5 ms·
wouldn't robots solve this issue? Also, a question for you: if chip factories were black boxes with robots in them that you put stuff into and got stuff out of
by logicallee 9y ago
wouldn't robots solve this issue?
Also, a question for you: if chip factories were black boxes with robots in them that you put stuff into and got stuff out of, is the "output" also toxic? (Are the actual boards and such also toxic)? Or could the output be non-toxic as long as waste was handled properly, so that it's only toxic inside but neither in its waste output or product output?
- gaius 9y agoHow do you bootstrap a robot factory if you need the factory's output to make the robots?
- logicallee 9y agomaybe very slowly with the just a few workers wearing super expensive hazmat space-suits with their own self-contained breathing systems. that probably wouldn't scale to production volumes but could make sense if you're building a one-off robotic factory. but nobody answered the question - are the normal outputs of a factory also toxic, or just what goes on inside? would a robotic factory even "solve" the issue?
- e12e 9y agoYou can't grind up a circuit board or chip and eat it (or drink it) - which down the line leads to problems: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste_in_Guiyu https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste_in_Guiyu That is to say, one would need proper recycling in order to avoid toxicity for the entire life cycle of products.
- gtirloni 9y agoYou'd have a similar situation as that of a nuclear power plant.
- logicallee 9y agoWell the "non-waste" output of a nuclear plant (what it actually produces) is just electricity, but are the chips these plants produce themselves toxic following production, or is only the production process toxic? I don't know about toxicity of these things.
- lostlogin 9y agoRadiation is hard on electronics. Presumably some chemicals are too but it would seem easier to block a chemical contacting a part than it is to keep radiation out.
- sevensor 9y agoRobots help. The "lights-out" fab has been an industry goal for thirty years at least. (Lights-out = no human operators. I.e. you could turn out the lights and nobody would mind.) We've moved a long way in that direction, but we're not going to remove humans in the forseeable future. The reason is something your question, like many discussions about automation, completely overlooks. Robots break. All the time. Robots need recovery when they break. They also need preventative maintenance. Even a fully automated fab has an army of technicians in there turning wrenches 24/7. In fact, the more automated the fab, the more people you need turning wrenches. So you can't have a factory that's a toxic swamp inside so long as it's clean on both ends, because there are people in there. You really don't want to ask them to wear SCBA gear all day long either. Nobody likes that. It's hot, it's uncomfortable, and it doesn't work well in tight spaces.
- ocschwar 9y agoAnd what's worse is those wrench-turning techs have a different mindset from the test-tube shuffling techs they replace. So when they come in, they're more likely to get exposed to something nasty.
- shuntress 9y agoI get the point of the phrase ("light-out fabrication") but I think it's important to note that robots smart/capable enough to replace humans would probably use visible light in a manner quite similar to the way it is used by humans.
- ethbro 9y agoAlso, if you're unhindered by things like preventing tumors by isolating chemicals from your squishy meat employees, imagine the kind of Superfund sites you'd get when these places were finally decommissioned.