Back to Article

  • geofcol - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    This org is dedicated to the demise of our society through false reporting of
    so called ecological facts. It is an example of a modern "wolf in sheep's
    clothing". The donation is to WWF is sufficient enough for me to not ever purchase anything from IN Win.
  • vol7ron - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    I'd feel better if it was for Wounded Warrior Foundation/Project Reply
  • shin0bi272 - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Im with you there man. Reply
  • ewood - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    agreed. Reply
  • Scubasteve5800 - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    Or the World-Wide Wrestling Federation. Can you imagine getting body slammed every time you littered? The world would get a lot cleaner, a lot quicker. Reply
  • Finally - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    ...where hopelessly over-dimensioned power supplies start at 650W.

    Seriously. I can't remember when AT did a review of anything below this margin...
    Enthusiast-shmusiast. Most people have 1 mid-range GPU and something along the lines of an Phenom II X955 / i5-2500K - mine never draws more than 240W tops...

    Why the hell would I be interested in 1200W power supplies, when my usual power draw is less than 10% of that?
  • Finally - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    THIS is a power supply I'm interested in:
    Bequiet E9-400W, Gold-rated, perfectly silent cooling.
  • Marburg U - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    i don't want to found the WWF.

    So you can keep this.
  • vol7ron - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    perhaps by found you meant fund? Reply
  • Marburg U - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    yes, sorry. ;-) Reply
  • ExarKun333 - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Same here. Why does an organization that fakes wrestling and is a male soap-opera worthy of donations? Oh, we are talking about the 'other' WWF, I get it...;) Reply
  • DW-UK - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    I would prefer a label that says “$1 off to spend on the charity of your choice”. Reply
  • tipoo - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Buy mine instead at $1000 off to spend however you please. Reply
  • DW-UK - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Put the money into my PayPal account now!
  • Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    To stick a green label on something that burns 20+ watts in the process of supplying 75? It's hard to even fathom how a modern power supply could be so inefficient. Reply
  • Jedi2155 - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    Try and build something better then. Reply
  • Finally - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    Don't have to. BeQuiet did it for me.
    400W Power Supplies, rated Gold, with excellent coolers, silent like hell.
    = E9 Series.
  • Epicac - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Do we listen to you or the thousands of qualified scientists all over the world with the same conclusions. Reply
  • shin0bi272 - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    or do we listen to the other thousands of scientists that disagree with the conclusions drawn from the man made global warming scientists? You know guys like the Nasa, the head of the weather channel (who's changed his mind back and forth), or college professors from various colleges that didnt get a government grant for there to be global warming. Or maybe youre just a fan of Van Jones who is an admitted communist revolutionary and felon and 9/11 truther who said "I went from red to green." where he could "drop the radical pose for the much deeper satisfaction of the radical ends." He didnt want to "put a new battery [green tech] in an old system [capitalism]. No, we gonna change the whole thing."

    The sooner you realize that man made global warming is all about legislation, money, and control of your life the better you'll be. Or maybe you believe that you shouldnt have kids because it would help limit the carbon footprint you leave behind... 1 child policy in America wont ever happen right? right?
  • geofcol - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Your comments bring tears to my eyes. It appears I'm not alone in my response. Reply
  • Onus - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Preaching to the choir, brother; preaching to the choir...
    The parasitic load on our society is simply incredible. They didn't come here with the colonists; where'd they all come from?

    Well, this is a tech site, so I'd best not get started...
  • kmmatney - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    I don't know about global warming etc, but I did grow up in the Los Angeles area, and when I was younger we had days that were so smoggy, we weren't allowed to go outside for recess. This was in the late seventies, and smog was pretty bad in those days. However, since CA enacted stricter smog rules on cars and on industry, things have gotten much better, and the no-recess smog days are now a thing of the past. the air is noticeably cleaner - just shows that legislation can be a good thing sometimes. Reply
  • zinfamous - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    pathetic Reply
  • EnzoFX - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Your ignorance is appalling. Reply
  • garcondebanane - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Science grants aren't handed out to get to a particular conclusion, they're handed out to find out if such a conclusion can in fact be made about reality. And regarding disagreements, there are plenty out there in science, but global warming isn't high on that list.

    Don't believe everything your politicians tell you - look up peer reviewed journals in reputable publications - you don't have to read everything, even the titles are telling. Think for yourself if you really believe in making good choices. You're right that it's all about legislation, money, and control over your lives. But make sure you know what's fact and what's propaganda before you go shitting on people in comment threads.

    And did you just make the jump from talking about climate science to communist revolutionaries? Because that's just a whole new level of crazy, man...
  • ggathagan - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    "Science grants aren't handed out to get to a particular conclusion, they're handed out to find out if such a conclusion can in fact be made about reality."

    Ahhh... Hahahaha!!!!

    One of the funniest things I've read all day.

    Here, let me help you on that:
    Science grants aren't SUPPOSED TO BE handed out to get to a particular conclusion, they're SUPPOSED TO BE handed out to find out if such a conclusion can in fact be made about reality.

    Global cooling/warming/climate change is a very lucrative market.
  • garcondebanane - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    I can't fault your distrust for science, but do you really have good reasons to think the way you do? Reports from impartial sources, perhaps? Or intuition?

    Regulations are expensive industry as a whole. If corporations could have it their way, they'd completely ignore the possibility of manmade climate change until the damage it does starts affecting the bottom line. From where I stand it looks far more lucrative to downplay the human effect on climate.
  • amosbatto - Saturday, June 09, 2012 - link

    Actually, you can't find much disagreement among the scientists about the basic idea that the planet is heating up and that humans are the chief cause. There is less disagreement in the scientific community about global warming than about many commonly accepted ideas, like evolution and the standard theory of physics. The evidence is so overwhelming that almost every national and international body of scientists which has bothered to issue a statement on the issue agrees.

    Among real scientists there are only a handful who question that the planet heating up and that humans are the chief cause. Yes, there are huge lists of papers like the one on populartechnology DOT net

    (Sorry, I tried to give you the link but the spam blocker wouldn't allow it.)

    However, almost none of the authors of those papers are doing active research and their arguments have been overwhelming debunked. There are a few accredited scientists in the list with PhDs, like Richard S. Lindzen and Fred Singer, but almost none of them are doing any active research (at least any that has been published). Suspiciously almost all of these scientists have received funding in one way or another from organizations like the Western Fuel Association or Exxon which have a financial interest in opposing the measure to reduce greenhouse gases. The arguments against global warming which have been most cited by doubters have come from statisticians (such as Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels, etc) who don't have any deep knowledge of the material and their arguments are rapidly debunked by real scientists. If you look at almost all the scientists who are deniers listed by wikipedia, almost none of them have published a peer-reviewed article about the matter. In most cases, they are quoted making some comment, but offering very little to back up the argument.
    See: wikipedia's "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming"

    The best evidence of a scientific consensus on the matter was a study by Naomi Oreskes, who did a search for peer-reviewed papers which mention global warming and climate change published between 1993 and 2003. She took a random sample of those papers and analyzed 928 of them. Out of those, she was unable to find a single paper which questioned the scientific consensus that global warming was occurring. Google this to find the article: "BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change", Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686.

    As for the argument that scientists have been changing their mind, it is true that in the 1970s, a minority of scientists thought that the planet might start to cool, but that was a minority opinion among climatologists and during the 1970s global temperatures were not rising very much. Good science demands that you look at the data and once the temperatures began to rise dramatically in the 80s and 90s, almost all scientists looked at the data and came to the same conclusion. Most of the 0.8 degrees C of warming which has occurred since 1980, so it isn't surprising that the consensus was only reached after the warming became a very clear trend.

    You will read lots of utter junk on this subject because many interests do not want it to be true, so I suggest that you start by reading Robert Strom's book, Hot House for a good introduction on the subject. Then read James Hansen's book Storms of My Grandchildren. Once you understand the basic science, you will start to understand why the denialists' arguments don't make any sense. For example, the radiation from the sun is cyclical and is currently reducing, yet denialists love to claim that the sun is causing global warming. Another favorite argument is that volcanic activity is causing the warming, but scientists say that a big volcanic eruption actually blocks the sun, so it lowers temperatures. Scientists can very accurately measure its effect as James Hansen did with the eruption of Pinatubo in 1992. Denialists also love to point to the scientific coverup of "climategate", but when you actually analyze what happened, the scientists were talking about how to represent proxy data which didn't agree with direct measurements from thermometers. There was no coverup. They clearly told everyone that they were adjusting the proxy data and it was duly argued about in the IPCC.

    Any time you read a denialist argument, you should go to Joe Romm's site and see what climatologists say about the argument. You will quickly see that most of the denialist arguments don't hold up under scrutiny. Take the time to educate yourself on the subject, before accusing thousands of climatologists of being wrong.
  • Narcofis - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    WWF reminds me of my youth for the World Wrestling Federation... That was my first though anyway. I'm not a big fan of these types of Marketing Campaign. As a tech consumer always looking for the best bang for the buck these type of advertisement deters me from purchasing the product. To me, the word eco-friendly doesn't associate with longevity and quality build of a product. Eco-friendly is suppose to deteriorate fast in the environment; in a PSU I'm looking for a product that will last for a long period of time. Reply
  • MikeNCtrlPHX - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Just a thought.

  • araczynski - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    another 'non profit' cause of the hour. wouldn't be surprised if this WWF and InWin have some family connection.

    i'd be more impressed if each $1 got split by the employees inhaling all those production fumes created during manufacturing of these things.
  • effingee - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    "However, the WWF is discredited as they are industry-related in some way. They got donations from the energy industry and tolerated genetically changed soy."

    Did you forget your journalistic integrity in your other pants or something?
  • Martin Kaffei - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    (Not exactly.)
    I sold my integrity for an ecofriendly Porsche Cayenne Turbo !

    Oh, I said the loud part soft and the soft part loud.
  • Rorrr - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Is this an attempt at a joke? Reply
  • ggathagan - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    No, it IS a joke!

    Thank you, Martin.
  • Rorrr - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    More like a bad attempt at snark. Anandtech should stick to tech, which is what it does best; leave the political and scientific commentary to other sites like Ars. Reply
  • effingee - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Oh, wow! Tell me all about your Porche, but don't forget to throw in a random line about your opinion on collective bargaining for public service unions, too, so I'll know which Porsche to buy and who to vote for in my state primary election.

    If you're going to write a tech review, cool, write a tech review. If you're going to write a review of the World Wildlife Foundation, do it on your blog or something. Those two sentences about what you think about the WWF, factual or not, have no business in a review of a power supply. Let your readers think for themselves.
  • LordOfTheBoired - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Actually, I think they do when the supply's big "feature" is that a portion of all sales go to the WWF.

    I've got no idea on how credible the WWF is(though they apparently funded the hiring of mercenaries to hunt poachers, which is awesome), but I really hate this sort of feel-good marketing.
    At best it's a band-aid for the end user's conscience that lets them pretend they care without actually doing anything. More aggressive forms can come off as emotional blackmail(buy our stuff or children will starve in Africa!).

    If they were really worried about the environment, they'd just say "In Win donates 10% of their net profit each year to the WWF" or some such.
    And, you know, ship power supplies that are 80 Plus Platinum instead of 80 Plus Bronze.
  • jontech - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Wrong WWF? Reply
  • jontech - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Or could have gone with

    MEAN.... WOOOO.... GREEN

    O i digress
  • CharonPDX - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    That seems odd. Shouldn't a PSU marketed as being "eco" "green", etc, have better than the lowest certification. Reply
  • cyberguyz - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    You are echoing my thoughts exactly bro.

    To me a 'green' PSU should waste as little power as possible. Simply because they donate to an eco group (exactly how much of each dollar donated actually goes toward whatever it is that WWF actually does? How much ends up lining pockets?) does not buy them a 'green' monicker.

    These guys are just using this as a gimmick to foist off low-quality goods on an unsuspecting market.
  • dtolios - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    The fact that global warming is used and abused by companies / orgs, does not make it irrelevant - being man made or not. Not all of the people taking action about reducing our "Carbon footprint" think immorally or try to boost an agenda.

    Just like the US or any other country fighting immoral wars for pure profit since and during WWII doesn't make the warriors fighting and dying for them immoral - not the vast majority of them at least.

    So let the "green" fighters do what they do, along with the "freedom fighters", the "holy crusaders" etc...Green is a new religion. Accept it, or get ready to be questioned about your "believes" and morality.

    Btw, funding WWF does not make a passable modern PSU much greener...meh marketing.
  • TomatoTornado - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    ... but I beg of you, educate yourself about the WWF. It is nothing more than a marketing label.

    " WWF certified a palm oil plantation operated by Wilmar International, a Singaporean company, on the Indonesian island of Borneo, even though the establishment of the plantation led to the destruction of over 14,000 hectares of rainforest. Only 80 hectares were ultimately conserved."
  • ggathagan - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    I don't disagree with you, but your point is made more strongly if you supply a reference for your quote. Reply
  • taltamir - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    "They got donations from the energy industry and tolerated genetically changed soy. "
    What is wrong with them receiving donations from energy industry?

    What is wrong with genetically modified soy? Would you rather people starve to death then use genetically modified crops that cause less pollution and produce greater yields?
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    It's not a question of whether or not we think that; it's that plenty of others have concerns with the WWF, so pointing out that they're not without controversy on a PSU that sticks a "we give $1 to WWF for every PSU sold" seems rather appropriate. And of course, there are others that dispute the accusations that they've done anything "wrong". So, choose your poison, but ultimately the PSU is just "okay" and that's probably where things ought to end. Reply
  • Lqdslvrz - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    "What is wrong with genetically modified soy? Would you rather people starve to death then use genetically modified crops that cause less pollution and produce greater yields?"

    So much wrong here, so much.

    If you think genetically modified food is anything beneficial you had better do some research.
  • cyberguyz - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    Man, what do you say to something so asinine. (shakes head)

    Perhaps you should hit the books as well. Do you even understand all of what "genetic modification" means? You do realize that half 90% of the food you eat every day is genetically modified right? The wheat in your bread or flour. The meat you eat.

    (Hint: cross-breeding and cross pollination are simple 'genetic modifications' and have been taking place for decades)

    You assume this kind of thing is wrong. Perhaps instead of throwing the darts, you should put your own mind up on the dartboard and list out exactly why there is "so much wrong here". How about some of the reasons why crops are genetically manipulated:

    1. Produce hardier strains that can grow with little water.
    2. Produce strains that produce more food per plant (i.e. corn that will grow more than a couple ears per plant)
    3. Produce plants that do not attract to insects (reduces pesticide use).
    4. produce strains that yield larger fruit/vegetables.

    Why is this beneficial? How about:

    (1) Crops can grow in places normally suffering from frequent droughts which would kill 'normal' crops.

    (2) For a given field, a higher yield is obtained. This can feed more people than 'normal' crops.

    (3) I for one would rather eat food that has not been coated in toxins. With 'normal' crops you are forced to use pesticides to get a decent yield.

    (4) No brainer here. Larger potatoes mean you need less of them to feed a family.

    There are over 6 billion people in the world. Unmodified crops can not feed them all. When you see those 'staving kids in Africa' commercials, you are seeing only the end result of the use of that money provided. Sure some of the money goes to tactical support, but the largest part of the money donated goes to research into producing food in areas like that so those kids would not be starving in the first place.

    So, what would you prefer? Genetically altered crops that can grow in places where drought or insect infestations is common or hundreds of thousands of starving people? Or producing vegetable strains that can grow with 1/5th water and not be eaten by insects without using pesticides?

    I know what I would choose.
  • taltamir - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    well said. Reply
  • Lqdslvrz - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    Grr troll write long response! Troll must be right!


    Some ppl just don't get it.
  • taltamir - Friday, June 08, 2012 - link

    Disagreeing with your faith does not make him a troll. Reply
  • amosbatto - Saturday, June 09, 2012 - link

    Actually you are wrong about the meaning of "genetically modified". Cross breeding, grafting, and all the traditional means of exchanging genetic material is a very different process from what is is called "genetically modified". The traditional ways of mixing genetic material do not pose the same risks.

    For example, you don't have to take part of a virus to insert the new genetic material. We don't know if that virus might become active or start creating a new supervirus that we can't control. Through cross-breeding, you can't make terminator seeds, which threaten the ability of farmers to save their seeds and replant, so they become controlled by Monsanto, ConAgra, etc. You can't patent a cross-bred organism, but you can patent a GMO, so you can sue farmers and destroy them (which has happened to thousands of US and Canadian farmers). You can't easily make a cross-bred plant which is "roundup-ready", so it survives under heavy herbicide use or it will only germinate if that herbicide is present. You can't create a plant that starts producing its own insecticide in such high doses, that it runs the risk of making bugs which are resistant and suddenly we have huge risks of not being able to control pests without using even more dangerous chemicals.

    GMO places huge power in the hands of big agra-corporations and threatens to destroy our genetic diversity, because big AG wants everyone to use their small number of seeds. In the long run, it threatens to destroy small farmers around the world. So far, GMO is used widely in only 4 crops (soy, corn, cotton, canola), but it is being developed for hundreds of others. So far, it has done nothing to feed the world, since its modifications are basically designed to tolerate more herbicide and to make terminator seeds which can't be replanted.

    All evidence shows that the best way to increase agricultural output is to stop growing monocrops (which GMO promotes) and return to growing a large diversity of crops next to each other (as organic farmers do). However, returning to small and diverse plots takes a lot of human labor and doesn't concentrate wealth like monocrops, which is why it has been abandoned in the US, but it does produce the greatest amount of food per acre and is the best way to feed a hungry planet. It is the only sustainable solution.
  • Lqdslvrz - Monday, June 11, 2012 - link

    Finally someone that has done some research, as I mentioned earlier.

    The GMO food crops are not grown without pesticides, actually they (through DNA manipulation) take in the pesticide and become one with it so that it is not harmful to the plant. But now the plant is the same as the pesticide. The GMO seed is sold WITH the pesticide.

    If a person wanted to learn more, be sure to read from Independent sources, not from what's covered in the mass media, or from corporate spokespeople/politicians.

    Check out: and read the works of people like Dr. Árpád Pusztai.

    Ask yourself this: Why do animals, when given a choice of (the same) food with and food without GMOs do they choose the non-GMO food?
  • cyberguyz - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    +1 to this.

    Though having a power supply company saying it has a "green" product simply because they donate a dollar per PSU to a wildlife preservation organization is pretty dumb. The power supply is mediocre. There are far more eco-friendly products out there that don't plaster "green" and "eco" all over their packaging.
  • taltamir - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    I agree with that. You can donate a dollar yourself, its just a gimmick. Reply
  • Pessimism - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    How a plastic bag containing a plastic tie, another plastic tie around the power cables, a metal and plastic zip tie around the power cord, and a plastic bag around the power supply are 100% recyclable and environmentally friendly? Reply
  • fluxtatic - Friday, June 08, 2012 - link

    Rather than getting all up in arms over the 'evil liberals' that 'forcing environmental regulations down our throats', get pissed about the deregulation that destroyed our economies - banks and other corporations being allowed to get away with whatever they want is the problem. The truly blind here are the people that have this idea that the 'libtards' are going to turn the US into some sort of enviro-China. Politicians don't give a damn about any of that, unless it pays. Who pays? Giant corporations - whatever they want goes. Wake up to what's really happening - not that environmentalism (or it's antithesis) doesn't come into play - look at Monsanto and the damage they've done. To be afraid of the US passing draconian enviro regulations is just ignorant.

    For homie ranting about Van Jones being a communist - who cares? I take it you're of that age when someone being a communist was equivalent to being Satan. Far left beliefs, at least, are in the interest of helping people, or rather, the people. Far right beliefs tend to be about helping corporations in furtherance of personal greed.

    All that aside, this is a late entry in the great greenwashing trend - as others mentioned, don't tell me you're giving a buck to the WWF while you're selling me a mediocre power supply. I suspect this is the way InWin decided to make this also-ran stand out. Give me 80+ Platinum and cut the price. If you insist, thrown in some marketing BS about how now with the money I've saved, I can throw some dollars at the WWF or whatever environmental organization floats my boat. Naturally, there'd be a lot less money going to the WWF that way, but at least it feels less sleazy.
  • Lqdslvrz - Friday, June 08, 2012 - link

    +1 Reply
  • amosbatto - Saturday, June 09, 2012 - link

    "For sure the environmental friendly packaging is a welcome change, but we should keep in mind that we can't protect the environment by buying a new PSU. If you're really looking to help the environment, it's better to keep your current PSU as long as possible and avoid contributing to landfills."

    In almost all cases, the environmental solution is to continue using old electronics, rather than buying new electronics, because an enormous amount of energy and resources is used in the fabrication of new electronics and electronics releases toxins and endocrine disruptors into the environment when thrown into a landfill (or recycled in places like China or Nigeria). According to a 2005 study by Eric Williams, roughly 80% of the total energy of electronics comes from fabrication and only 20% from its use.

    However, the situation is very different when talking about power supplies. There may be environmental benefits to buying an efficient power supply if you are using a standard power supply. Standard power supplies are only 60%-70% efficient when converting AC to DC, compared to 80%-90% efficient for high quality power supplies. A PSU which is 20% more efficient in the conversion of current will use much less energy and produce far few greenhouse gases and contaminants from the burning of fossil fuels than the fabrication of a new power supply. In contrast, it doesn't take that many resources to fabricate a new PSU, compared to the resources it may save if it is efficient. So true environmentalists will want to junk their inefficient PSUs and buy a new ones.

    I am glad that this article takes a skeptical view of the "green" claims, but there is a reason why environmentalists want a green PSU. Still, these observations were spot on:
    1. This PSU needs too much power to be a truly "green" PSU. An environmentalist wants a computer that needs no more than 350W. They should offer lower wattage models.
    2. The efficiency should be even higher, like silver or gold to convince a true environmentalist.

    There are other things that need to be investigated. For example, are the cables free of PVC, bromated flame retardants, phthalates and other dangerous materials? For me that is a major concern, but very few electronics makers will publish this information.
  • alfredshuryan - Tuesday, June 26, 2012 - link

    PCs4VETS recycle tech for reuse or proper disposal. Al Shuryan and the PCS4VETS awareness project needs sponsors to help with custom builds, building and helping the foundations Veterans missions and objectives. Conservation, energy, Veterans, RE-Cycle, Re-use, learn, help, teach, tax credits, jobs. Help me Help PCS4VETS get a SHOUT OUT! Reply
  • alfredshuryan - Sunday, February 03, 2013 - link

    No matter what the donation, support or mention is ANY help is appreciated and all adds up.
    In-Win donated a power supply for a Custom PC Mod/Build that auctioned to pay for the recycling, refurbishing and reclaiming of scrap by disabled veterans for disabled veterans.
    This one item teamed up with a few others build a customized computer called Purple Heart - MERIT.
    That auctioned off and all funds donated to PCs4VETS.
    PCs4VETS used some of the funds to sponsor a E-WASTE Event in San Diego in November 2012.
    The E-waste was a success, Veterans took the waste and broke it all down reclaiming metals and rare earth compounds for recycling. $1,000 of dollars worth in the semi load.
    Those funds and the remaining funds paid to refurbish 100's of laptops. We have the cost down to $20/laptop, from donation to veterans door.
    1 simple donation lead and built up to 100's of tools put into the hands of needy veterans and families.
    It does not have to millions in donations to change the world, a life, save resources or even a life.
    Thank You IN-WIN for helping me change the world,
    Al Shuryan
    Co-chair PCS4VETS Advisory Council

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now