Save for blowing the Earth up or letting it get sucked by a black hole made by the Large Hadron Collider, there's not much humans can do to actually harm this planet's existence. It was here long before us, and will be here long after we die off. So what's the point of all this environmentalism? Think of it this way: it's not about saving the planet, it's all about saving ourselves. More semantics in the full article.

There just might be another way for us to harvest solar energy and infrared radiation for us to be able to transform it into viable energy. Yes, as in we can use it for electricity - charge our iPods with it, make our cars run on it. This technology is the nanoantenna and the scientists from the US Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory thinks this just might be it.

In life, it helps to have someone who can hold you accountable for your actions. In the case of electronics companies, it seems that Greenpeace is their accountability partner. The organization has recently released the current company rankings in its Greener Electronics Scale. To find out how certain companies fared, get "green-minded" and turn to the full article after the jump.

Now we know this is not new at all, but since the increasing amount of revelations from documentaries the world over, it's becoming pretty apparent that the idea of recycling isn't exactly as environment-friendly as popular culture would make it seem. There are factors associated with keeping the world clean, and due to crisis on some of those fronts, recycling could simply be just another idealist's dream. Reality sets in once you read the full story.

Most of us think that people suffering from total blindness are treated only with either drugs, surgery, or laser therapy. For the most part, that's true. However, desperate times call for unconventional measures so doctors in England used human teeth to snatch a blind man back from the darkness of visual loss. A remarkable story of recovery follows after the jump.

Sony's looking all green as they launch their new recycling program. By next month Sony will be launching a new nationwide campaign where people will be able to dispose of their unwanted electronics in an environmentally safe manner.

The Sony Take Back Recycling Program will be putting up 75 "eCycling" centers throughout the US where people can drop off their electronics.

Once the program takes off, the program is expected to increase the number of eCycling centers to 150. The idea is to have an eCycling Center within 20 miles of 95% of the US.

The program was made in collaboration with WM Recycle America. Sony products will be recylced free of charge while other brands will include a recycling fee. Consumers can either drop if off personally or ship it in through specific WM Recycle America locations.

Stan Glasgow, president and chief operating officer of Sony Electronics, says about the service:

Providing the highest level of service and support doesn’t stop once a purchase is made. We believe it is Sony’s responsibility to provide customers with end-of-life solutions for all the products we manufacture. Through the Take Back Recycling Program, our customers will know that their Sony products will be recycled in an environmentally responsible manner.

Thanks to Surftycoon for the tip!

Some people believe that it does, including a number of restaurants. One such establishment in California, Chez Panisse, eschewed bottled water in favor of filtered tap water. "For us, it's about doing the right thing," said Chez Panisse general manager Michael Kossa-Rienzi. Many other fine-dining establishments have joined this cause as well.

It's not that the bottled water itself directly affects the environment - it's the fumes and gases generated by the manufacturing process of bottled water, and the fuel consumed by transporting these to stores that contribute to pollution.

Shipping bottled water, which is heavier than most other commodities, expends more fuel. ABC News also calculated that drinking 1 liter of bottled water in Chicago which was transported from France amounts to consuming about 2 ounces of fuel oil. And this estimate does not include the oil used to make the plastic. By contrast, delivering tap water use little or no fuel at all.

Ruth Caplan of Sierra Caplan offers more numbers to chew on regarding bottled water harming the environment."Each year, people are drinking 30 billion throwaway bottles of water," she said. "If you put them end to end, it would go around the world more than 150 times." She adds that 4 out of 5 plastic water bottles end up in landfills instead of getting recycled.

In an effort to curb the pollution problem - as well as save taxpayers' money - even San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered local city departments not to buy bottled water.

The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), however, reminds people that bottled water also helps the environment. IBWA member Stephen Kay says that bottled water promotes the use of lighter and biodegradable plastics, as well as encourages the habit of recycling (ever notice the recycling-related symbols on bottled water and other packaged beverages?).

He also points out that it is quite unfair that bottled water is singled out among many other packaged consumables reportedly threatening the environment, and that people are also making a mistake by not looking at the big picture when it comes to preserving the environment.

Aside from using manure as a fertilizer, can you think of more creative uses for them? And of course, that doesn't hurling it in the general direction of that neighborhood bully.

Anyway, researchers from Michigan State University and the US Department of Agriculture are finding new - and a bit wacky - ways of recycling wastes from ranches and farms. First solution? Turn them into floorboards. Fiberboard to be exact. Sawdust is used as an ingredient in fiberboard, which in turn is used for making furniture, flooring and storage shelves. They are suggesting that the sawdust be replaced with the fiber after-product of processed manure.

Manure processing or treatment, called anaerobic digesting, is currently one of the solutions to the manure problem, as there is about 1.5 to two TRILLION pounds of it annually in the US alone. The manure is sterilized and processed to get the methane (for biogas) plus the end product smells fine. But the process is expensive, along with other disposal methods that cost around US$ 200 per cow annually. Though it's not surprising that the idea has its set of detractors. Steve Fowler, an economist with the Composite Panel Association said, "Is this something you’re going to bring into the house?"

Anyway, there already are ways to dispose of the by-product of the process including potting soil and animal bedding. It maybe just a matter of time before deodorized manure - just the fiber, of course - finds its way into household use.

Not familiar with the Freman Stillsuit? Didn't bother to read Dune? Well this development by researchers at the UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science might just get us a few steps closer to Frank Herbert's water recycling suit.

The Team of researchers have apparently developed a new reverse osmosis membrane that promises to reduce the cost of seawater desalination and waste-water reclamation.

Reverse osmosis desalination basically uses extremely high pressure to force saline or polluted waters through the pores of a semi-permeable membrane. Water passes through, salt-ions and other impurities don't. Presto. Purified recycled water.

Developed by civil and environmental engineering assistant professor Eric Hoek and his research team, the membrane uses a cross-linked matrix of polymers and engineered nano-particles designed to draw in water ions but repel nearly all contaminants. The filter works at nano-scale.

Moreover, because the membranes repel particles that might ordinarily stick to its surface, the new membranes foul more slowly than conventional ones. The result is a process that is just as effective as current methods but more energy efficient and potentially much less expensive.

Initial tests suggest the new membranes have up to twice the productivity — or consume 50 percent less energy — reducing the total expense of desalinated water by as much as 25 percent. Yes, because of the high pressures required, this technology is currently applicable at an industrial level. But what if? Perhaps in the future we'll all be drinking our urine and our feces, just like the Fremen.

Apple products - sleek looks, amazing design, meticulous attention to detail.
So what's with the toxic chemicals inside, short life spans and allowing their products to be dumped in Asia?

That's the point of Greenpeace's "Green Apple" campaign. They have a website that mimics Apple's. And it's not just the look of the Apple website; Greenpeace even has a "Mac and PC" ad (to paraphrase: I'm a Mac, I'm a PC, we both have mercury, lead, and other deadly stuff).

What's the goal? Some of you might think that Greenpeace is just pulling another stunt to bring attention to their causes. But some of you may think that Greenpeace is trying to make computer companies responsible for the following:

• the deadly stuff they put inside their computers (the cancerous and environmentally-damaging chemicals used as flame retardants, etc.)
• the fact that less-expensive gadgets have shorter life spans (this means more gadgets are thrown away because they can't be fixed)
• most of this garbage end up in third-world countries and other poor areas

Why target Apple and not other companies? Well, we at QJ have a positive and optimistic outlook on this. We think:

1. Apple is well-known, so Greenpeace chose Apple to attract public attention.
2. Apple is a progressive, forward-thinking company, so the company is one that is actually willing to change! Greenpeace won't be wasting their time here; Greenpeace can expect proactive action and good results from Apple.
   
3. Apple customers tend to be educated, cultured, and open-minded; this is one segment of society that should be willing to stop toxic waste production and to demand proper recycling and disposal of toxic waste.

Or are we just naive? What do you guys think?