GREENPEACE once again sows a severe lack of understanding of anything relevant. I suppose they have top scientists and chemists "on-staff" and uderstand manufacturing processes??? Just another way to try and generate funds from a poorly informed public!!!

Quote

Guest wrote:
GREENPEACE once again sows a severe lack of understanding of anything relevant. I suppose they have top scientists and chemists "on-staff" and uderstand manufacturing processes??? Just another way to try and generate funds from a poorly informed public!!!

And your extensive staff of chemists disagrees with them, I assume...?

There is an excellent article posted at Roughly Drafted where Daniel Dilger takes Greenpeace to task for their sloppy reporting (lots of incorrect 'facts' were taken from PR pieces) and attempts to create buzz for media attention and funding. The responses he received from Greenpeace representatives about a critique he published two weeks ago are very interesting. And after his critique they performed tests that revealed Apple as the leader in environmental impact compliance. (Exactly opposite their earlier 'report')

Greenpeace Apologises For Apple Stink (link below):

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/ABC6DFDA-9DE9-4EA8-A269-65EAAB628676.html

Quote

JRocket wrote:
There is an excellent article posted at Roughly Drafted where Daniel Dilger takes Greenpeace to task for their sloppy reporting (lots of incorrect 'facts' were taken from PR pieces) and attempts to create buzz for media attention and funding. The responses he received from Greenpeace representatives about a critique he published two weeks ago are very interesting. And after his critique they performed tests that revealed Apple as the leader in environmental impact compliance. (Exactly opposite their earlier 'report')

Greenpeace Apologises For Apple Stink (link below):

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/ABC6DFDA-9DE9-4EA8-A269-65EAAB628676.html

Now THAT is a much more useful response.

Thanks for the link.

I read the Greenpeace report this morning and threw my PowerBook G4 in the trash. Actually, I didn't even put it in my kitchen trash, but took it out to the community dumpster. I just can't stand the idea of having those chemicals on my desktop. Fortunately, the Greenpeace report said nothing about my Intel Mini, so I'm keeping that. But in light of what JRocket has brought to our attention, I may have to go dumpster diving here before the pickup. Yuk.

I am delighted to inform you that the University of Hawaii, in collaboration with the Hawaii Department of Education (HDOE) and Apple Computer, will be offering a free one-time "eWaste" disposal program for the UH System and Hawaii schools the week of October 23-27. Our eWaste Disposal Days program will provide an opportunity for free and environmentally-friendly disposal of computers (all brands), monitors, TVs, stereo equipment and other electronics that have reached the end of their lifetimes. October 28 will be made available for the public to dispose of their eWaste.

<snip>

Hawaii's eWaste Disposal Days program is sponsored by Apple Computer, who will coordinate the event and ship all materials received to their corporate recycling partner for environmentally responsible disassembly and recycling.

Who throws out a Mac? They become bookstops. Collectors items. I have a cube, a g3 imac, and a clamshell ibook. All work, and they are too cool to trash. Like I would hold onto a Dull box. . . .

LOL... Don't forget the Playtex gloves and Lysol!

Quote

Bosco wrote:
I read the Greenpeace report this morning and threw my PowerBook G4 in the trash. Actually, I didn't even put it in my kitchen trash, but took it out to the community dumpster. I just can't stand the idea of having those chemicals on my desktop. Fortunately, the Greenpeace report said nothing about my Intel Mini, so I'm keeping that. But in light of what JRocket has brought to our attention, I may have to go dumpster diving here before the pickup. Yuk.

Quote

macbones wrote:
Who throws out a Mac? They become bookstops. Collectors items. I have a cube, a g3 imac, and a clamshell ibook. All work, and they are too cool to trash. Like I would hold onto a Dull box. . . .

I have yet to "throw out" any significant piece of computer hardware. Everything, starting with my first Apple //c, has gone to someone who will continue to use it. There is an organization here in Eugene, OR, the Computer Reuse and Recycling Center, which used to be called "MacRenewal." It has grown from a one-family operation to a large group of volunteers and a store. They provide computers to people and organizations that cannot afford them and sell equipment at an affordable price. If you have an old Mac that can run OS 7.5 or better, it could be useful to someone, especially if you have some software to go with it, like AppleWorks. Many non-profits need a simple word-processor, page layout, spreadsheet, database, basic graphics, email and a browser. An older Mac running AppleWorks; Claris Emailer, Powermail, etc.; Netscape, MSIE, or iCab; Graphic Converter, Color It!, or old versions of PhotoShop will do more than they need.

Quote

gslusher wrote:
I have yet to &quot;throw out&quot; any significant piece of computer hardware. Everything, starting with my first Apple //c, has gone to someone who will continue to use it.

Nice. Put bad chemicals in their houses while you upgrade to a cleaner computer. And this makes you feel good?

Quote

Bosco wrote:

Quote

gslusher wrote:
I have yet to &quot;throw out&quot; any significant piece of computer hardware. Everything, starting with my first Apple //c, has gone to someone who will continue to use it.

Nice. Put bad chemicals in their houses while you upgrade to a cleaner computer. And this makes you feel good?

The point is to avoid putting this stuff in a landfill and to provide computers for people and organizations who can't afford them.

I've also given a computer and peripherals (the Apple //c) to a school system and two Macs and a printer to my sister and her family. One of my nieces is a junior at UC Berkeley and uses both my old 15" iMac G4 and iBook G3. She's a linguistics major, doesn't play games and doesn't need high-powered graphics or video. (She has vision problems, so those wouldn't matter much, anyway.) The iBook replaced a Wallstreet PowerBook that was dying.

Or, were you, again, thinking that you're funny? Perhaps you should look up the definition of "sarcasm." It's not a form of humor.

Quote

gslusher wrote:
The point is to avoid putting this stuff in a landfill and to provide computers for people and organizations who can't afford them.

No, I hate to disagree but I am pretty sure that the point of the Greenpeace report was to say that there are chemicals in a Mac that are dangerous. One could safely assume that older computers have even more of the dangerous chemicals. So you're basically poisoning poor people by giving them your old kit. I bet you're a Republican.

The right thing to do would be to take your old computers to Hawaii for them to be recycled by Apple. Did you even read what the guest wrote above?

obvious to most is the fact that greenpeace is a NOT FOR PROFIT organization, so dismissing this report as a money-making scheme is illogical. As is nit-picking about which is worst, Dell or Apple- both companies should have the money and vision to substitute less toxic chemicals for more toxic ones. It just goes to prove that the only way to get any company to do the right thing, no matter how "progressive" it pretends to be, is to threaten their bottom line by creating a public awareness. That is why greenpeace exists in the first place.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
obvious to most is the fact that greenpeace is a NOT FOR PROFIT organization, so dismissing this report as a money-making scheme is illogical. As is nit-picking about which is worst, Dell or Apple- both companies should have the money and vision to substitute less toxic chemicals for more toxic ones. It just goes to prove that the only way to get any company to do the right thing, no matter how "progressive" it pretends to be, is to threaten their bottom line by creating a public awareness. That is why greenpeace exists in the first place.

Money may not be the only issue. There may be technological problems, as well. A good example is biodiesel. While using it actually puts MORE carbon into the air than using gasoline, it comes from a source (biomass) that took the carbon out of the air, so it's pretty much a net zero. However, the technological problem is that, today, to produce a unit of energy with biodiesel requires something like 0.55 units of energy to grow and harvest the crop, transport it, convert it to biodiesel and distribute the fuel. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, require something like 0.03 units to find, extract, transport, refine, and distribute. (Hyrdogen is much worse, as it requires a lot more energy to produce and distribute than it delivers. That and the huge logistical problems with transportation and storage of hydrogen are why, at least for the near future, hydrogen-powered car research seems to be mostly a way for American auto manufacturers to look like they're doing something when they're really not.)

The worst situation, though, isn't from computers ending up in landfills but the waste from manufacturing, especially in countries which have lax environmental laws and/or enforcement.