How Toxic Is Your iPod?

What is the environmental impact of the Apple products you throw away?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

 

[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]

There's a big question behind this podcast: how environmentally friendly is an iPod? The answer: this Apple is more brown than green. But it's getting greener.

Apple CEO Steve Jobs has not only revealed new environmentally friendly MacBooks, he has unveiled new iPods that are the most toxin-free ever. They’ve eliminated the poison arsenic and the brain-damaging mercury—and sheathed it in a recycleable aluminum skin.

Why do we care? When you trash last year's model—or any old technology for that matter, remember the Walkman?—it often ends up in a landfill or, even worse, exported to countries like China or India. There laborers are paid a pittance to smash, crack, melt and cook the materials out of old electronics. The result is local children with lead in the blood and adults poisoned by toxic fumes.

By the way, some federal prisoners in the U.S. enjoy the same conditions when employed by the government as e-cyclers.

And it’s not just the materials, we need to think about the energy used. We burn a lot of coal to run the computers that hold your music. That leads to air pollution, climate change and other problems tucked neatly away behind an electronic screen.

But it could be worse. Apple has introduced a program to take back old electronics and recycle them responsibly. So if you do buy the new, greener nano, make sure you return your old iPod to the store.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


—David Biello

60-Second Earth is a weekly podcast from Scientific American. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes

 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe