We are writing to offer another opportunity to send us a statement that sums up for you the issue of the transboundary movement of e-waste. The initial deadline to receive statements is Friday Dec 4, 2015 [...]
By 'statement' we mean a textual claim, image, audio snippet [e.g., from a radio broadcast] or figure [e.g., a statistic quoted in a newspaper] that embodies transboundary shipment of e-waste as an issue. To be included for consideration in the controversy mapping process any submitted statement must be accompanied with a full reference to a publicly accessible source for the statement in question.
We thought it might be useful to offer some examples of what we mean by 'statement'. So as not to bias the process in any particular way, the examples come from an issue unrelated to transboundary movement: 'fracking [See below].
Examples of statements for initiating a controversy map using fracking as the issue:
"Fracking doesn't cause groundwater contamination." Source: http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-yet-another-study-shows-fracking-doesnt-contaminate-groundwater
"In ocean transport of oil, only 0.00007% of the volume is released on average (including large spill years). Since gas extraction violation reports do not include volumes, it is not currently possible to answer the question: are surface releases associated with hydraulic fracturing any worse than other fuel technologies on which we rely?" [The figure is the reference to 0.00007%] Source: https://theconversation.com/hydraulic-fracturing-components-in-marcellus-groundwater-likely-from-surface-operations-not-wells-48873
"...there's an orange goo...it's iron oxide. It's a result of chemical reaction between microbes in the sediment and contamination..." Source: http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-11-18/fracking-booms-waste-spills-rise-and-so-do-arsenic-levels-groundwater [at approximately 01:25 of story]."