Greenpeace didn't shine a spotlight on anything except themselves. Read their "research" and figure out what it means. Ignore their pictures of poor kids playing on non-Apple PC scrapheaps, which have nothing to do with it.

Strike Greenpeace off your list of believable or worthwhile charities until they focus on the real polluters.

And as for this piece, it's pathetic troll drivel. Even Greenpeace didn't stoop this low. In future assume anything you read at motherjones.com is an unchecked fabrication. Do your own research.

I appreciate your trying to shed light on a little-known subject: i.e., _Apple Computer's_ alleged "rotten-core" technology [in a punny contrast to its recently adopted "dual core" (Intel) technology: which has made it more celebrated than ever]! 8>! . Sorry, couldn't resist that pun because it in fact WAS unintentional {i.e., at first: --I just-now noticed a previously unappreciated pun in Apple's choice of the Intel- built "Dual-Core" chip}! Call me slow, if you must...

But really, from your Rotten-Apple article, I receive mixed messages. For you have not given an account of why it is that you chose to pick on Apple Computer, in particular, as besides mentioning that Dell is now 'phasing out' some stuff that Apple presumably hasn't yet seen fit to do, you give no real indication of where Apple Computer stands, next to some of its main rivals: Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Toshiba, Sony, Asus, Lenova, and scads of built to order "PC-clones" (if you will) featuring a pell-mell ensemble of Chinese, Japanese, and North American components--of which, the rotten contents would be somewhat hard to uncover, no doubt. Let's face facts: electronics products are an epitome of poor ecological practices, insofar as their toxic battery juices and leaking capacitors will have to indeed wind up dumped somewhere eventually. It would be helpful for your argument contra Apple ecological position, to compare and contrast several 'rivals': major manufacturers like Dell and HP, bringing say ten major problem pollutants together in a column and indicate where each company lies on that continuum of ten-rottenest. Then give demerits in the shape of 'rotten apple icons'...for the company who has the most demerits indicating its sub-par performance.

Like _Consumer Reports_ would do and then give a final analysis of whose the best and who's not... Without that comparison chart, I find no compelling evidence in your argument that Apple Computer is egregiously irresonsible, per se. And although the whole lot of them might fit in that category, it is my distinct impression that you are 'picking on Apple Computer'. And what does the Greenpeace lightshow portend to accomplish? I doubt it will be a very effective way to persuade Apple to 'be cool about it' and phase out the nasty stuff. Perhaps you could even present them with a list of most-harmful substances found in their products and possible substitutes used by competitors which are less-rotten.

For at least with respect to the average cartridge of black printer ink, since about 1992 or so...when the Stylewriter II was a fine unit that could print out 800 draft pages per Apple/Canon inkjet cartridge. I believe that Canon made those stylewriter II printers for Apple, as they have an identical model sold as a Canon model.

However, what I HAVE noticed, is how the solvent utilized in various inkjet preparations affects me negatively--in way of hypersensitivity reactions ["allergies" of a kind] to many/most of the non-Apple/Canon printers. [I think HP was using nasty Xylene then] Pretty sure APPle/Canon was using a propylene glycol based solvent--a very mild solvent that does not cause me to flush and get dizzy; etc.--when exposed to freshly printed pages. Which... I'll have to say is a major consideration upon buying any sort of printer. For me.

To this day, I still utilize Canon printer and inks, for it still contains no volatile, persistent chemical solvents that cling to the air and the page after print. And although it is hard to find out the ingredients of an ink cartridge, it is my impression that apple and canon have used amongst the mildest 'bubble jet' ink, that appears to still be glycol based [as it still doesn't cause me a hypersensitivity type reaction].

So... if you know the 'skinny' on Apple's rotten core, please share it with us; this is the first i've learned of such an issue with Apple [I don't pretend to be following, exactly]. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Apple is a rotten polluter, really. But I need more data on what exactly is the pollution problem with Apple before I'll believe that they are any different than... 'BRAND X' as far as their pollution record goes. Why such an attack against Apple Computer? It wouldn't be that old 'Microsoft Operating System-o-genic sense of malware infested irritability and frank OSX 'envy'--now, would it?!

well...?

best,

--
H .J . R a m e l a n

For those who are looking for detail on Apple record on removing toxic chemicals and recycling program read the story on the ranking which has links to Apple's detailed scorecrad on these issues:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/electronics-companies-race-061206

and

http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/itox.html

Tom

If you want the real story on Apple's environmental efforts, check with the EPA, not with a pack of pseudo-environmentalists who are trying to piggyback on Apple's publicity.

-jcr

Apple's products, in my experience and in that of most other Apple users, last about twice as long as computers from other companies. That means half the pollution right there.

I wholeheartedly agree more can be done to improve the life cycle of computers and reduce pollution at both ends. However, I think the author(s) are misguided to single out Apple without some real numbers and real evidence to back it up.

And Apple, if you're watching, let's make those iPod batteries cheaper and easier to replace!!!!!