobby against bans on these substances, arguing that the available alternatives would not perform as well and may be even more damaging to the environment.

A single technical standard for all cell phone carriers, along with standardized cell phone design elements, should be implemented in the US and worldwide . Phone systems in Europe all use a single standard, used in over 130 countries by two-thirds of the world's cell phone subscribers. In contrast, the US has several competing technical standards, forcing users to purchase a new phone when they change service providers or travel abroad. As a result, more phones are purchased and more discarded. Design standardization would allow adapters and other accessories to be used with many makes and models of cell phone. At present, accessories are dedicated to specific devices, creating additional waste whenever consumers buy a new phone. Like cell phones, such accessories contain toxic components and frequently create more waste than the phones themselves.

Cell phones and their accessories, including power sources, should be designed for disassembly, reuse, and recycling. The key to reducing waste and making reuse and recycling cost-effective is product design. For example, products designed to last longer will generate less waste, and products that contain alternatives to toxic components will be cheaper to recycle. Similarly, if manufacturers make ease of disassembly a priority, designers will create products with parts that can be easily removed for repair or reuse and materials that can be easily separated for recycling. Mandated recycling targets provide a powerful incentive for producers to make such design changes. In anticipation of EU requirements, for instance, European researchers have developed a phone that can disassemble itself in 1.5 seconds. Disposal-related Recommendations

US manufacturers should implement effective take-back programs for cell phones. An effective program includes targets for collection and reuse/recycling, reporting requirements, and enforcement mechanisms. Most voluntary take-back initiatives for cell phones and/or other electronic equipment in the US lack all of these crucial components. Financial incentives, such as deposit/refund systems, are needed to encourage consumers to return cell phones and other small electronic devices for collection and reuse/recycling. In the US, deposit/refund systems for beverage containers have been very effective at encouraging the return and recycling of cans and bottles: recycling rates are three times higher in states with deposit/refund systems in place than in states without such systems. Providing discounts on new phones or phone service in exchange for returned equipment can also encourage consumer participation in take-back programs. Other models applicable to cell phones may be found in the European experience with battery take-back in Austria, for example, customers receive free lottery tickets when they return their spent batteries. Rechargeable batteries, which are particularly toxic, should be a target for takeback. Cell phones are powered by any of several rechargeable battery types, all of which contain toxic substances that can contaminate the environment when burned in incinerators or disposed of in landfills. If each of the 130 million cell phones that will be discarded each year by 2005 uses two sets of batteries before being retired, 260 million of these batteries will enter the waste stream each year from cell phones alone. Today, the only nationwide, industry-wide product take-back program in the US is for rechargeable batteries. This program, run by the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation, represents a positive step for the US, since producers that participate take full financial responsibility for managing their products at end of life. However, the program has not reported regularly on its

recycling rates, has failed to meet its targets, and has had to face no consequences for the shortfall. Take-back programs should be introduced from the outset for all disposable cell phones, if and when these devices become available . Cell phones designed to be thrown away after being used for about 60 minutes could produce large amounts of additional waste. Plans to market such phones have encountered delays, but the prospect of their introduction remains a reality. If these products are not designed for reuse and recycling, with programs established to take them back after consumers discard them, the waste they generate will place additional burdens on municipal waste systems and the taxpayers who fund them. Progress Abroad, Pressure at Home INFORMs study documents efforts in Europe, Japan, and Australia to deal with this fastgrowing and hazardous waste stream. For example, Australia has implemented the worlds first and only nationwide take-back program dedicated to recovering and recycling cell phones. In the European Union (EU), pending directives will require electronics manufacturers to phase out toxic components and take responsibility for waste generated by products marketed in the EU. And forthcoming design guidelines in Japan will result in more long-lasting and recyclable electronic products with fewer toxic components. In the US, no such national commitments have been made. Despite the lack of any current or pending federal legislation addressing the end -of-life management of electronics, US government and industry are likely to be influenced by trends abroad, said Fishbein. For example, state-level legislation is being considered in California, Massachusetts, and Minnesota that would make producers responsible for paying the costs of managing the waste generated by their electronic products. Additionally, US manufacturers will have to follow the applicable requirements abroad for internationally marketed goods by eliminating toxic substances from these products and funding their takeback. With such changes on the horizon, American industry has even more reason to get ahead of the curve. Cell phones and other wireless electronic devices will inevitably play an increasingly important role in domestic and global communications, added INFORM Founder Joanna Underwood. It is time to implement programs to recover them for reuse and recycling in order to avoid contamination of our environment and significant threats to human health

More than 800 million people around the world currently use mobile phones and that figure is growing daily as consumers get bombarded by advertising campaigns exhorting them to upgrade to the latest, most fashionable model. As a result mobile phones become outdated and new models are introduced faster than the changes in the Melbourne weather. In Australia only, it is estimated that there were 3.5 million new mobile phone sold in the last 12 months. Now with the introduction of 3G technology and coloured screens, more mobile phones are expected to be sold. The Australian bureau of statistics figures show in the year 2000, 61% of Australian households had mobile phones and this number has steadily risen to 12.8 million mobile

phone connections at the end of 2003. The average Australian typically upgrades their phones every 18-24 months. So if phones are getting upgraded so frequently, what happens to old unwanted phones? Old mobile phones just do not fade away, they are retired to drawers and shelves around the country. It is estimated that Australians are hoarding 10 million phones. All of us as consumers, perceive value in our old electronic products. As there is usually no trade-in when you upgrade for a new model, our natural hoarding instinct tells us to keep the old phones, give them to relatives, or store them for emergency use. However history also shows that these phones eventually find their way into the rubbish bin and that's where the problem starts. Perhaps you have thrown one out yourself. We need an easy and effective means of disposing of our unwanted phones. The number of unused or retired phones will keep growing year after year, posing an ever increasing problem for the environment. Only this Christmas the stockpile will grow even larger as new gifts make old phones obsolete. Most mobile phones have components that require specialist treatment to minimize their impact on the environment. The content of mobile phones varies from model to model, and as the technology advances so we will see changes in the composition. Mobile phones and accessories contain concentrations of toxic heavy metals or other metals including cadmium, lead, nickel, mercury, manganese, lithium, zinc, arsenic, antimony, beryllium, and copper. Metals such as these are considered as: Persistent (ie don't degrade in the environment) Bioaccumulative (ie build up in fatty tissue so can reach toxic levels over time)

If any of these metals are allowed to leak into the environment, e.g. in a landfill when NiCd battery cases rupture or corrode, in significant quantities, they may leach into the water courses or contaminate the soil. Metals build up in the soil and they can then enter the food chain and in sufficient concentrations may cause health problems. Chemicals such as these are associated with a range of adverse human health effects, including damage to the nervous system, reproductive and developmental problems, cancer and genetic impacts. Cadmium for example is considered as the 7 th most dangerous substance known to man. It is a toxic heavy metal that can harm humans and animals that ingest it. It is also carcinogenic. The health effects of lead poisoning are well known. If lead is absorbed into the bloodstream in sufficient quantities it will cause serious liver and kidney damage in adults and neurological damage in children. Nickel and mercury are toxic and are classed as hazardous substance. Although Li-Ion batteries are free of heavy metals (lithium has a low atomic number), lithium's high degree of chemical activity can create environmental problems. When exposed to water, which is present in most landfills, the metal can burn, causing underground fires that are difficult to extinguish.

Landfill is not sustainable. Dumping mobile phones creates long term pollution risk to the environment.We at the Aussie Recycling Program and many environmental organisations world wide believe that recycling mobile phones is the only sensible and conscientious alternative. We encourage everyone to take the social responsibility in making recycling a benefit for everyone by protecting the environment in which we live and work. For more information on the environmental

Aussie Recycling Program and many environmental organisations world wide believe that recycling mobile phones is the only sensible and conscientious alternative as it presents many advantages: It reduces pollution caused by hazardous materials from mobile phones from landfill or incineration. It reduces the CO2 and methane waste in landfill. effects gas of global entering entering the environment

warming by reducing the our environment from

amount of decomposing

It reduces the waste and extraction of raw materials like plastics.

habitat

damage

associated

with

the

It is a simple, effective and socially rewarding thing to do. It prevents the reformation of environmentally such as dioxins and furans in the exhaust gas stream. It reduces disposal rates and impact. damaging compounds