Fullscreen HTML5Med Res (??MB)HTML4

·THE WAY I SEE IT By NEVILLE WILLIAMS Could we end up drinking nickel-cadmium cocktails? Faced with an unserviceable nicad battery, most of us simply drop it into the garbage bin. But according to a recent report, we 're not doing the right thing. If nicad cells are let loose in the environment, we run the risk of getting our own back in some as yet unspecified form. A really galvanising drink, maybe! This rather alarming scenario flows from a recent TV interview with visiting environmentalist, Canadian born Dr Suzuki, as relayed to me by a reader from Parramatta, NSW. I imagine that quite a few others may have seen it and wondered what it was all about. Here's what the Parramatta reader had to say: Dear Mr. Williams, I was quite taken recently, by an interview with Dr David Suzuki on the TV Midday show. I am not an avid environmentalist but the sheer common sense of what he had to say could not be ignored. The bottom line was simply that, if our children are not very different from us, it will be a poor look-out both for them and the planet that they will have to share on a global basis. Because of my involvement with electronics, I was particularly interested in his observations about nickel cadmium batteries. They are now used in very large quantities and when no longer serviceable, normally end up in the garbage bin. In reality, they mostly end up in a tip, along with tons of other household garbage, where they presumably break down and release their 22 SILICON CHIP chemical contents into the water table. Dr Suzuki says that the batteries should be returned and recycled to avoid polluting the environment. I gathered that this is already mandatory in Sweden, with nicad batteries being available mainly on a new-for-old replacement basis. The curious thing is that similar concern does not seem to have been ref1ected in any of the articles I have seen about such batteries. There are all manner of instructions and arguments about how they should be maintained but never a word about how they should be disposed of. By coincidence, but perhaps alerted by Dr Suzuki's concern for the environment, I came across an issue of the English magazine "New Scientist" for Feb. 25, 1988 which featured an article entitled "Electricity: a public hazard in private hands". While the writer of the article was concerned about the implications of privatising Britain's electricity supply industry, what comes through loud and clear is the enormous problem of protecting the environment of a sma11ish, heavily populated nation from pollution by the by- products of power generation, ranging from nuclear waste and acid rain to the logistic difficulties of decommissioning obsolete fossilfuelled and nuclear power stations. Faced with the two extremes, nicad batteries on the one hand, and nuclear power stations on the other, I got to thinking about a few things in between, like alleged radiation from power lines and even the electric blankets on which many of us have been sleeping during the past winter. Maybe electricity isn't quite the "clean" energy source that it was on(l;e cracked up to be! T. A. (Parramatta, NSW). If T.A. professes not to be an avid environmentalist, I certainly claim no special expertise in this area either, preferring to be seen simply as a technical columnist reacting to a reader's letter. However, if the reader's concern and my observations cause further light to be shed on the subject, that's what this column is all about. Considered in isolation, his reference to electricity as a notquite-so-clean energy source tends to distort the thinking that follows, viz: if the use of electricity can be shown to have undesirable consequences, we should question its use and seek some other (Utopian?) option free from environmental effects. Endemic to homo sapiens The fact is that human beings have an impact on the environment by their very existence and, if the TV series Nature of Australia is to Energy and the environment Oil lamps and candles were the only sources of light available until the beginning of the present century, when gas was first introduced . Its adoption met with great opposition and lecturers in all parts of the country proclaimed the direful effects that would follow its employment. The antagonistic feeling thus aroused may be compared to the strong prejudice previously evinced against its parent, coal, as a fuel. Two hundred years ago, the citizens of London petitioned Parliament to forbid the burning of be believed (June 11, 1988), that observation applies no less to the Aboriginal race that roamed our continent before the Europeans arrived. The end effect of any one human activity has to be judged in relative rather than absolute terms. All practical energy sources, it would seem, involve some social and environmental consequences and our overall objective should be to reach decisions that will avoid or minimise those that appear to be most destructive. As a lad, I lived in a country village where initially, a couple of hundred people relied on the surrounding bush for timber, bark, firewood and the occasional variation in diet. It was natural and convenient to do so but one didn't need to be a sage to appreciate the impact and the limitations of a communal bush-based existence, even on that small scale. Many years later (1968) I was being shown around Manchester, in the UK and noticed a particular building that appeared to have been painted in a deep, flat black. But it hadn't! While other buildings had been progressively steamcleaned during the previous decade, that one had been deliberately left in its original state as an eloquent reminder of what the entire city had been like after centuries of domestic coal fires and fossil fuelled industry and transport. Nor was Manchester as they saw it in 1885 coal in the city " on account of its stench". But the threatened failure of the wood supply helped them to forget their objections, and coal soon became the principal source of artificial heat, as it has since become our chief means of obtaining light. Although gas represents a vast improvement on previous modes of illumination, we are far from being altogether satisfied with it. It often contains impurities which are not only prejudicial to health but are most destructive to property. We want something purer and unique; it was typical of many such centres in Britain's industrial heartland. Against that sort of background and my further memories of the one-time environment of Sydney's Eveleigh railway loco sheds, it is not hard to accept that our forefathers really did look forward to electricity as the environmentally clean energy source to which T. A. refers. Just in case you think that, in saying this, I'm simply romancing in print, break off here and read the contents of the accompanying panel, abstracted from "Science For All", compiled by Robert Brown MA, PhD, FLS, FRGS, for Cassell & Co, circa 1885. The panel contains an extract from an article by T. C. Hepworth entitled: The Light of the Future. Batteries - a hazard? But that aside, what's all this about nickel-cadmium batteries? As with T. A., the proposition advanced by Dr Suzuki was new to me. I could not remember the matter ever having been raised. Searching for clues, I checked through all the textbooks I could lay my hands on, but in vain. The construction of nicad cells was explained, along with their characteristics, charge requirements, behaviour, etc; users were warned not to toss them in a fire , for fear of explosion, or to carry them loose in a pocket, in case they might be more wholesome. How common it is to hear the remark "I must examine this or that by daylight before I can judge of it". Is not this an acknowledgment that our present resources are not equal to our requirements? That gas will be immediately supplanted is improbable; but we hope that the day is not distant when some better means of illumination is vouchsafed to us. Many circumstances have taught us to look for this boon to the magic power called "electricity". From "Science for All", 1885. shorted by keys, etc. and overheat. But I found not a single word about not dumping them with the rubbish. Norman Marks, on the Advisory Panel of this magazine, could not recall anything either but he remembered a Danish camera technician telling him that, in his country, all batteries were subject to new-for-old replacement. He was under the impression that similar arrangements applied in Japan and that in the USA there was an obligation to return mercury cells. Whether or not the emphasis, in each case, was on the environment or reclamation was not clear. Norman also made the point that cadmium had been named as a health risk, when included in alloys used for hard soldering in poorly ventilated situations. Oyster beds in Western Australia had allegedly been contaminated by naturally occurring cadmium and, many years ago, a welder in a major Australian radio factory had been reported killed by toxic cadmium fumes when processing heavily plated chassis. Phil Watson, a former confrere who has read and written more articles about batteries than anyone else I've met, could remember no warnings about discarding batteries of any kind, not even the otherwise touchy lithium cells. In his opinion, the concentration of chemicals from randomly discarded cells would be negligible and certainly less than it might be if SEPTEMBER 1988 23 THE WAY I SEE IT - CTD cells were returned to collection points and then discarded in bulk by people who failed to follow through. Last but not least, I checked with the Eveready Batteries Division of Union Carbide. After consultation with company cognoscenti, a spokesman rang back to say that, while they published instructions about handling and using the various kinds of cells, they had never had reason to make any statements about their ultimate disposal. Yes, they were concerned about environmental effects but as a company, they were unaware of any documented reason for the apprehension attributed to Dr Suzuki. They were quite happy for me to publish their statement and would certainly examine any evidence that might emerge as a result. And there I propose to leave the particular matter for the time being, to give readers the opportunity to react. If there's a body of evidence out there, in English, Swedish, Danish, Japanese or any other language, that has escaped attention in this country, who better than SILICON CHIP readers to bring it to our attention? Electric blankets & whatnots As for T. A.'s reference to unspecified radiation effects from power lines and the possible consequences of sleeping on switched-on electric blankets, that projects us into a highly speculative area. There are accepted industrial guidelines, procedures and practices for those directly involved in work on active high voltage power lines and equipment. Whether the risk of exposure to significant electrostatic or electromagnetic fields extends to hikers or to cattle grazing beneath major power lines is questionable. It is even more so in respect to the distribution cables passing your front door. They may be unsightly but currently accepted wisdom is that they are not a health hazard. Electric blankets, electric footwarmers, mittens and shawls are also assumed to be safe, as far as potential radiation effects are concerned. Even so, they are not without their critics - some for obscure physiological reasons, others because they're a bit wary about electricity, anyway. Personally, having put up with my share of ice cold sheets as a country kid, I'm partial nowadays to a nice warm bed. But I don't deliberately leave the electric blanket on all night. There's no point in exposing oneself to even a hypothetical risk if a doona on top makes it unnecessary. As for electric booties, mittens and shawls, I guess that, for those who suffer from (physically) cold feet, cold hands and arthritic backs, the choice between tangible comfort and an intangible, hypothetical risk, has something to do with the quality of life! Those huge power stations Finally, there's the article in New Scientist mentioned by T. A. and concerned with the contemplated privatisation of Britain's power generation industry. Author Roger Milne points out that, during the past decade, the power industry has been a major contributor to two massive environmental headaches - nuclear waste and acid rain, the latter resulting from millions of tonnes of sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen belching, every year, from the stacks of fossil (mainly coal) fired power stations. This in addition to the direct environmental issues involving the location of large new power sta- tions of any kind, and the unsightly associated network of cables and towers. Projections indicate that Britain, already facing a crisis with intermediate level nuclear waste, will have nowhere left to store low level waste by the turn of the century. What's more, if it manages to control gas emissions from coal fired stations, the FGD (flue gas desulphurisation) equipment will have necessitated limestone quarrying as a raw material, and dumping facilities for the by-product, gypsum, both on a scale that will produce their own environmental confrontations. Can private industry cope with problems of this order and, beyond that again, can it cope with insurance and the financial implications of a nuclear accident in the light of what happened at Chernobyl? The way I see it, exchanges about the environment are not simply arguments that we win or lose. A certain point of view may prevail at any given time but the real problem doesn't go away. We can't forever ignore the environment, despoiling our forests and digging up ever more raw materials, while dumping reclaimable substances and chemicals into council sludge pits - there to be lost forever. Or leaving until tomorrow, action that should be taken today! Whatever we may think of particular statements by Dr Suzuki and other environmentalists, their overall theme is valid and it is high time that we all started thinking that way, without leaving the responsibility for changing attitude either to government or to private enterprise. Turning back the calendar By way of a complete change in subject matter, reader J. R. from Southport, Qld, supports my lament in the June issue under the heading: Those power distribution cables passing your front door may be unsightly but currently accepted wisdom is that they ore not a health hazard. 24 SILICON CHIP "For all practical purposes, Mr Fixit has had his day"! He says, however, that while most popularpriced domestic appliances are designed as throw-away units, repairable appliances made in Europe can still be obtained - for about double the price. For example, he has a modern English-made kettle, which can be repaired easily and for which spare parts are readily available. As for electric can openers, he reminds me that some models had a small grinding wheel at the back for sharpening knives. Before discarding them, he says, check to see whether it can be used for sharpening small drills and removing burrs from small metalwork. But I rather gather that, in J. R's mind, there's only a fine line between manufacturers who produce non-repairable appliances and outright "rip-off merchants". This because, in his letter, he proceeds directly from one subject to the other. I extract (with some abbreviation): The first criminal radio con man came to my notice in 1926. His equipment comprised a bogus diploma in wireless engineering, a receipt book and a small suitcase containing a few tools, a duster and a couple of valves in cartons. Starting around 10am, after the husbands had left for work, he would pick on a suburban street and call at the first house that had an aerial in the back yard. Putting on his best smile, he would usually manage to get inside (without obligation) to look at the radio, usually a neutrodyne or a regenerative TRF using 201-A or 199 type valves. He would lift the lid and "test" the set, unobtrusively keeping a finger on the fixed plates of a tuning condenser to detune the signal. Then he would switch off, replace one of the valves with a "new" one from a carton, convince the lady that reception was now much better, carefully dust the set, collect the money and move on down the street. He usually managed to "repair" about six receivers a day, ending up with the proceeds and, of course, still having two "new" valves left over to carry on with. Several weeks and many suburbs later, police put an end to his career as a "wireless engineer" but they were unable to return either the money or the correct valves to the original owners. Strangely, while retaining quite a few memories of the mid-1920s, none of my own recollections have to do with deliberate rip-off merchants. Maybe the limited number of wireless sets in the country and the technical awareness of most of their owners didn't leave too much room for dishonest initiative. About Guglielmo Marconi But J. R. isn't done yet. Still referring to electronic con men and ripoff merchants, which "trade on the gullible public who know less than they do" he says (and here I quote his letter exactly): These characters have been with us since wireless began. Marconi was the first of them. He managed to get himself credited with having invented wireless communication. Actually he invented very little but he was a great organiser, with an excellent grasp as a business man. Actually, the first man who visualised the idea of wireless communication was Faraday, some 50 yecirs before Marconi. Faraday mentioned it in his notes. Various other scientists were instrumental in inventing something connected with wireless. Lodge invented a coherer. Tuning coils had already been invented and Hertz had produced a spark gap transmitter. What Marconi did was to put all these ideas together into a practical and commercial form. Wow, that's telling 'em! Personally, I have always thought of Marconi as an inventor-cumentrepreneur but as an outright ripoff merchant, no. However, prompted by J. R.'s allegation, I reached down a copy of the book Guglielmo Marconi by David Gunston, one of the series The Great Nobel Prizes, published in 1970 and distributed by Heron Books. It's been on my shelf for years in its handsome leather binding and I had long since forgotten the details of its content. But thumbing through the book, it would seem to be a warts-and-all biography which certainly does not ignore the fact that the history of wireless is an unfolding story, with many scientists and inventors picking up and expanding upon the work of others. One chapter in the book is entitled "Those who paved the way" and this is followed by brief biographies of Michael Faraday, Joseph Henry, Samuel Morse, Sir Charles Wheatstone, James Maxwell, Karl Braun, Sir Oliver Lodge, Reginald Fessenden, Lee De Forest, and Edwin Armstrong. In the final chapter the author says: "Apart from the immensity of Marconi's achievements in his own right, what cannot be over-stressed is the impetus that his achievements in his own right gave to others ... men like De Forest, Franklin and Fleming were encouraged by Marconi's own breakthroughs to develop and add to their own particular lines of thought..." Far be it from me to base a conclusion on a thumb-through of a single biography but I do wonder about the biographer's summation above and J. R's own observations: "He was a great organiser, with an excellent grasp as a businessman" and "What Marconi did was to put all these ideas together into a practical and commercial form". The way I see it, far from confirming him as a con man, the above statements wouldn't read too badly as an epitaph! ~ RCS Radio Pty Ltd is the only company which manufactures and sells every PCB & front panel published in SILICON CHIP, ETI and EA. 651 Forest Road, Bexley, NSW 2207 Phone (02) 587 3491 for instant prices 4-HOUR TURNAROUND SERVICE SEPTEMBER 1988 25