Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Kodak will lay off 6000 employees

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Kodak will lay off 6000 employees

 
 
Rafe B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2003
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:09:25 +0200, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Jason O'Rourke writes:
>
>> Did you actually have a source, or was this another
>> one of the facts you pulled out of thin air, maniac?

>
>A typical computer chip requires about 100,000 times its own weight in
>waste material to produce. If the chip weighs three grams, that's 300
>kg of waste.
>
>For a roll of film, I have to estimate a bit more. If the film itself
>weighs 12 grams ... hmm, let's say, about 100 g of waste to produce it,
>another 100 g to develop it, for perhaps 200 g of waste overall. Sixty
>rolls would then be 12 kg of waste, or about 1/25 of the waste in making
>a CCD.
>
>I assume that these figures do not include water as a waste product,
>since it can be recycled.



Are you aware that Koday has been fouling the
air of Rochester, NY for many years? Do you
really imagine that film manufacture is all that
innocent?


<http://newyork.sierraclub.org/rochester/kodak's_pollution1.htm>



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2003
Rafe B. wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:43:37 +0000 (UTC), http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
> (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:
>
>
>>Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Digital cameras produce a tremendous amount of pollution in their
>>>fabrication. Semiconductor fabrication facilities produce some of the
>>>most toxic pollution in the world, in hundreds of flavors.
>>>
>>>
>>>>So that's 60 rolls less film required and considerably
>>>>less chemicals and paper.
>>>
>>>About a thousandth of the chemicals required to produce the CCD in the
>>>camera.

>>
>>Did you actually have a source, or was this another one of the facts
>>you pulled out of thin air, maniac?

>
>
>
> No, maniac has a point; semiconductor manufacure is
> pretty toxic, although the quantities of toxins aren't very
> huge. (Hint: look at an atomic table and observe which
> elements are in the upper rows in Group III or Group V.)
>
> But maniac is also a hypocrite; he wants you to feel bad
> about the CCD in your digicam, but not about the one in
> his film scanner.
>
> Nor does maniac have a problem with computers in
> general, which of course would not exist without those
> same evil semiconductors.
>
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com


And the chemicals used in making film and developing and printing it
arean't? Gimme a break. ONE CCD vs thousands of prints?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Xiaoding
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2003
> "However, digital photography uses far less in the way of consumables,
> including film, chemicals and paper. Let's say the average film photographer
> gets through 12 rolls of film per year and swaps to a digital setup with a
> 256MB flash card. That setup may well serve him/her for 5 years or more. So
> that's 60 rolls less film required and considerably less chemicals and
> paper. And by and large it won't be Kodak supplying the memory cards either.
> Multiply that by the millions of photographers worldwide and it soon adds up
> to a lot less demand.
>
> Leading on from that you need fewer people to order and receive goods, fewer
> to manufacturer goods, less warehouse storage and reduced distribution
> networks.
>
> So the comparison is that it takes less effort to produce and distribute one
> memory card than, say, 60 rolls of film."


Exactly. But there's a silver lining for Kodak in this. Sell less
film? Print more shots! They should be offering digital printing
services for 10 cents a print at CVS, etc. Instead, the morons charge
MORE for digital, when the cost is less- no film to develop! They
should at least give digital users the SAME PRICE as film users. Why
do film users get double prints, but not digital? They need to
encourage digital users to print more of their shots, and make money
that way. Instead, they make it as difficult and expensive as they
can. Kodak deserves to go down.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2003
Ron Hunter writes:

> And the chemicals used in making film and developing
> and printing it arean't? Gimme a break. ONE CCD vs
> thousands of prints?


Have you ever looked at the chemicals used in semiconductor manufacture?
You can practically drink the chemicals used for photo development by
comparison.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2003
Rafe B. writes:

> Are you aware that Koday has been fouling the
> air of Rochester, NY for many years?


Lots of industrial plants foul the air. Semiconductor plants foul the
water and soil, too.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2003
Ron Hunter writes:

> I wouldn't recommend that.


Some women spread developer on their skin.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alfred Molon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Ron Hunter writes:
>
> > And the chemicals used in making film and developing
> > and printing it arean't? Gimme a break. ONE CCD vs
> > thousands of prints?

>
> Have you ever looked at the chemicals used in semiconductor manufacture?
> You can practically drink the chemicals used for photo development by
> comparison.


But all that pollution happens in a few places (semiconductor fabs) and
can therefore be economically and thoroughly taken care of. Instead the
pollution related to film happens in zillions of places all over the
world - which may or may not have acceptable waste processing
standards.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.htm
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.htm
 
Reply With Quote
 
gr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2003
"Mxsmanic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

[snip]

Cliff? Cliff Claven? Is that you???


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lay Off The Linux-Netbook Returns Issue Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 14 08-15-2009 10:41 AM
Kodak Easyshare Dock 6000 Rene Digital Photography 7 12-16-2003 10:08 PM
Best Price Source for Photo Paper for Kodak 6000 Printer/Dock Bud Zielinski Digital Photography 1 08-21-2003 03:37 PM
Which Batteries with Kodak 6000 Dock Bud Zielinski Digital Photography 2 08-21-2003 03:33 PM
Re: Kodak will lay off 6000 employees Rafe B. Digital Photography 3 07-25-2003 06:59 AM



Advertisments