# iPhone = toxic phone?



## Ariell (Mar 28, 2005)

Scientific tests reveal iPhone contains hazardous chemicals and materials, says Greenpeace


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Don't say that too loud around here, the tree huggers on this board tend to turn a blind eye to Apple's environmental practices.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

The intelligent ones on this board will know that it is pure FUD, and Greenpeace is only attacking Apple to get into the headlines.

DailyTech - The Fallout From Greenpeace iPhone Report


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

Apple's rev.B iPhone is rumoured to have a warning label clearly stating "Not to be taken internally".


----------



## josheejs (Jul 23, 2005)

i think that greenpeace has some valid points, and i think that there exists a happy medium somewhere between completely harmless iphones and those being manufactured now. that happy medium involves looking at the known and possible negative consequences (whether environmental, social or economic... our economy does depend on the environment) of using the substances in question, and the alternatives to these substances.

while it is true that greenpeace is targeting a high profile company, it is also true that greenpeace's commitment to member funding instead of government/corporate funding forces them to make a big splash with the funding that they do have. 

i would like a cleaner environment (and in turn a saner economy and healthier society) AND an apple computer, and i would like to think that these won't continue to be mutually exclusive.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

I'd be more worried about lead in kids toys...I'll note that I should not order an iPhone for lunch. Did they test other phones? Greenpeace and PETA get filed in my 
"Don't care what they EVER have to say" file...


----------



## fuzzyface (Oct 17, 2006)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> I'd be more worried about lead in kids toys...I'll note that I should not order an iPhone for lunch. Did they test other phones? Greenpeace and PETA get filed in my
> "Don't care what they EVER have to say" file...


Did anyone happen to notice that the battery is glued AND soldered to the iphone's motherboard? Won't that make it harder to recycle?; replace the battery? Where will all those iphones go when the battery dies?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I wonder if Steve Jobs is going to write another "**** You Greenpeace" ... er ... I mean "Greener Apple" letter over this.


----------



## fuzzyface (Oct 17, 2006)

PosterBoy said:


> I wonder if Steve Jobs is going to write another "**** You Greenpeace" ... er ... I mean "Greener Apple" letter over this.


Meh! Global warming/sharming. Environmental/shmental.
Right?
Most people who can read don't think so. 
Most people who can read,and don't have a financial interest in ignoring the data and research and thousands of scientists who say that our conspicuous consumption is ruining our natural world (drinking water, air, soil) - think so. 
Is there some technical difficulty that prevents apple from installing a battery that can be removed for recycling - not glued and soldered to the motherboard of the iphone? Phalates damage reproductive organs. Once those headphones reach the landfill, where do you think those phalates will go? Where do you think the millions of iphones will go once their batteries are all dead?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Mississauga said:


> Apple's rev.B iPhone is rumoured to have a warning label clearly stating "Not to be taken internally".


I don't know how many times I've caught myself with my headphone cord in my mouth, finding out that it is toxic is kind of scary.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

fuzzyface said:


> Meh! Global warming/sharming. Environmental/shmental.
> Right?
> Most people who can read don't think so.
> Most people who can read,and don't have a financial interest in ignoring the data and research and thousands of scientists who say that our conspicuous consumption is ruining our natural world (drinking water, air, soil) - think so.
> Is there some technical difficulty that prevents apple from installing a battery that can be removed for recycling - not glued and soldered to the motherboard of the iphone? Phalates damage reproductive organs. Once those headphones reach the landfill, where do you think those phalates will go? Where do you think the millions of iphones will go once their batteries are all dead?


May I kindly suggest that perhaps YOU should read THIS !!! instead of regurgitating a bunch of Greenpeace garbage.

I don't know about you but the iPhone will be a big expenditure for me. When the battery dies I will take it in to the Apple store and have the battery replaced. In the event that the battery does indeed last for many years and I decide to purchase a new iPhone, I'll simply return my old iPhone for recycling.


----------



## fuzzyface (Oct 17, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> I don't know how many times I've caught myself with my headphone cord in my mouth, finding out that it is toxic is kind of scary.


Skin is porous. Kids love to put things in their mouths. Landfills leach into the water table. In that respect, at least, one pair won't have an impact, but millions of pairs would. Moreover, when millions of (complete and broken) iphones die, they will have an impact when their components decay and leach chemicals into ladfills. Why worry? Why not? What are the risks for apple - or all manufacturers for that matter - to take back and properly recycle their products; use less harmful or innocuous chemicals? The WORST case scenario is economic depression. What are the risks of not doing anything? Maybe nothing will happen. Maybe we'll see more hurricane Katrinas, droughts, crop devastation, undrinkable water...a world we wouldn't want to leave our kids. 
Is apple the great Satan? No. But ignoring opportunities to do the right thing, instead of leaving the tab to government, or ourselves (Brita water - anyone?) for the sake of short term profits - is wrong. Period.


----------



## fuzzyface (Oct 17, 2006)

adagio said:


> May I kindly suggest that perhaps YOU should read THIS !!! instead of regurgitating a bunch of Greenpeace garbage.
> 
> I don't know about you but the iPhone will be a big expenditure for me. When the battery dies I will take it in to the Apple store and have the battery replaced. In the event that the battery does indeed last for many years and I decide to purchase a new iPhone, I'll simply return my old iPhone for recycling.


Apple doen't have a comprehensive take back program. The iphone is not intended to be recycled because the battery is soldered AND glued to the iphone motherboard.
Who will; who can recycle it?
Why is greenpeace research crap? Is it crap simply because you say it's crap, or because you're an apple reseller and you have a vested financial interest in defending apple corporation and ignoring the research, or is it because you have some credible reason to believe that greenpeace is lying?
I had a look at the apple linked webpage you put in your post. Here's mine: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/how-green-is-that-iphone140607
If other manufacturers can take back, and eliminate targeted chemicals, then why can't apple? Are their engineers not as competent as the engineers at Dell or Sony or Nokia?
Maybe if their lack of progress starts to damage their reputation - and their bottom line - they'll act as quickly as other manufacturers have?
Maybe I'm wrong.
Greenpeace is wrong.
All of the scientific community is wrong.
All of their research is based on lies. 
They're just trying to sell us more pot.
Go apple!
Just to prove the iphone is safe, i will buy one and bury it in my garden. Next spring, I'll plant some vegetables and when they've grown, I'll give some to you. Also, I recommend the iphone headphones as a great choice for a soother for teething babies. Heck, why not give a pair to your pregnant wife? If apple says they're safe, then that's good enough for me!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I'm not going to argue a point with someone who is simply going to toss around hyperbole. Suffice to say, Apple's products all comply with the RoHS and Apple has publicly stated that they are eliminating PVC and BFRs by the end of 2008. Last I looked, it's just barely the end of 2007.

I'm sure there are lots of companies that do better than Apple, but I am just as sure there are far more doing far worse. What annoys me is Greenpeace feigning surprise that Apple hasn't done something they voluntarily committed (they don't _have_ to do anything, remember) to getting done by 14 months from now, and tossing around all kinds of vitriol so that they can get headlines when they could be going after worse offenders.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

fuzzyface said:


> Apple doen't have a comprehensive take back program. The iphone is not intended to be recycled because the battery is soldered AND glued to the iphone motherboard.
> Who will; who can recycle it?


I don't think you bothered to click on my link. Here's the info contained within the original link.

From that website:

_Thinking globally, acting locally

All the e-waste we collect in North America is processed there and nothing is shipped overseas for disposal. Apple meets the requirements of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundry Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. In addition to annual compliance audits of our recycling vendors, we review the performance of their downstream vendors. Recyclers must comply with all applicable health and safety laws, and we do not allow the use of prison labor at any stage of the recycling process. Apple does not allow the disposal of hazardous electronic waste in solid waste landfills or incinerators, including waste-to-energy incinerators.

Apple strives to minimize the amount of waste generated at our company sites and operations. When waste paper, glass, metals, and plastics do arise from site activities, we ensure the materials are recycled properly. Some examples include:

Paper: This recycling stream encompasses all cardboard packaging, as well as paper from manuals and other printed materials. These materials are sent to processing mills, where they undergo a hydro-pulping process to produce new paper-based products such as cardboard boxes and tissues. Typically, over 95 percent of the material is recycled in this process.

Foam: Protective foam is remanufactured into new foam products as well as a variety of other materials, such as carpet padding and substitute wood products (e.g., crown molding or baseboard)._

*Batteries: Batteries are removed and sent to specialist battery recyclers for dedicated metals and plastics treatment.*

All the whining about a soldered in battery is nuts. I think someone at Apple has figured out how to yank the sucker from inside and send it for proper treatment. 

Greenpeace *IS* full of crap.


----------



## fuzzyface (Oct 17, 2006)

adagio said:


> I don't think you bothered to click on my link. Here's the info contained within the original link.
> 
> From that website:
> 
> ...


How is greenpeace full of crap? Is it their research? What have they said in their writeups that is untrue? 
Greenpeace has a job. It's mission - as i see it, and it seems reasonable to assume - is to advocate for a cleaner environment. It doesn't make sense to me, for greenpeace to diffuse their efforts toward this end and try to change all manufacturers at once. They started with e-companies. They brought pressure on Sony, Nokia, Dell...for commitments to phase out harmful chemicals to their products. They had some successes because public pressure means something to companies or institutions that want to sell their products to the public (just ask Stephen Harper). Apple has resisted (read their article) and so greenpeace responded with a public campaign to get them to change. Greenpeace is tapping into a growing public concern for the environment and a growing sense that companies and institutions need to act responsibly and address the publics concerns in a meaningful way. Public pressure usually leads to a loss in reputation, profits; leading companies to change in order to salvage both. Does THAT make them crap?
In Apple's writeup, they specifically cite their efforts in North America, and most of the detail concerns the US - so what about everywhere else?
Does Apple Canada have a recycling program? Incentives for people to take back their apple e-waste? Their best case scenario for Apple US is to take back 30% of Apple e-waste by 2010. Where does the other 70% go - and why 2010?
Why does the iphone need a battery that is soldered and glued to the motherboard, when every cell phone I can think of has a user removable battery? What kind of message does that send?
I think it's great that Apple has made efforts toward stewardship, but it doesn't excuse their lack to initiative/progress in others and i refuse to turn a blind eye because I happen to like some of their products. Apple is a corporation. They design electronics and they make money. That isn't bad. When Apple creates electronics with disregard (but not, admittedly, total disregard) to how those products affect the environment that we all share - that's bad. When they don't do everything in their power to protect MY drinking water, air, or the soil that we all get our food from - that's bad. Companies respond to public pressure. Greenpeace has a mandate. They're just doing their job. Calling them "crap" is a poor argument for ignoring anything they've claimed.





9ju


----------



## fuzzyface (Oct 17, 2006)

Recent developments

Scientific tests reveal iPhone contains hazardous chemicals and materials, says Greenpeace

If they lie, then they get their butts sued. I don't think they're lying.

Check out the video:Scientific tests reveal iPhone contains hazardous chemicals and materials, says Greenpeace


----------



## fuzzyface (Oct 17, 2006)

This timeline was taken from their website: "Campaign history:
10/03 Greenpeace contacts Apple for information on their chemicals policy. 
02/04 Follow-up reminder on Greenpeace request to Apple. 
04/04 Greenpeace Chemical Home database launched; Apple graded red on their chemical policy. 
06/04 Samsung is the first major electronics company to commit to phasing out all BFRs and PVC. :clap: 
08/04 First meeting between Greenpeace and Apple – no movement from Apple on chemicals policy. 
11/04 Second meeting between Greenpeace and Apple – still no commitment from Apple on strengthening its chemical policy. 
11/04 Nokia commits to phasing out all BFRs and PVC. 
04/05 Sony and Sony Ericsson commit to phasing out all BFRs and PVC. :clap: 
09/05 Third meeting between Greenpeace and Apple – still no change in Apple’s chemical policy. Greenpeace gives Apple advance notice that Greenpeace will be ranking it on their chemical policy as well as their waste policy in 2006. 
09/05 LG Electronics commits to phasing out all BFRs and PVC. :clap: 
03/06 HP commits to phase out BFRs and PVC. :clap: 
04/06 Fourth meeting between Greenpeace and Apple called by Apple to update Greenpeace on obstacles to phasing out PVC and BFRs. 
06/06 Dell commits to a plan to phase out a list of hazardous chemicals with priority on BFR and PVC by 2009. Dell also announces takeback scheme for any Dell product, in US from September 2006 and globally from November 2006. :clap: :clap: :clap: 
06/06 Two calls between Greenpeace and Apple initiated by Apple to discuss Apple’s draft ranking on Guide to Greener Electronics. No policy change forth coming from Apple. 
08/06 Guide to Greener Electronics launched: Apple gets 2.7/10 and finds itself fourth from the bottom of the ranking. 
09/06 First analysis of an Apple laptop: Independant sampling revealed that MacBook Pro contained PVC and BFRs. 
09/06 Green my Apple campaign launched. No official response from Apple to date. 
12/06 Due to positive moves from other companies Apple is bottom of the second version of the Guide to Greener Electronics. 
12/06 Two environmental resolutions by Social Responsible Investment funds filed for the 2007 Apple Annual General Meeting (AGM). 
12/06 Apple makes its first official comment on the greenmyapple campaign claiming that their existing policy of no longer selling CRT monitors and the eliminating RoHS chemicals (which all other companies like Dell/HP and Lenovo have already eliminated) is the clear example of their environmental record. 
01/07 The Steve Jobs keynote at Macworld passes without any mention of environmental improvements from Apple. 
01/07 Dell CEO Michael Dell challenges the electronics industry to take responsibility for its waste on a global level. :clap: 
02/07 Rumours spread of a potential environmental announcement from Apple following a meeting between one Social Responsible Investment fund and Steve Jobs. 
04/07 Greenpeace and 70 other US NGOs request that Al Gore (Apple Board Director) supports the environmental resolutions filed for the Apple AGM. 
04/07 The third version of the Greenpeace Guide for Greener Electronics released, Apple is the only company that made no movement since the first version of the guide (Aug 06) and remains in last position. 
04/07 The Apple Board of Directors states that it unanimously rejects the two environmental shareholder resolutions. 
05/07 Good news! Steve responds with an open letter about Apple's environment policy. Good progress from Apple but not the end. We hope Steve's next statement will mark out Apple as a green leader. Really PVC free?
Sure, Apple is proud to highlight that the iPod shuffle External Battery Pack and other minor accessories are PVC free, but that's not exactly a major high-volume product line is it?tptptptp 

Fringe Benefits
Many of the changes Apple takes environmental credit for (Flat screens replacing CRT monitors, wireless reducing cables, banning certain chemicals) are just side-effects of changes made for design considerations or required by new laws. tptptptp 

"Power has never been this much fun"
Back in April 2005, Steve Jobs publicly called environmentalists' concerns about Apple "bull****". Come on Steve, we'd expect that kind of reaction from fat corporate CEOs who dump polychlorinated biphenyls into rivers, not from a cool, potentially eco-friendly titan of the information age.



The small print - what this campaign is NOT about:
These are the three areas we are asking Apple to improve. There are other aspects to being a green company like energy efficiency and packaging reduction, but we are focusing on improvements that will help stem the tide of toxic e-waste.":clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
This was taken from their piece on laptops:

"The new report follows up our investigation into toxics in laptops sold in Europe in 2006, before EU legislation on hazardous substances in electronic equipment, known as RoHS.

With the implementation of RoHS, computer manufacturers have significantly reduced their use of lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium and certain brominated flame retardants. 

The good news is these changes have been implemented by all companies and not only for the European market where it is a minimum legal requirement.

The analysis shows that, for almost every component found to contain either bromine or plastic PVC, an equivalent component free of these chemicals can be found in another laptop. 


First computer free of the worst toxic chemicals?

In theory, by combining components from different machines, the industry could already almost produce the first computer free of the worst toxic chemicals. The question is, which company is going to be the first to go the whole way?"
My point is this: If other manufacturers can do these things, then so can Apple - and Apple will, so long as public pressure increases. Less e-waste means a cleaner environment for all, including our kids.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I've been on this board long enough to know that anyone who opposes Apple is crap, common sense, come on now.


----------



## fuzzyface (Oct 17, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> I've been on this board long enough to know that anyone who opposes Apple is crap, common sense, come on now.


I'm sorry. I'm so sorry


----------



## Mr. Fartleberry (Dec 17, 2005)

I think Greenpeace have targeted Apple because of it's ability to get so much free press in these post-iPod/iTunes days. Most of their stunts these days are pretty lame and often show desperation. They are just a global corporation in a mid-life crisis today. Some of their positions are so contradictory as to be laughable. IMHO. 

Now let me get back to sucking on my iPod Touch pacifier.


----------



## fuzzyface (Oct 17, 2006)

Mr. Fartleberry said:


> I think Greenpeace have targeted Apple because of it's ability to get so much free press in these post-iPod/iTunes days. Most of their stunts these days are pretty lame and often show desperation. They are just a global corporation in a mid-life crisis today. Some of their positions are so contradictory as to be laughable. IMHO.
> 
> Now let me get back to sucking on my iPod Touch pacifier.


If you read the timeline (pg 2) that i've posted, it should be clear that Greenpeace targeted apple because they were resistant to changes that other manufacturers adopted. Yes, they are high profile - but they also like to project themselves as the "think different" company - the clean as white on white company. Greenpeace has done a good job of poking holes in that image.
I'm curious...what petitions are contradictory, and how are they contradictory?


----------



## Ariell (Mar 28, 2005)

fuzzyface said:


> If you read the timeline (pg 2) that i've posted, it should be clear that Greenpeace targeted apple because they were resistant to changes that other manufacturers adopted.


Agreed. From the time that Greenpeace first contacted Apple to the time that they first began testing Apple products more than 3 years passsed! It's not like this came out of the blue and caught poor Apple unaware. Several meetings took place. Greenpeace asked cell phone companies to modify their chemical policy. Many companies agreed to. Apple chose not to. That makes them fair game. Sure it gets Greenpeace lots of publicity. Duh. It doesn't exactly make alot of sense to be testing a phone from a "low profile company" that no one has ever heard of or uses does it? Then you'd be saying_ well, so what if company X has a crappy green policy? No one uses that phone anyway._

And it's not that they are _targeting_ Apple for goodness sake. As was pointed out, Greenpeace contacted all the bigwig phone and computer companies -- Dell, Sony Erikson, Nokia, etc. They agreed to make changes. Apple didn't.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

fuzzyface said:


> Meh! Global warming/sharming. Environmental/shmental.
> Right?
> Most people who can read don't think so.
> Most people who can read,and don't have a financial interest in ignoring the data and research and thousands of scientists who say that our conspicuous consumption is ruining our natural world (drinking water, air, soil) - think so.
> Is there some technical difficulty that prevents apple from installing a battery that can be removed for recycling - not glued and soldered to the motherboard of the iphone? Phalates damage reproductive organs. Once those headphones reach the landfill, where do you think those phalates will go? Where do you think the millions of iphones will go once their batteries are all dead?


Yeah right. How many people do you know that actually recycle batteries. I do because they have a depot at work. Soldering and gluing the battery is actually a good thing as this forces them to take it to a repair person or Apple who have the know-how to replace the battery and the battery recycling facilities (or should have).

The more Greenpeace grandstands, the more they hurt true environmentalists, because they consider all of them to be like Greenpeace.


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Greenpeace and PETA get filed in my
> "Don't care what they EVER have to say" file...


I totally agree with that. They are all hypocrites. The VP of PETA is a diabetic, yet she is against animal testing... Ummm, if it were not for animal testing, there would be no insulin and you would be dead. So animal testing is OK if it benefits you??


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDaddy said:


> I totally agree with that. They are all hypocrites. The VP of PETA is a diabetic, yet she is against animal testing... Ummm, if it were not for animal testing, there would be no insulin and you would be dead. So animal testing is OK if it benefits you??


So would animal testing for make-up is good in your books? It benefits womens looks.

I agree animal testing for cures and treatments are necessary, but for frivolous things like vanity, very unnecessary.


----------

