2002 Global Symposium for a

Sustainable High-Tech Industry



International Campaign for Responsible Technology

November 16-18, 2002


Our planet is at a critical crossroads. As the high-tech revolution evolves at an ever-accelerating pace, so do the environmental, health, and community challenges.

The electronics revolution has brought technological advances unparalleled in human history. These same advances depend on a technology based on toxic chemicals that have taken their toll on production workers and the overall environment. While the promise of high-tech development seems almost limitless, there is a significant dark side that must be understood so that future problems of toxic contamination can be minimized or eliminated.

A typical computer workstation contains more than 1000 materials (many of them very toxic) and components that are manufactured and assembled all over the world. Groundwater contamination and air pollution caused by releases from semiconductor manufacturing facilities continue to increase. Discarded computers pile up in our landfills and leech toxic chemicals such as lead and cadmium into our water supply. Poorer, under-represented communities are displaced and forced to endure a harmful environment as the high-tech industry expands its operations into targeted communities. In many parts of the U.S. and around the world, cancer clusters are being discovered among workers who produce the electronic marvels. Yet workers’ health issues take a secondary role to the relentless demands of the production cycle.

Since 1982, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), a community-based organization in San Jose, California, that focuses on the environmental, community and worker health impacts of the electronics industry, has served as the environmental conscience of the high-tech industry. SVTC’s local campaigns demanding cleaner production methods and promoting sustainability in the semiconductor industry now resound around the globe as the technologies, toxics, and unquenchable thirst for natural resources are exported to regions with low wages and minimal environmental protections.

Thus, it was fitting that as SVTC celebrated its 20th Anniversary, it also hosted the first-of-its-kind

Global Planning Workshop on Strategies for a Sustainable High-Tech Industry, in Silicon Valley, the birthplace of the electronics industry. The event started on November 14, and culminated with the anniversary celebration on November 16, 2002. This report is the product of that conference.

The Global Planning Workshop created a forum for like-minded international advocates and respected academics to:

  • exchange information on environmental protection, labor rights and globalization
  • develop strategies to minimize the toxic impacts of the high-tech industry and promote sustainable solutions for workers and communities and,
  • plan for a larger, future international meeting of high-tech activists.

Never before has such a global delegation been brought together in the same high-tech forum. Invited guests included 50 representatives from environmental, labor, health policy, economic development and community organizations, as well as academics from Canada, ChinaEngland, India, France, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Scotland, Sweden, and Thailand, and their counterparts from the

U.S. (Appendix 2) All attendees recognized that an international movement is needed to address the impacts of high-tech development as our planet continues to face the challenges of:

  • rising community and workers health problems
  • increasing water and air pollution
  • deteriorating workers rights
  • growing crisis of electronic waste (e-waste)
  • escalating corporate influence on global institutions and agreements such as WTO, NAFTA

Many participants wrote “think pieces” in preparation for this conference. Many of these are now available on the SVTC web site, (http:// www.svtc.org/icrt/); some are being further developed for an edited volume with contributions from a number of workshop participants.

There are many people and organizations to thank for their invaluable participation in this endeavor. We thank the following people who contributed written material and who reviewed drafts of this conference report: Leslie Byster, Ted Smith, David Pellow and David Sonnenfeld. We are most grateful to the University of California Institute for Labor and Employment, the University of California-Berkeley Institute of International Studies, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, and our many donors for their generous support.

We also thank those who took the time from their schedules to attend the conference and contribute think pieces to address some of the questions we are struggling with:

  • How do we get bring greater accountability to an industry that is one of the world’s largest polluters of land, air and water and exposes its workers to hundreds of toxic chemicals?
  • How do we peel away the veneer of the "clean” industry and promote true sustainable strategies?
  • At local, national, and transnational levels, where have we, and others, succeeded in forcing, encouraging, or convincing industry leaders to improve their practices? How can we strengthen the work in local communities, protect the health of workers and promote greater corporate accountability on an international level?
  • What are the most important issues/ dynamics for engaged citizens to focus on? What significant regional differences are there in our assessments/needs?
  • Is a global network of activists and others focused on reforming the high-tech sector necessary, and if so, what it should it look like and what should it do?

These aren’t easy questions, but the important ones never are. These are some of the many challenges that Symposium participants agreed to address.

The production of electronics and computer components contaminates air, land, water, and human beings with unrivaled intensity. This is a problem of labor rights and environmental injustice.

We are united by our concern for the lifecycle impacts of this industry on health, the environment and workers’ rights.


The high tech industry is the world’s largest and most important manufacturing sector with social, economic, and ecological impacts touching every continent. The high-tech industry enjoys the image of a “clean” industry with manicured front lawns and a campus-like appearance. However, the discovery of the groundwater contamination, the negative health impacts to community members and production workers has continued to erode the “clean” image of the industry. Two disturbing phenomena are found in many high tech clusters around the world: the generation of serious occupational and environmental hazards for workers and nearby communities; and the intensification of social inequalities in the form of wage polarization and worker disempowerment.

The production of electronics and computer components contaminates air, land, water, and human beings with unrivaled intensity. This is a problem of labor rights and environmental injustice, since the people whose health is being compromised in this “new economy” are largely working class, poor, female, immigrant, and/or from ethnic minority populations. Union representation to protect workers rights in this sector is very low around world. These dynamics are intensified in a global economy where manufacturers – including in electronics – are increasingly “footloose,” and no longer tied to one place. For decades, workers, community members, health professionals, and government regulators have attempted to address these problems as they relate to high tech production.

The Workshop on Global Strategies for a Sustainable High-Tech Industry brought together more than 50 delegates from environmental, worker health and safety and policy organizations and academics in 15 countries. Prior to arrival, participants all wrote impressive reports that described the impacts of high-tech development in their country, region or sector. The meeting consisted of 3 days of workshops with presentations from delegates; a forum at San Jose State University attended by several hundred people; a meeting with the president of the Semiconductor Industry Association (the trade association for the electronics industry); and a party celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition and its victories fighting for health and environmental justice in the era of high-tech globalization.

At the conclusion of the symposium, participants decided that a more formal network was needed to share resources, analysis and information to address the myriad of issues surrounding high-tech development. A mission statement, goals and interim structure were adopted as initial steps. On-going communication and information sharing, technical assistance support, regional meetings to further develop the network, future conference planning, and the publication of a book are among the ongoing activities. The ICRT vowed to continue to promote corporate and government accountability in the global electronics industry as we build the capacity of grassroots organizations, local communities, workers and consumers to achieve social, environmental and economic justice. Participants adopted an interim structure with a steering committee, workgroups and this mission statement:

We are an international solidarity network that promotes corporate and

government accountability in the global electronics industry. We are united

by our concern for the lifecycle impacts of this industry on health, the

environment and workers’ rights. By sharing resources, we seek to build the

capacity of grassroots organizations, local communities, workers and con

sumers to achieve social, environmental and economic justice.


Day 1: High-Tech Today: Global, Regional, and Community ImpactBackground: How We Got Here and Why

The first session of the conference provided delegates with an understanding of the course of events that led to this conference. Amanda Hawes begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting (USA, Santa Clara Center for Occupational Safety and Health), Ted Smith and Leslie Byster (USA, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition) outlined the history of the work and the organizations involved. Peter Olney, (USA, UC-Institute for Labor and Employment), Iza Kruszewska (United Kingdom, Clean Production Action) and Wen-ling Tu (Taiwan, Taiwan Environmental Action Network) added their perspectives of this work based on their work with communities, workers, and labor unions in Europe and Asia.

The high-tech industry started growing in the United States in the late 1970’s, concentrated in Silicon Valley, California and Route 128 around Boston, Massachusetts. Silicon Valley was once viewed as the “Valley of Hearts Delight” with fruit orchards as far as the eye could see. Canneries dotted the landscape. In the late 1970s the canneries were paved over by semiconductor fabrication plants and workers in “bunny suits” replaced cannery workers.

The Santa Clara Center for Occupational Safety and Health (SCCOSH) was founded in 1978. Its strategic mission is to advocate for humane working conditions and environmental justice for Silicon Valley’s low-wage and immigrant workers who are often marginalized from the benefits and glamour of a rapidly evolving Information Technology (IT) industry.

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) formed a few years later, in 1982, as a community response to the discovery of substantial groundwater contamination caused by a local semiconductor fabrication facility. A mother in a San Jose neighborhood had a child with a serious heart defect that required several surgeries. She identified other neighbors whose family members suffered serious health problems. Her efforts led to the discovery of drinking water contamination caused by a leaking underground tank at Fairchild Semiconductor. Her organizing alerted the community to the dangers of leaking tanks and started to shatter the myth of the “clean” high-tech industry.

SVTC and SCCOSH worked in the local community and promoted clean-up of toxic sites, pollution prevention and worker health protection. In the meantime, the high-tech industry continued to grow and export its technology and toxics to different parts of the United States and the world.

Recognizing that rapid technological change often led to adverse environmental, social, and economic problems, in 1992, SVTC initiated the Campaign for Responsible Technology (CRT) to:

§ unite diverse organizations and communities to promote CRT’s first campaign focused on SEMATECH, a research consortium of major semiconductor manufacturers, based in Austin, Texas. CRT organized to redefine SEMATECH’s role as a major agency of industrial policy and led a successful effort to expand SEMATECH’s mission to not only build a smaller, faster chip, but also a cleaner and safer chip as well.

§ broader participation in the design and development of sustainable technologies;
§ strengthen locally-based organizing by sharing experiences, information and strategies; and,
§ provide a larger context for groups that are dealing with technology-related issues.

For its first few years, the CRT also tracked the global expansion of high-tech electronics manufacturing. Several key states (Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Massachusetts and Texas) and key countries (Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines, Scotland, Taiwan) where high-tech development was booming were identified. The CRT began building relationships with community, environmental justice, health and labor organizations and developed a loose network of grassroots organizations and individuals who recognized that the diverse, but related problems associated with high-tech development could only be overcome by extending democracy into the technological decision making process.

In March 1997 at the European Work Hazards Conference in the Netherlands, the CRT took a substantial leap forward when participants concluded that the issue of responsible technology needed to be tackled globally. Conference participants resolved to establish an International Campaign for Responsible Technology (ICRT):

By constantly expanding and nurturing this network, we are working to ensure that the high-tech industry and governments become accountable to its host communities and people and use the best practices to improve health and safety and reduce environmental impacts.”

This statement has guided the work of the ICRT ever since.

Plenary I: Globalization, Growth & Impacts of the High-Tech Industry

Boy Luethje (Germany, University of Frankfurt), Rajah Rasiah (Malaysia, INTECH), and David Sonnenfeld (USA, Washington State University) presented research on trends in the high-tech industry.

The high-tech industry has become the world’s largest manufacturing industry. The Commission of the European Union estimates it has surpassed traditional core industries like auto and steel in size and scope. In developing countries such as, Malaysia, China, and Mexico, high-tech manufacturing has become the backbone of the industrialization process.

Information Technology (IT) is often perceived as a “service industry” and not a manufacturing industry. Social and political organizing in “high-tech” is mostly defined as organizing the “knowledge workers” or engineers. Little attention is given to the substantial proportion of manufacturing workers exposed to highly exploitative wages and working conditions. Community, environmental, and occupational safety and health activists in high-tech centers like Silicon Valley and Silicon Glen in Scotland are more aware of this situation, than is the official labor movement and many in the political arena.

The glitzy image of the high-tech industry is severely damaged by a global recession of unprecedented scale. As in earlier situations (notably in 1985/86 and in the early 1990s), high-tech workers and the general public must recognize that the industry is not immune from the traditional logic of overproduction and over-capacities. The polarization of the workforce between highly paid “knowledge workers” and the large number of manufacturing workers who earn far less and work under conditions of highly insecure employment is one important characteristic of high-tech development. The growth of the contingent labor force through contract labor and moving production to “low-cost” locations like China, Mexico, Malaysia and Hungary contributes to the large layoffs by major high-tech companies in the U.S.

In most developed countries labor unions are very weak or non-existent. This situation is particularly dramatic in the United States (with Silicon Valley as the “role model” for a union-free environment). Unionization of high-tech industries is also weak in Europe where labor unions have greater institutional strength. Environmental activists and health and safety advocates are often the only force promoting social and environmental justice, labor rights and public scrutiny over an industry famous for its neoliberal beliefs in entrepreneurship and freedom of business.

Observations on trends of industry

  • Sweatshop proliferation and increased use of contract manufacturers, leading to a shift in production and risks to Eastern/Central Europe, India, China and the global south.
  • Lack of unionization in the high-tech workforce in the U.S., leading to a polarization of wage structure and extreme ‘specialization’ in job function (heightened form of labor control and measurement)
  • Industry’s economic and political power varies in different countries. Governments give industry special treatment (subsidies, export processing zones, etc), administered under protected labor and environmental regulatory regimes
  • Given the constant rush to production, there is limited information about health and environmental risks of new processes and technologies

Suggestions/Strategies presented by speakers:

  • Increase understanding of chain of production from resource extraction, production and transport to e-waste and toxic dumping.
  • Break the myths of high-tech industry as “clean, as the “true” path to economic development and as a service industry. It is a chemically intensive manufacturing industry: high-tech = hazardous tech
  • Integrate environment and occupational health and safety issues. Use Right-to-Know as a tool for environment and worker health. Show the links between high-tech growth and pollution. Intensify global scrutiny of company environmental and worker health protections
  • Hold contract manufacturers to same standards as original equipment manufacturers. Learn from anti-sweatshop model of organizing. Push for environmental impact statements on new products.
  • Expand definition of “high-tech” to include bio-tech, electronics and software.

High-Tech Today: Reports from Asia, Europe and the Americas

Malaysia: High-tech manufacturing continues to grow in Malaysia. International regulation of hazardous waste exports has accelerated the relocation of hazardous industries to Malaysia. Industrial waste discharges are severely impacting the environment, community and worker health.

Some multinational firms practice double standards in terms of occupational health and safety of workers and environmental protection. While in their ‘home’ countries they practice strict safety and environmental standards, the lack of enforcement mechanisms and lax regulations may mean their operating standards are lower. There are legal restrictions on electronic industry worker’s right to organize.

American companies making investments outside the U.S. are now heading for China. In Penang, thousands of workers are unemployed including 4000 people who lost their jobs when the Seagate Prai facility closed.

FORUM: The Other Faces of Silicon Valley

A special forum was held at San Jose State University. The forum, The Other Faces of Silicon Valley, featured the film “Exporting Harm: the High-Tech Trashing of Asia”, and presentations by Amanda Hawesbegin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting (USA, Santa Clara Center for Occupational Health), Dr. Joseph La Dou (USA, International Center for Occupational Medicine), Boy Luethje (Germany, University of Frankfurt), Rajah Rasiah (Malaysia, INTECH), Dr. Andrew Watterson (Scotland, University of Stirling), Dr. Orupan Metadolugkul, (Thailand), and Ted Smith (Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition). Several hundred people attended the forum.

Prof. Boy Luethje, Institute for Social Research, University of Frankfurt, Germany

Prof. Rajah Rasiah, Institute for New Technologies, Netherlands

Dean Carmen Maria Sigler, Dean of the College of Humanities and the Arts welcomes international delegates to Forum at San Jose State University.

Hundreds come to hear speakers from around the world, share information about the impacts of high-tech and the vision of building a greener more sustainable high-tech industry.

Dr. AndreWattersonUniversitof StirlingScotland.

Day 2: Fighting for Healthier High-Tech Workplaces – What Has Worked, What Hasn’t?

Plenary II

This symposium brought together health and safety advocates with a combined expertise of more than 100 years of knowledge and experience on the health impacts and workers rights in the era of high-tech globalization. Presentations were made by: Helen Clark (Scotland, PHASE II), Dr. Orupan Metadolugkul (Thailand), Amy Dean (USA, South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council) , Voravidh Charoenloet (Thailand, Chulalongkorn University) and responses by Peter Olney, (US, Institute for Labor and Employment), and Karen Hossfeld (USA, San Francisco State University).

The semiconductor industry, with more than a million workers worldwide, is diverse with many technologies and manufacturing processes. While manufacturing settings share many characteristics, no two are the same. High tech companies are expanding into Asia and Central and Eastern Europe. Threats to jobs and conditions exist as the companies move from one country to the next. As new technologies are placed in the more highly developed countries, (Japan, the United States and Western Europe), many of the older technologies are exported to the global south so workers who “inherit” these jobs use chemicals no longer used in developed countries.

At every political level, high tech companies are often influential opponents of legislation to improve labor and environmental standards. Effective responses to the challenges posed by the industry require consideration of political, economic, cultural and regional factors which may operate differently between countries and regions and within countries. It is necessary to demand a safe and healthy workplace and living wages as basic human rights that cross national boundaries.

HEALTH AND SAFETY. The industry that enjoys the image of a “clean” industry, is actually very chemically intensive, exposing workers to many chemicals that are carcinogenic or cause reproductive, neurological and other problems. Cancer clusters have been detected among workers in the United States and Scotland. High-tech workers and communities bear a disproportionate burden of risks from chemical exposures that result in disease and premature death and suffer from the lack of compensation for these illnesses and injuries. The American semiconductor industry continues to resist undertaking epidemiological studies proposed by public health agencies and a number of occupational health researchers.

WORKPLACE ORGANIZING. High unemployment levels, low wages, a contingent work force and no unions provide an ideal environment for high-tech employers to maintain docile workforces. The absence of independent worker organizations leaves workers with no meaningful input into decisions about pay, benefits, job descriptions or working conditions. Using union-busting tactics, the high-tech industry has thwarted attempts to organize the high-tech workers. However, Silicon Valley’s “Justice for Janitors” campaign in the early 1990’s succeeded in organizing the industry’s service workers.

RIGHT-TO-KNOW. Many countries lack effective freedom of information provisions about environmental pollution released by high-tech companies. Industry occupational health reports and workplace chemical assessments are either non-existent or difficult to obtain. Even with regulations in place, it is often difficult to ensure compliance. Enforcement and compliance agencies often appear inactive, unable or inept in dealing with this industry.

Challenges to development of ICRT re: workers

§ Linking worker issues to broader campaign issues.
§ Moving beyond clearinghouse/info exchange to solidarity center
§ Engaging workers to decide on particular company target
§ Identifying others who need to be involved. (Trade unions from Mexico, Eastern/Central Europe, Asia, India, Pakistan, Middle East and more NGO’s.

Left to Right: Helen Clark, Phase 2 (Scot

land); Prof. Karen Hossfeld, San Francisco State University; Dr. Orupan Metadolugkul and Dr. Voravidh Charoenloet (Thailand), and Dr. David

Sonnenfeld Washington State University.

Recommendations from workshop panel

§ Establish a clearinghouse for electronic/print information (use different languages). Exchange information and share resources. Build the capacity to support each other’s organizing efforts.

§ Support workers organizing their own medical center and translate materials (Use SCCOSH and steelworker handbooks as models. Develop long-term health monitoring of workers. Get occupational health doctors involved and recognize their efforts.

§ Help provide legal assistance for immigrant workers.

§ Build worker knowledge. Use workers’ stories to raise issues/campaigns.

§ Support workers right to organize, reduce their burden and exposure to toxic substances. Include mental health when looking at health. Support the right to refuse dangerous “chip” work.

§ Build international solidarity—do conferences in impacted areas.

§ Identify opportunities to include workers in Export Processing Zones and Maquiladoras. Look at the Maquiladora Network’s efforts to: a) mobilize resources to build support; b) build capacity of their organizations; and c) produce tools for worker empowerment.

§ Develop Campaigns – with several components and clear strategy: 1) media/public education, 2) support for workers 3) work with community to stop environmental pollution.

Action: Speaking Truth to Power

The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), the trade association, was invited to speak to conference delegates about actions they were taking to protect worker health. The SIA declined the invitation, so delegates went to the SIA office to confront SIA President George Scalise. After waiting for 20 minutes, Mr. Scalise finally agreed to meet with conference delegates from around the world. Delegates explained to Mr. Scalise the serious health and safety hazards in their countries, and were very critical of the SIA’s March 2002 announcement about a feasibility study to determine if enough data exists to conduct a full study of the health impacts of the high-tech industry, calling it a stalling tactic. During the visit, Helen Clark of Phase Two, raised some critical points with Mr Scalise. The points Helen raised eptomised the injustices felt by thef workers and their communities represented at conference.Delegates held the SIA accountable for its lack of action and called for several immediate concrete actions to address the growing health problems in the industry. (See Statement and Press Materials in Appendix)

Symposium delegates call on the SIA's President, George Scalise, to take concrete steps to address the health problems of the high-tech industry.

Amanda Hawes begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting, Founder of Santa Clara Center for Occupational Safety & Health

Plenary III: Community Impacts and National Campaigns for Health and Environmental Justice

Water Pollution, E-waste, Clean Production, Export Processing Zones

The benefits of computer technology have been substantial and widely felt around the world. But there are great costs to the community with the rapid production of computers, and the growing piles of electronic waste. Many of these costs are not incorporated into the company’s bottom line, but instead are passed on to communities, workers and the environment. Speakers included Susana Almanza (USA People Organized in Defense of Earth and her Resources) Wen-Ling Tu (Taiwan, Taiwan Environmental Action Network), Ryoichi Terada (Japan, Tsuru University), Robin Schneiderbegin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting (USA, Texas Campaign for the Environment), Iza Kruszewska (United Kingdom, Clean Production Action), Alex McPherson (USA, Clean Production Network), and Bev Thorpe (Canada, Clean Production Action).

Short product cycles, a globalized system of production, and intensive chemical use are typical of the global high-tech economic forces. Many “brand name” firms do not actually produce equipment, but pay contractors and subcontractors, often located in low-wage, low-regulation countries or low-income communities of color, to produce their branded items. The rapid expansion of contract manufacturing to the developing world has increased the threat to worker, community and environmental health.

Environmental regulations can’t keep up with the rapid changes and local authorities who are designated to monitor environmental performance, often lack the capacity to enforce the laws. The problems of worker exposures to toxic substances and air and water pollution in communities around the plants is being exported to these communities or developing countries like Thailand and China where governments lack the economic base, political will or technical capacity to enforce regulations – should they exist in the first place.

A comprehensive publicly available toxics inventory for further regulating and monitoring is needed for effective pollution prevention. Ways must be found to manufacture computer products without creating by-products that become a burden to less powerful communities.

Water and Air Pollution

Water is the world’s most precious resource. In the U.S., the high-tech industry’s unquenchable thirst for water is illustrated by facilities that use more than 6 million gallons a day. Water treatment facilities for high-tech plants, often subsidized with public dollars, are placed in low-income communities of color.

Water pollution has become incorporated in the high-tech environmental footprint as the industry has expanded around the world. In Taiwan’s Hsinchu Science Park, the site of many semiconductor plants, the wastewater discharges into a river, and dead fish have been found on riverbanks. Homes are situated very close to the park and residents frequently complain about the air pollution that comes from the factories nearby.

Export Processing Zones/High-tech Sweatshops

Export Processing Zones (EPZs)/Free Trade Zones (FTZs) is a generic term to refer to the 20 or so names given by various countries to refer to a special “territorial enclave in which foreign firms, benefiting from special incentives and privileges, produce goods for export”. (UN, The Challenge of Free Economic Zones in Central and Eastern Europe, 1991, p.2)

Over the last 8-10 years, opposition to “sweatshop” conditions used in the manufacturing of consumer goods has grown tremendously. The “anti-sweatshop” movement now includes religious, student, women’s and labor organizations, shareholder activists, and community-based groups. The successes of this movement is reflected the adoption of local and national legislation, public and private “codes of conduct,” and corporate public relations.

The “anti-globalization” movement has also grown. While there is an obvious overlap between the activists, goals and activities of the globalization and sweatshop movements, the possible synergies between them have not been fully realized. While evident in the anti-globalization movement, the strength of the environmental movement has not been brought to bear in the anti-sweatshop movement.

Clean Production – A campaign for sustainable development

Over the past several years, the European Union has developed several important environmental initiatives that will help improve conditions within the electronics industry:

· The Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive, which establishes extended producer resonsiblity and take back for electronic products

· The Restriction on Hazardous Materials directive, which phases out some of the most toxic chemicals used in electronics manufacturing

· The REACH initiative which promulgates a new more precautionary chemical policy

The American Electronics Association has prompted the US government to issue threats of World Trade Organization (WTO) action against European Union (EU), labeling the new EU directives as barriers to trade. These actions have weakened these important directives which are designed to hold companies accountable to the chemicals they produce and use. Under this policy, companies find safer alternatives for inherently harmful materials. In Europe, activists are pushing for government bans on materials that are inherently harmful, like persistent bioaccumulative substances, carcinogenic materials and or endocrine disruptors.

Policy strategies must be implemented to influence the global practices of the high tech sector. Extended producer responsibility (EPR), used throughout Europe and Japan is holding the high tech industry accountable for the lifecycle impacts of their products. In addition, effective EPR programs will make cradle-to-cradle design practices economically profitable for companies as they will be able to readily reuse and recycle old parts back into new products saving on raw material and disposal expenses.

Amy Dean, South Bay, AFL-CIO Labor Council, Dr. Orupan Metadolugkul, and Dr. Voravidh Charoenloet (Thailand)

Suggestions/Recommendations from workshop plenary

§ Put financial pressure on companies, financial institutions, and decision-makers (Congress).
§ Use procurement strategies and shareholder resolutions to build internal and public campaigns
§ Expose public subsidies. Citizens subsidize high-tech facility water use.
§ Mobilize resources necessary to build community and worker empowerment
§ Collect case studies and stories
§ Develop strategies for dealing with globalization. Stop de-regulation, work with international network for compliance and enforcement
§ Look beyond products to resource extraction (mining).
§ Build partnerships and solidarity in communities where high-tech exists. Include workers, community, consumer, student, activists and professional groups.
§ Build pressure campaigns against particular corporations or segments of industry to publicize working conditions and environmental degradation. Campaigns need local and international components and should be “factbased” public education efforts to involve ever-larger sections of society in the campaign. Broaden issues so it is more accessible and meaningful to folks in local communities.
§ Build student-based campaigns on campus and their surrounding communities on environmental and anti-sweatshop grounds. Make High-Tech part of the anti-sweatshop movement.
§ Draft and support specific legislative initiatives, (export of wastes, regulatory processes, permit applications) to build public campaigns.

Day 3: The Formation of a Network.

After 2 days of workshops and informal exchanges it was clear that there are a variety of approaches to the work currently being undertaken in many organizations. While the programmatic work may differ, the desire for sustainable and responsible technology united conference participants.

With a diverse industry (chip production, printed wire board, hard drive, assembly) and different focus areas (production, resource extraction, e-waste, worker health, community health) conference participants agreed that the network needs to 1) compile the information within one framework to develop overall sense of the industry, and 2) identify the manageable tasks.

While there is a loose network already in place, delegates agreed a more ‘structured’ relationship was needed to address the myriad of issues arising from the unsustainable practices of this global industry. Suggestions for structure and campaigns were made throughout the conference. The informal ICRT network is filling a niche because it focuses on a specific industry that touches almost every country and can be approached in variety of ways. The ICRT has been able to link a variety of constituents (environmental justice, labor, health advocates, media, and academics).

Participants agreed the time was right for the emergence of a formal global network focusing on the high-tech industry. The network will be used to share the lessons learned, serve as a high-tech clearinghouse, and a way to share information that would build the capacity of organizations to serve different constituencies, issues, and campaigns. The network doesn’t rely only on producing new materials, but needs to find ways of sharing the information that is already available (i.e. easily understood facts, data, case studies) that could be used in a variety of ways such as press conferences, presentations, lobbying, community actions and for legal documents. Delegates attempted to define the work of the organization and structure that would help the network succeed.

The accomplishments of PHASE II (Scotland) illustrated the importance of a campaign that focused on worker rights. Phase 2 also benefited from a rudimentary network because SVTC and SCCOSH helped build bridges between National Semiconductor workers in the US and Scotland.

Campaign work


This network should:

§ gain better understanding of labor law, health and safety regulations and health information about chemical exposure and focus much needed attention on the issues of worker health and safety. Work with the European Hazards Network, Centers on Occupational Safety and Health (COSH) groups in the US, Asia Monitor Resource Center, and other worker centers.
§ build solidarity, share skills , training materials, and resources that can be used in different communities and link the organizations working on environmental, labor, community and consumer issues
§ support campaigns undertaken by organizations advocating a sustainable high-tech industry
§ identify green industries/green enterprises that are models for sustainable and green production
§ develop creative and effective communications strategies.
§ Post information on the web sites of organizations. Use industry’s technology to challenge the “clean” image of high-tech
§ build alliances with other global coalitions such as the Global Anti-Incineration Alliance, the International Persistent Pops Elimination Network, mining networks and wildlife protection advocates
§ work as a clearinghouse to provide print and electronic information in various languages.

There was discussion about integrating the clearinghouse functions of the network with the campaigns and the need to develop a multi-disciplinary, comprehensive approach. Some proposed campaign ideas: § Follow the Money. Investigate financial flows of the industry including subsidies/tax breaks companies received.

§ Focus on specific corporations. Define OEMs with high-profile, consumer orientation in computer industry. Project/promote corporate accountability

§ Look at whole product stream—Upstream to manufacturing then downstream to waste cycle.

§ Worker health and safety and support campaigns. (RCA workers, National Semiconductor, etc.)


ICRT Mission statement (approved Nov. 17, 2002)

We are an international solidarity network that promotes corporate and government accountability in the global electronics industry. We are united by our concern for the lifecycle impacts of this industry on health, the environment and workers’ rights. By sharing resources, we seek to build the capacity of grassroots organizations, local communities, workers and consumers to achieve social, environmental and economic justice.

Structure, Governance, and Financing/Fundraising

A small subgroup including Annie Leonard begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting, and Von Hernandez (GAIA), Leslie Byster (SVTC), David Pellow (SCCOSH), Helen Clark (PHASE II) was charged with developing a plan for how the network would be governed. After hearing a description of the structure for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) it was proposed to adapt this model to meet the needs of our high tech network.

  1. In the interim refer to the network as the International Campaign for Responsible Technology
  2. Because SVTC has an existing structure which includes an active list-serve, web site, advisory board members and staff, SVTC will serve as interim facilitator of the network
  3. ICRT will make sure that the Working Groups are functioning.
  4. We should appoint an Interim Planning Committee with balanced geographic representation and consensus-based decision- making.
  5. Criteria for Interim Planning committee members: fluent in English, have e-mail competency, time to help the network move forward; be active in outreach to recruit new allies; respected by their peers and a larger network of folks; committed to the movement as a whole.
  6. The committee is charged with· Planning future conferences, including opportunities to “piggy-back” on other event· Coordinating fundraisin· Coordinating communicatio· Assuring that work groups are functionin· Developing proposals for long-term structur· Developing a year-long process to engage people and bring them into the network.
  7. Use the current ICRT list serve to facilitate communication among members.
  8. We recommend a big global meeting is every other year, because it often takes that much time to raise the needed funds with interim (regional) meetings every year.

The conference adopted the above recommendations and nominated the Planning Committee. (*=coordinator):Europe: Jim McCourt*, and Helen Clark (Scotland, PHASE II); Boy Luethje (Germany, Univ. Frankfurt), Andre Cicollela (France, Glycol Ethers Research Group)

Asia: Rajah Rasiah* (Malaysia, INTECH), Riyoichi Terada (Japan, Tsuru Univ.), George Cheng (Taiwan, Taiwan Watch), Sanjiv Partida* (AMRC, Hong Kong), Sam Lin (Taiwan), Wen-Ling Tu (Taiwan Environmental Action Network, Taiwan)

North America: Raquel Partida* (Mexico, Univ. Guadalajara), Ted Smith* and Leslie Byster (USA, SVTC), Susana Almanza* (USA, PODER), David Pellow (USA, UC San Diego), David Sonnenfeld, (USA, Washington St. Univ.)

Web Sites of Interest

Research and Publications

Three task forces were proposed:

1Distribute health information for communities and workers (multi-lingual)

2Develop case studies (multi-media) that describe the problems and success stories

3Analyze industry structure – assess existing literature and new materials

The group supported using participatory research methods and action groups as well as scientific research, GIS tools, etc. Funds are needed to produce the research, for translation and for multi-media production of the materials.

Areas of suggested research included:

· Product and supply chain research
· Occupational health (with a focus on gender,
health impacts on women)
· Maps and directories
· Labor and environmental standards
· Legal information

* Note: An edited volume for commercial publication incorporating several of these recommendations is currently under production.

Proposed Action Plan

· Focus on worker and community health studies and public participation.

· Help with research on companies and supply chain

· Support the corporate campaigns promoted by the Computer TakeBack Campaign.

· Put more emphasis on occupational health and safety criteria in 2003 Computer Report Card.

· Publicize the ICRT

· Continue to work on exposing e-waste and toxic export and other scandals (prison labor)

Asia Monitor Resource Center www.amrc.org.hk Basel Action Network - www.ban.org Californians Against Waste - www.cawrecycles.org Center for International Environmental Law - www.ciel.org/ Clean Production Action - www.cleanproduction.org Computer TakeBack! Campaign - www.computertakeback.comEnvironmental Health Coalition


German Metalworkers Union - IG Metall

www.igmetall.de/die_igmetall/englisch/index.html Global Anti-Incineration Alliance - www.no-burn.org Institute for Social Action - www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.deInstitute for New Technologies - www.intech.unu.edu International Journal of Occupational & Environmental Health


International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics at Lund University - www.iiiee.lu.se/

Maquila Health & Safety Support Network:


National Institutes for Environmental Health Sciences

www.niehs.nih.gov/ Northern Alliance for Sustainability www.anped.org Pennsylvania State University


Santa Clara Center for Occupational Safety & Health

www.sccosh.org SEIU Local 2020 - www.seiu2020.org Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition - www.svtc.org Taiwan Watch - www.taiwanwatch.org Taiwan Association for Victims of Occupational Injuries

www.hurt.org.tw Taiwan Environmental Action Network -www.tean.formosa.org Texas Campaign for the Environment

www.texasenvironment.org Toxic Use Reduction Institute - www.turi.org



Wednesday, November 13 -participants arrive in San Jose. Informal reception.

Thursday, November 14 - High-Tech Today: Global, Regional, and Community Impacts

Workshop Day 1 focuses on assessing current dynamics in high-tech manufacturing globally, regionally, and in various countries. QUESTIONS: What do we know about where the industry is going, what impacts it has, how it is changing? What gaps do we have in that knowledge? What questions/issues/debates do we have about our respective assessments? What are the most important issues/ dynamics for engaged citizens to focused on? What significant regional differences are there in our assessments/ needs? OBJECTIVE: by the end of Day 1, have a prioritized list of issue areas/ research needs for an international network & regional sub-groups to address.

8:30 Opening: Welcome and brief introductions

Setting the stage - history and background of how we got here, why we are at this strategic junction and why we need a network that works. The overview that brings us together are our fundamental values, beliefs and assumptions that guide our work.

Mandy Hawes - 25 year perspective
  • Ted Smith & Leslie Byster: the ICRT - past, present and possible futurResponses: Peter Olney, Iza K, Wen Ling Tu

9:30 Panel: High-Tech Today: Globalization, Growth & Impacts

Overview of rapid growth and impacts, the role of the high-tech industry and need for unified strategy Initial presenters: Boy Luethje, Rajah Rasiah, David Sonnenfeld

11:00 Discussion: small group breakouts

Noon Lunch

1:00 Panel: High-Tech Today: Reports from Asia, Europe & the Americas:

Sanjiv Pandita begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting, Raquel Partida, Andrew Watterson Responses: Mages Sangaralingam, Sam Lin, Von Hernandez, Garrett Brown begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting, Andre Cicolella

3:00 Forum: The Other Faces of Silicon Valley, at San Jose State University Student Union

Introductions and welcome by SJSU officials
Show film “Exporting Harm”
Overview by Amanda Hawesbegin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting
  • Presentations by Dr. Joseph La Dou, Boy Luethje, Rajah Rasiah, Dr. Andrew Watterson, Dr. Orupan Metadolugkul, Ted Smith

5:00 Reception at San Jose State University

Friday, November 15 -Greening High-Tech: Organizing Successes and Failures

Workshop Day 2 focuses on evaluating our successes and failures in influencing high-tech manufacturing to adopt more humane and environmental practices. QUESTIONS: At local, national, and transnational levels, where have we and others succeeded in forcing, encouraging, convincing industry to improve their practices? What have been our points of greatest influence and leverage? Who have been our allies and opponents? What role have governmental, intergovernmental, and multilateral institutions played with respect to these efforts? What role have the news media played? What tools and tactics have been most effective? Where have been our greatest weaknesses and failures? What obstacles have we faced? What might be necessary to overcome those obstacles? What questions/issues/debates do we have about our respective evaluations? OBJECTIVE: by the end of Day 2, identify organizing accomplishments, challenges, and needs, at each of the three geo-spatial levels (local, national, transnational), with acknowledgment of regional differences.

8:30 Panel: Fighting for Healthier High-Tech Workplaces - what’s worked, what hasn’t?

Labor rights - Amy Dean, Voravidh Charoenloet
Responses: Peter Olney, Louie Rocha, Karen Hossfeld
  • Occupational safety and health - Jim McCourt & Helen Clark, Yen-Tang Ho, Dr. Orupan Metadolugkul, Raquel Sancho,

10:30 Break and move to Semiconductor Industry Association Headquarters

11:00 Press Conference with Symposium participants at SIA Headquarters

Noon Lunch

1:00 Panel: Community and National Campaigns for Health and Environmental Justice

E-waste David Wood, Robin Schneider begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting, Iza Kruszewska
Clean production - Alex McPherson, Bev Thorpe
  • Water and air pollution - Susana Almanza, Wen Ling Tu, Ryoichi Terada
  • EPZs - Voravidh Charoenloet, Sanjiv Pandita begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting, Boy Luethje, Garrett Brown begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting

2:00 Small group breakouts

3:30 Panel: Taking on High-Tech in Broader Political Arenas

  • Multilateral trade agreements (WTO, NAFTA, etc.) Roberto Sanchez, Durwood Zaelke, Jane Kelly
  • Extended producer responsibility (WEEE and RoHS directives) Bev Thorpe, Naoko Tojo
  • Trade in hazardous waste (Basel Agreement) - Jim Puckett, Von Hernandez
  • Right to Know laws - TRI, PRTR, Aarhus, etc. - Michael Stanley-Jones

4:30 Discussion: small group breakouts

6:30 Dinner followed by a reception/party in San Jose

Saturday, November 16 - Future Strategies: Global High-Tech Organizing

Workshop Day 3 focuses on discussing and debating future global strategies for a sustainable high-tech industry. OBJECTIVES: by the end of Day 3, decide whether a global hi-tech network is necessary, and if so, what it should do, and how best to build it; determine next steps for working together, including planning for a possible conference next year.

9:00 Opening Discussion: Strategy and Network - Facilitated by Ken Geiser, David Pellow, Leslie Byster, David Sonnenfeld, Initial presenters: Rand Wilson, Bev Thorpe, George Cheng

Do we need a network? — proposals? counterproposals?
What should be the goals of a network?
What would be its role and function?
Who needs to be part of it?
What is our timeline and phases of development?
  • What resources do we need to make it effective and who can help with what?
Noon Lunch

Workshop Afternoon: focuses on completing discussion of future global strategies for a sustainable high-tech industry, and determining next steps for working together, including planning for a possible conference next year, and for various related publications.

1:00 Conclusion - Finish strategy discussions and next steps

Preplanning for 2003 conference and fundraising
Publications and research and fundraising
Goals and strategy statement - Action Plan - Call for Action
How can we each contribute to future work?
  • Network commitments, tasks, interim staffing, structure, and resources, other?

4:00 Reports Back

6:30 SVTC 20th Anniversary benefit, at Center for Employment Training, San Jose

DAY 4 – Sunday, November 17

8:30 Breakfast at Communications Workers of America Office

9:30 Fieldtrip: Toxic Tour of Silicon Valley, hosted by SVTC People prepare for trips home




• Bev Thorpe, Clean Production Action, Montreal, Quebec


• Andre Cicolella, French Glycol Ethers Group Paris


• Boy Luethje, Research Fellow, Inst. for Social Research, Univ. of Frankfurt, http://www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de

Hong Kong

• Sanjiv Pandita begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting, Asia Monitor Resource Center, Kowloonwww.amrc.org.hk


  • Yayoi Haraguchi, Tokyo Metro University
  • Riyochi Terada, Tsuru University, Tsuru


• Mageswari Sangaralingam, Research Officer, Consumers’Association of Penang


• Raquel Edith Partida Rocha, Professor Research, University of Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco,


• Rajah Rasiah, Prof. & Sr. Research Fellow, Institute for New Technologies, United Nations Universitwww.intech.unu.edu


• Von Hernandez, Global Anti-Incinerator Alliance, Quezon City


  • James McCourt & Helen Clark, Phase 2 Injured Semiconductor Workers Group, Inverclyde Advice & Employment Rights Centre, Inverclyde
  • Andrew Watterson, University Occup. & Enviro Health Research Group, University of Stirling


• Naoko Tojo, Research Associate, International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics at Lund University, Lundwww.iiiee.lu.se/


Wen-Ling Tu, Taiwan Environmental Action Networwww.tean.formosa.org/
  • George Cheng, Executive Director, Taiwan Watch Institute, Taipewww.taiwanwatch.org.tw/
  • Yen-Tang Ho, Taiwan Assoc. for Victims of Occupational Injuries, Taipewww.hurt.org.tw


  • Dr. Voravidh Charoenloet, Assoc. Prof. Faculty of Economics, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok
  • Dr. Orupan Metadolugkol, Director, National Institute of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand

United Kingdom

• Iza Kruszewska, Clean Production Action, London www.anped.org

United States of America

Susana Almanza, PODER, Austin, TX
Ken Geiser, Toxics Use Reduction Institute, Somerville, MA
Amanda Hawesbegin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting, SCCOSH, San Jose, CA
Dr. Richard E. Keady, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA
Mike Otten, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA
Jim Puckett, Coordinator, Basel Action Network, Seattle, WAwww.ban.org
Rachel Zellner, Californians Against Waste, Sacramento, CA
  • Chris Benner, Dept. of Geography, Penn. State University, University Park, PAwww.geog.psu.edu/faculty/chrisB.htm
  • Garrett Brownbegin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting, Maquiladora Health/Safety Support Network, Berkeley, CA
  • Sydney Brown, Northern California Interfaith Council on Environmental and Economic Justice
  • Leslie Byster, Communications Director, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition/ICRTwww.svtc.orgwww.svtc.org/icrt/
  • Karen Hossfeld, Soc. Dept., San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA
  • Dr. Joseph LaDou, M.D.; Intl Center for Occupational Medicine, Univ of California School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA
  • Ann Leonard/Monica Wilson, Multinationals Resource Center/GAIA, Berkeley, CA www.no-burn.org
  • Glenna MatthewsInst of Urban and Regional Development, Berkeley, CA
  • Alexandra McPhersonbegin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting, North American Director, Clean Production Action, Spring Brook, NYwww.cleanproduction.org
  • Peter Olney, Assoc. Director, Institute for Labor and Employment, University of California, Los Angeles
  • David Pellow, Assoc. Professor Ethnic Studies, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA
  • Michael Picker, Lincoln Crow Strategic Communications Sacramento, CAwww.lincolncrow.com
  • Roberto Sanchez, Department of Environmental Studies, University of California at Santa Cruz
  • Raquel Sancho, Santa Clara Center for Occup. Safety & Health, San Jose, CAwww.sccosh.org
  • Robin Schneiderbegin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting, Executive DirectorTexas Campaign for the Environment, Austin, TXwww.texasenvironment.org
  • Amelia Simpson, Director, Border Environmental Justice Campaign, Environmental Health Coalition, San Diego, CAwww.environmentalhealth.org
  • Ted Smith, Executive Director, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition/ICRT, San Jose, CA www.svtc.org
  • David Sonnenfeld, Dept. of Community and Rural Sociology, Washington State University
  • Dick Walker, Dept. of Geography, University of California, Berkeley
  • Michael Watts, Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley
  • Rand Wilson, Communications Director, SEIU Local 2020 & Massachusetts Jobs with Justice, Boston, MA www.seiu2020.org
  • David Wood, Program Director, GrassRoots Recycling Network www.grrn.org
  • Durwood Zaelke, Center for International Env Law, Washington DC

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition

760 North First St. San Jose, CA 95112 408-287-2607  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  www.svtc.org

For immediate release: November 15, 2002 Place: offices of the Semiconductor Industry Association, 181 Metro Avenue

International Delegation Demands High-Tech Industry to Stop Stalling anTake Action to Protect the Health of Workers and Communities

Conference calls attention to health and environmental impacts of industry in global “silicon valleys”

(San Jose) Recognizing the cancer clusters and occupational health risks facing workers in high-tech plants, international delegates representing more than 20 organizations from 10 countries arrived in San Jose to bring international attention to the detrimental health and environmental impacts of the high-tech electronics industry. The delegates in San Jose for the first Global Symposium for a Sustainable High-Tech Industry include former semiconductor workers suffering from cancer, health care professionals specializing in the illnesses of high-tech workers and their children, environmental, labor and health and safety organizations.

“ We’ve known for more than three decades that the manufacturing of computer chips requires many toxic chemicals and that workers have been getting sick from exposure to those chemicals” said Ted Smith, Executive Director of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. “We invited the Semiconductor Industry Association to meet with us and explain to us what they are they were doing to protect workers’ health. They declined our invitation, so we are coming to meet with them.”

“It is time for the high-tech industry to demonstrate corporate responsibility,” said Jim McCourt of PHASE II, a health and safety organization in Scotland that is working with Scottish employees of National Semiconductor who are suffering from cancer. “We were able to get a health study done in Scotland, and it proved that there are high cancer rates. If we can do it, I don't see why the industry can’t make it a priority to undertake a similar study. McCourt went on to say, “The semiconductor industry must face up to the fact that their workers are dying. By not being forthcoming, they are further tarnishing the industry’s reputation. We implore the regulators in the US to undertake a comprehensive, definitive health study of exposed workers.”

McCourt referred to an announcement last year by health officials in the United Kingdom who found higher than expected rates of several types of cancer in workers at a National Semiconductor plant in Greenock, Scotland. The plant was investigated after myriad health complaints began to surface there.

Sam Lin, a Taiwanese environmentalist, highlighted the case of RCA in Taiwan. RCA had manufacturing operations in Taiwan from the 1970’s until the mid-80s. “RCA left Taiwan, but left severely contaminated groundwater and soil. Hundreds of workers are suffering from cancer. More than 200 have died and more than many have various tumors. This site contamination is considered among the worst in history.”

In Thailand, Dr. Orupan Metadolugkul a pioneer in occupational health and safety spoke out on behalf of workers Thailand. A company retaliated against her because of her advocacy and she lost her job.

“Cancer’s timetable won’t wait “, said Mandy Hawes, a San Jose attorney who represents hundreds of electronics workers and their families who are suffering from cancer, birth defects and other serious illnesses. “People who have been exposed to cancer-causing chemicals can’t wait forever for the problems to be corrected. More and more workers are dying and many others are developing new cancers. We need dramatic action to save lives now, not several years from now.”

“We expect much more from the state-of-art high-tech electronics industry” said Smith.” The SIA has to deal with its responsibility to protect workers that are suffering. Now is the time to undertake a comprehensive epidemiological study of the semiconductor industry. The industry that was born here, must come to face the reality of the suffering and loss of life that accompany it,” said Smith.

Forum on GreeneHigh-Tech Industry


Amanda Hawes begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Founder & ChaiSanta Clara Center foOccupational Safety and


Guest Speakers

Dr. Joseph LaDoDivision of Occupational & Environmental Health, UCSF MedicaSchool


Boy Luethje November 14, 2002

Department of Social SciencesUniversity of Frankfurt, Germany 3:00 - 5:30 PM

Rajah Rasiah Institute for New Technologies, San Jose State UniversityUnited Nations University Malay-

Student Union


Umunhum Room

Admission: Free

Dr. Andrew WattersoChair, Department of Health, StirlinUniversity, Scotland

For more information contact the

Ted Smith

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition,

Founder & Executive Director Silicon

408-287-6707begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              408-287-6707      end_of_the_skype_highlighting, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. www.svtc.org

Valley Toxics Coalition

Sponsored by: SJSU Department of Environmental Studies, SJSU Institute for Social Responsibility, Ethics and Education, SJSU Provost Marshall Goodman, and the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition.