The potential environmental and human health impacts of artisanal mining of electronic waste through open incineration were investigated. A market-representative set of cellphones was dismantled into four component categories-batteries, circuit boards, plastics and screens. The components were shredded, sieved and incinerated at 743-818 °C. The concentrations of 17 metals were determined using U.S. EPA methods 6010C (inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry; 6020A (inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry, or 7471B and 7470A (cold-vapor atomic absorption). EPA Method 8270 (gas chromatography/mass spectrometry) was used to identify polyaromatic hydrocarbon compounds and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. EPA Method 8082A was used to measure polychlorinated biphenyls and EPA Method 8290 was used for dioxin/furans in the residue ash. The life cycle assessment model USEtox(®) was used to estimate impacts of the ash residue chemicals on human health and the ecosystem. Among metals, copper in printed circuit boards had the highest ecotoxicity impact (1610-1930PAFm(3)/kg); Beryllium in plastics had the highest impact on producing non-cancer diseases (0.14-0.44 cases/kg of ash); and Nickel had the largest impact on producing cancers (0.093-0.35 cases/kg of ash). Among organic chemicals, dioxins from incinerated batteries produced the largest ecotoxicological impact (1.07E-04 to 3.64E-04PAFm(3)/kg). Furans in incinerated batteries can generate the largest number of cancers and non-cancer diseases, representing 8.12E-09 to 2.28E-08 and 8.96E-10 and 2.52E-09 cases/kg of ash, respectively. The results reveal hazards of burning discarded cellphones to recover precious metals, and pinpoints opportunities for manufacturers to reduce toxic materials used in specific electronic components marketed globally.

Recent research suggests there is broader interest in cohousing in the US than its current niche market suggests. However, the lack of ideological diversity among cohousing adopters does not seem malleable. Cohousing adopters are predominately liberal and liberal ideology strongly predicts interest in cohousing. This research explored perceptions (including misperceptions) of cohousing and tested whether framing the concept differently could make it more appealing to Republicans and conservatives. Survey participants were randomly assigned to receive one of two versions of a survey, identical in all ways except in one version the term pocket neighborhoods was substituted for cohousing. Results revealed substantial misunderstanding of the concept of cohousing, particularly that it involves multiple unrelated households living under the same roof. There was no framing effect; those who identified as Republican or conservative did not find cohousing more appealing when it was called pocket neighborhoods. The most cited perceived benefits of cohousing were social interaction, relationships, and support, while lack of privacy and personal space topped the list of drawbacks. Understanding these common perceptions about cohousing can help stakeholders communicate more effectively about this model that promises many benefits to an apparently untapped prospective market.