3 ms·

I'm surprised the article doesn't question whether there's something about the environment itself that is contributing to these health problems. Use of electro

I'm surprised the article doesn't question whether there's something about the environment itself that is contributing to these health problems. Use of electronic devices is definitively more prevalent in Silicon Valley, and there is evidence that blue light exposure from screens or artificial light exposure at night may be harmful to health. And while this may be far fetched, there also are indications that some forms of electromagnetic radiation could potentially be harmful too.

toufka 11y ago
There are also all the environmental effects of living in the 'Silicon Valley' - named as such because of all the chip manufacturing from the 60-80s. Google's campus is nearby the 'MEW Plume'[1] of trichloroethene. A few buildings on Google's campus exposed pregnant Googlers' children to significant risk of heart defects [2]. Here's a pretty good article on silicon valley's troubled environmental legacy as they try to remediate their land [3]. Not to say that the environment is causative, but it sure does not help matters of health for employees who live their lives in the area. Silicon valley still has a significantly polluted environment [4]. [1] http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Moffet-Field-Toxic-Plume-Concerns-192436521.html http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Moffet-Field-Toxic-... [2] http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/02/28/toxics-put-pregnant-googlers-at-risk-expert-says http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/02/28/toxics-put-pregnant-... [3] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2014/mar/-sp-toxic-waste-silicon-valley-trail http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2014/m... [4] http://dotspotting.org/u/302/sheets/2679#c=10.00/37.3527/-121.9610 http://dotspotting.org/u/302/sheets/2679#c=10.00/37.3527/-12...
- npunt 11y ago
  Wow, that Guardian article is really well done. Our lack of concern for the environment leaves a terrible legacy both in lives and pure dollars. 10's of billions to not even properly clean up what could have been dealt with at the source for thousands or millions. The rising number of superfund sites shows the increasing cost burden to this way of doing things - this is probably the best argument for the fiscally minded who do not identify as environmentalists. The article explains a few ways the cleanup is spreading waste elsewhere, and it makes me wonder what similar sorts of choices we are making today in areas where the 'science isn't clear' or other excuses that were probably used in the 60s when this started. Are we changing the way we do things, or just which things are being done? Thanks for sharing this.

toufka 11y ago

There are also all the environmental effects of living in the 'Silicon Valley' - named as such because of all the chip manufacturing from the 60-80s. Google's campus is nearby the 'MEW Plume'[1] of trichloroethene. A few buildings on Google's campus exposed pregnant Googlers' children to significant risk of heart defects [2]. Here's a pretty good article on silicon valley's troubled environmental legacy as they try to remediate their land [3]. Not to say that the environment is causative, but it sure does not help matters of health for employees who live their lives in the area. Silicon valley still has a significantly polluted environment [4]. [1] http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Moffet-Field-Toxic-Plume-Concerns-192436521.html http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Moffet-Field-Toxic-... [2] http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/02/28/toxics-put-pregnant-googlers-at-risk-expert-says http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/02/28/toxics-put-pregnant-... [3] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2014/mar/-sp-toxic-waste-silicon-valley-trail http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2014/m... [4] http://dotspotting.org/u/302/sheets/2679#c=10.00/37.3527/-121.9610 http://dotspotting.org/u/302/sheets/2679#c=10.00/37.3527/-12...

npunt 11y ago
Wow, that Guardian article is really well done. Our lack of concern for the environment leaves a terrible legacy both in lives and pure dollars. 10's of billions to not even properly clean up what could have been dealt with at the source for thousands or millions. The rising number of superfund sites shows the increasing cost burden to this way of doing things - this is probably the best argument for the fiscally minded who do not identify as environmentalists. The article explains a few ways the cleanup is spreading waste elsewhere, and it makes me wonder what similar sorts of choices we are making today in areas where the 'science isn't clear' or other excuses that were probably used in the 60s when this started. Are we changing the way we do things, or just which things are being done? Thanks for sharing this.