Chemical Industry Group slams Greenpeace over unfair iPhone criticisms

“A chemical industry group has lashed out against Greenpeace, condemning the environmental lobby group for making unfair criticism of Apple’s iPhone’s green credentials,” Jonny Evans reports for Macworld UK.

“Greenpeace last week released an analysis of the iPhone, in which it claims the product contains a range of potentially dangerous chemicals,” Evans reports. “The Bromine Science and Environmental Forum BSEF), the international organisation of the bromine chemical industry, points out that none of the substances Greenpeace is criticising Apple for deploying in the device are banned under existing environmental law.”

“‘All the substances reported by Greenpeace are approved for use, and provide critical performance and safety functions in a wide range of electronic products,’ the organisation countered,” Evans reports.

“The rebuttal continues to explain that – even according to Greenpeace’s own study – the iPhone complies with all existing EU regulatory requirements,” Evans reports. “It adds: ‘The brominated flame retardant most likely used in the iPhone is actually a reactive – it reacts with other substances to form a plastic and, once reacted, it is also no longer available to the environment. The Greenpeace report is incorrect in its assertions about the potential for releases to the environment.'”

Full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “ds” for the heads up.]

It’s funny that a group calling itself “Greenpeace” continually wages “Yellowwar.”

36 Comments

  1. This sounds like a really stupid case of, “He said, she said.”

    Just because a chemical is authorized for use by current environmental law doesn’t mean it’s safe. In the U.S., we have a “Use it until a bunch of people die, and then fight about it in court for 10 years or so, and then work for legislation to ban the chemical.” The is absolutly no, “Make sure it’s safe before exposing it to men, women, and children,” law.

    On the other hand, European law is the most advanced law in the world for regulation chemicals. Any device that is compliant with European law is definately safer than a device that isn’t compliant. Unfortunately, just because a chemical is legal for use (under European or American law), doesn’t mean it’s safe.

  2. There is no money in pointing at toxic emissions from 5 year old and older vehicles on our highways.

    You have to kill some baby seals of prod a few sacred cows, like Apple Inc. to get the donations flowing in.

    Save the whales, write a check. Visa and Mastercard accepted.

    Mama wants to winter in Hawaii.

  3. Unfortunately, just because a chemical is legal for use (under European or American law), doesn’t mean it’s safe.

    How true…

    The EU’s RoHS legislation bans many substances, but the main focus is on lead in electronics. The amount of lead (usually in solder) is very small, but they sought to get rid of it all (or at least regulated to tiny amounts). However, in place of lead we have silver and bismuth (among others). I don’t know about you, but I don’t think it is much safer to ingest silver or bismuth.

    Also, in an ironic twist, these new solders must be processed at higher temperatures which requires more energy. Hence, more fuel (fossil in many cases) must be burned. It sounds like they are trading the lead for increased energy consumption.

    Another issue is the reliability of solders without lead. Tin whiskers become a huge problem and devices can fail more quickly.

    I don’t know if RoHS has made devices safer or not. I do know it has made them more environmentally unfriendly and less reliable.

  4. Aren’t Greenpeace all about running their boats into coral reefs?

    Retarded idiots.

    And why do they keep having a go at Apple?

    It must be because Apple are the most prominent electronics company currently.

    What about having a go at Dell and other disposable PC manufacturers for all the crappy CRT monitors they ship with big ass chunks of lead in them that last a couple of years then end up in landfills?

  5. Having a “chemical industry group” come to Apple’s defense is a bit like having Al-Qaeda saying American troops in Iraq aren’t terrorists. It may or may not be true, but you kinda wish they hadn’t said anything at all.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.