Greenpeace responds to 'Greener Apple' update

S.Chasm: I'm sure those results may be noble (other than to people whose pension funds were invested in the companies whose costs had to increase as a result of them).

Unfortunately, the ends didn't even justify the means in the old Soviet Union. I would certainly hope they wouldn't be expected to do so for people pursuing "social justice."

exNewt: Thank you! I am continually appalled at how people are misinformed about basic principles of risk, dose and body burden. I am rapidly appproaching the point where I believe that Paracelsus should be required reading in school.

P.S. I just dug out my treasured can of Freon TF to fix a contaminated SuperDrive in my wife's 17" PowerBook without a shred of remorse. There is still no product that does the job of that stuff with similarly low toxicity. (I must love her - I can't imagine what the street value of a can is these days.)

This is the same green peace that operates the Rainbow warrior (II) that burns diesel and is painted with Toxic industrial paint? Come on, you morons at least apple is trying to reduce it's impact on the planet.

Apple is doing much more that most other companies that I can think of.

Actually its VC = cancer - the monomer is toxic, the polymer is quite stable and is used in medical applications.

Also, as an FYI the following are known human carcinogens:
Sunlight (UV light), drinking alcohol (ethanol), rubbing alcohol (isopropanol), beach sand (crystalline silica), and Tamoxifen (yes, the breast-cancer drug is classed as a carcinogen!).

A lot of mouth-breathers do not understand anything about toxicology or science or dose-response but want to sound smart, trendy and PC by agreeing with the idiots like those at GreenPiece.

Here's a snap quiz, which is more toxic in a fire:
cotton, paper, wood, wool, acetate, acrylic, nylon, or urethane? The answer might surprise you.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1475268

I know is a gov'ment study, so it's probably a lie. Probably funded by the wool industry.

Bloody tree-huggers!

Everyone knows that if we just left them alone, corporations would do their best to produce products that are really really good for the environment.

After all, campaigning against Nike's sweatshops or McDonald's unhealthy food hasn't changed the consumer landscape at all! Greenpeace is just wasting all of our time by selecting the most prominent company in the industry and encouraging it to set new benchmarks for responsible manufacturing.

I bet the poor Chinese folk who strip down old computer gear are just as furious as you and I!

Asking greenpeace their opinion on Science is like asking a member of the KKK what he thinks about Jewish Blacks.

Fair enough they may know something about the background and workings of the thing they are shouting about but they are so ignorant and goddamn fanatical that they won't listen when reasonable argument is put infront of them, and no matter what you do they just shout at you for a different reason.

They are ignorant tree hugging bandwagoners of the very worst kind, deploring a 3L Land Rover but not batting an eyelid to a 6.2L Mercedes, terrorising people because their lifestyle doesn't fit in with their ideals (Al-Qaeda anyone?). Burning a car is doing more damage to the environment, but it's ok, it's sending a message, kill one to save the many and all that...

You guys making comments about Greenpeace should go and visit their website and actually read their full commentary before passing any judgements.

Greenpeace can kiss my ass. Don't hear shit from them about all these so-called environmentally friendly compact florescent light bulbs that are full of toxic mercury gas. You break one in your house and you have to call a damn hazmat team.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

After 40 years of enviro activism, I'm pleased to tell Greenpeace to stick it and work it!

That's not limited to their egregious Apple blather, btw.

I admire Greenpeace and I agree with what they have to say on this matter.