Hello,

Greenpeace just put the newest models from 5 of the world's leading laptop brands to the test in an independent research laboratory, and you wouldn't believe the toxic chemicals they found inside. Guess who had the worst results? HP and Apple. Check out the full story:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/rotten-to-the-core

Cheers,

Amy

quote:

Bring me the tests, first.

Here's a nice collection of case studies and tests: http://www.e-waste.ch/

quote:

It is not already immediately a problem, or more so then any other equipment dumped into a scrap yard or landfill. If you think a laptop is bad, how about a projector? A TV? A thermometer? Anything that isn't biodegradable? The chemicals that make up a PC are dangerous, sure. But no more then something you'd find in your stove, or your refridgerator.

Granted, Greenpeace only did a study on laptops and laptop manufacturers. But you have to remember that the components that go into laptops are similar to the components that go into almost any product that runs on electricity, is digital or automated in any way. Yes, they do present the same ecological problem as laptops. Computer equipment, however, serves as a reasonable case study to bring awareness to these issues precisely because computers are so widely used, depended upon, recognized but necessarily thought of as having negative environmental impacts - especially when computer equipment typically has a life of no more than three years (compare that to refrigerators, stoves, etc.) And it already is an immediate problem, JUST like all the other equipment that gets dumped into scrap yards and landfills - especially in countries that have massive electronic landfills who employ people to manually disassemble the equipment and receive direct exposure to chemicals that have been known for a long time to pose severe health risks (eg China). And just like everything else in the landfills and scrap yards, the toxins will, and already do, find their way into our ground water - which many bottled water producers use as a source for the water they sell.

So yeah, you're right - Greenpeace's point is a scare tactic. This is seriously scary stuff that has seriously scary environemtnal and health consequences for everyone. You're also right that there isn't really much of an alternative at this moment in time. Which is why I interpret Greenpeace's intentions as bringing awareness of these problems to put pressure on companies that manufacture these componenets to put more of an effort into finding healthier (for us and the environment) alternatives to this toxic technology. Just because there is no immediate solution to something doesn't make it not a problem, doesn't mean that we shouldn't be made aware about it, and certainly doesn't mean that we shouldn't be putting energy into finding a solution to it.

quote:

Actually, they do list the "good" in a manner of speaking. If you look at the actual " report card" they came up with, they rank/rate/explain the various companies.

Yes, but none of them make the company in some way bad. There is no actual good side, just one side that supposedly sucks less.

quote:

There have already been "multiple independent tests" and the longterm negative environmental health effects of the toxins found in computers is no secret.

There have already been "Multiple Independent Tests" and the longterm global warming effects of the growth in the Pirate Population, found in the carribean sea.

Bring me the tests, first.

quote:

As a mere user of the computer, you probably won't directly suffer the ill efects of the toxins in the machine's components - at least not in the short term. Where it is already immediately a problem is in places like scrap yards and landfills where people manually take apart the equipment and are exposed to high levels of toxins. For instance, one cathode tube in a CRT monitor contains 3-4 pounds of lead. The chemicles that make up the components are already knwon to be huge health hazards. Greenpeace's point is not to scare people away from the technology or to single out particular computer manufacturers for condemnation, but rather to get consumers to think about the consequences of the technology we use. If we want to use it in a conscientious and sustainable way, there needs to be a demand for environmentally and health-friendly technology.

Okay, so let's think about this for a minute.
Some manufacturers of thermometers used mercury in them. Should we rank them because they use mercury in their thermometers? How about the negative side effects of drinking bottled water? Don't you know they have toxins to? Maybe we should yell at CD manufactuerers, because they're not making their CDs out of paper, or computer case manufactuers, because they're not making them out of wood.

It is not already immediately a problem, or more so then any other equipment dumped into a scrap yard or landfill. If you think a laptop is bad, how about a projector? A TV? A thermometer? Anything that isn't biodegradable? The chemicals that make up a PC are dangerous, sure. But no more then something you'd find in your stove, or your refridgerator.

Greenpeace's point is a scare tactic. I.E. "Hey, they all use bad chemicals! BAD! BAD!". The problem? There isn't really any other cost effective way to make them. Sure, you could make them all out of wood, and use LCDs, and paper DVDs, but that would cost a ton of money, and make them almost impossible to purchase.

quote:

Originally posted by ChaosSplintered:
Notice something here?
That is almost a list of every good laptop manufacturer in the US. Could it be possible that this is the only choice for what they have to manufacture things out of?

In fact, they only list bad laptop manufacturers. There is no good list on there. How am I supposed to know what to buy?

Actually, they do list the "good" in a manner of speaking. If you look at the actual " report card" they came up with, they rank/rate/explain the various companies.

There have already been "multiple independent tests" and the longterm negative environmental health effects of the toxins found in computers is no secret. As a mere user of the computer, you probably won't directly suffer the ill efects of the toxins in the machine's components - at least not in the short term. Where it is already immediately a problem is in places like scrap yards and landfills where people manually take apart the equipment and are exposed to high levels of toxins. For instance, one cathode tube in a CRT monitor contains 3-4 pounds of lead. The chemicles that make up the components are already knwon to be huge health hazards. Greenpeace's point is not to scare people away from the technology or to single out particular computer manufacturers for condemnation, but rather to get consumers to think about the consequences of the technology we use. If we want to use it in a conscientious and sustainable way, there needs to be a demand for environmentally and health-friendly technology.

Yeah, I agree. Come on, Greenpeace is way out there on this one (along with most other issues). If GP had their way, we would be using only naturally mad candles and I don't even know if they are ok with using paper. What a happy place the GP world would be.

Computers are inherently dangerous. They're made out of plastic and silicon, mostly. And yes, these, among other things, can be toxic. But what's the alternative? Wood computers? Cardboard, perhaps? I mean, come on, it's not as if you're going to eat your computer.

But Chaos makes a good point: everything is toxic. It's just the amounts that differ.

YOU BLASPHEMY MACINTOSH?
YOU BLASPHEMY OSX?
To hell with you!

Okay. Okay. That was mean.

First, computer parts are toxic, in general. Alot of things are toxic.
Salt is toxic.
Mountain Dew is toxic.
Even Apples are toxic to some degree.

Let's look at "Bad" business, listed under the toxic chemical report:

# Nokia
# Dell
# HP
# Sony Ericsson
# Samsung
# Sony
# LG Electronics
# Panasonic
# Toshiba
# Fujitsu Siemens Computers
# Apple
# Acer
# Motorola
# Lenovo

Notice something here?
That is almost a list of every good laptop manufacturer in the US. Could it be possible that this is the only choice for what they have to manufacture things out of?

In fact, they only list bad laptop manufacturers. There is no good list on there. How am I supposed to know what to buy?

Oh, and they bag on them for recycling.
To that, I use the Gods Penn and Teller, to answer.
Penn and Teller: Recycling

Before I'll give this serious consideration, I want multiple independent tests that prove it, and show how this will provide a long term negative impact.

Otherwise, I'll take my toxins, my OSX, my Safari, and remain as happy as I am now.