“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.”
Just like all extremists, Greenpeace continually shoots themselves in the foot by their emotionally charged agenda.
That’s good news but it’s a bit ironic that their name spells CIG.
I knew Apple wasn’t evil! Now I can murder my Greenpeace neighbor in good conscience.
There are people who really care about the environment. Then there are people who totally retarded (and I mean mentally) and are seeking publicity. Greenpeace is the latter.
Speaking of being retarded…I see I missed the ‘are.’ My apologies.
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.
I heard that the Californian law was much stricter than European law, is this true?
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.
European law is definately safer than a device
Yes, definitely also.
MW – big, some people are not big on spelling.
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.
Sadly, Greenpeace is giving environmental awareness a bad name. Sometimes I wonder what side they are on.
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?
They ain’t green.
Only thing green about them is money.
Perception is America’s BIGGEST EVIL.
Look good, act good, do what you want, once you are concidered by most of the masses that you mean well.
mtngoatjoe:
You forgot the part about: Once a substance is banned in the US, continue to sell the same product in countries that lack the US’ health and environmental protection legislation.
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.
Dunno about bismuth, but silver isn’t dangerous, Jeff.
Interesting how so many people are ready to condemn as biased an organization dedicated to protection of the environment people and accept as objective an organization dedicated to the spread and promotion of chemicals. Get some perspective sheeple and be critical of sources no matter who they are.
I know that Americans are generally not very good a critical thinking and reflection but it is sad to see how many have become good little corporatist automatons.
Greenpeace is not perfect, they are zealots but at least they are fighting for the betterment of the planet and our future on it. Please do be critical of sources but do not dismiss out of hand information just because you find it incompatible with your worldview.
MDN Magic Word=”research” -nice
@AJG:
I’m not calling anyone names; just commenting generally, but every garden variety terrorist or other misguided organization in history has fought to make, in their own minds, some given situation “better”. I’d use another defense on this situation.
Greenpeace: Working hard to give ALL environmentalists a BAD NAME!
“I know that Americans are generally not very good a critical thinking . . .”
At least I’m (critically) smart enough to see the irony in your fallacious statement of generalization.
eurospeak for penis envy
I’m sure Steve is thrilled to have the chemical industry coming to his defence
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”raspberry” style=”border:0;” />
At the end of the day there is no such thing as a safe chemical if the proportions of said chemical are excessive, or even too low.
Not enough oxygen and we die, too much for too long and our blood turns acid and eats us up from inside. Too much H2O (water for those did not do chemistry) and we drown, not enough and we also die. With all chemicals we have to get it in balance.
It is also not possible to know the exact long term safe tolerances of anything unless we know everything, which we clearly don’t. Therefore we cannot legislate (because it would be unenforceable) to require the long term safety testing of all compounds ( fancy a 200 year R&D;time to market life cycle ). We can only exercise due diligence and require testing appropriate to the risks. If we cannot identify the risks we keep testing until we can determine the risks and then continue testing appropriate to the newly identified risks.
My 2 pence anyway.
Where are Stevie boy’s jack-booted thugs when you need them most?
@ fenman
Thanks for a good balanced comment.