You're viewing an article in iPO's historic archive vault. Here, we've preserved the comments and how the site looked along with the article. Use this link to view the article on our current site: Greenpeace Fires Back at Chemical Group Over iPhone

News

Greenpeace Fires Back at Chemical Group Over iPhone

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007 at 8:40 AM - by

First, the environmental activist group Greenpeace released a report calling Apple to task over chemicals found in the iPhone, then a bromine-focused industry group cried foul over the Greenpeace report. Now Greenpeace is defending its report and chemical analysis procedures.

In response to the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF), Greenpeace International Web Editor, Tom Dowdall stated "The study clearly identified bromine in a wide range of materials and components in the iPhone. The technique used is widely recognised for this purpose (XRF; X-Ray Fluorescence spectrometry)."

He added "Similarly, analysis of other hazardous chemicals in the iPhone, such as phthalates, were conducted using recognised techniques."

Mr. Dowdall went on to explain that it was not possible to determine exactly which brominated chemicals are used in the iPhone -- an issue that the BSEF pointed out -- because current chemical analysis tools aren't capable of pinpointing which form of the chemical was used. The only way to know for sure, he explained, is for Apple to release the information.

Greenpeace does acknowledge that the bromine used in the iPhone as a flame retardant is most likely a reactive form that bonds with other chemicals to create a plastic when heated. Once converted into a plastic, the chemical is no longer available to the environment. The group points out, however, that in many cases electronic devices containing bromine are dismantled by hand by workers in China, potentially exposing them to the hazardous chemicals.

"While the iPhone might not yet be waste we want all companies to eliminate BFR's from their products," Mr. Dowdall said.

While watchdogging companies to ensure that consumers are not exposed to hazardous chemicals is an admirable act, the public attack on Apple and the iPhone may have a different motive behind it -- namely, headline grabbing. In a rebuttal to Gizmodo, Mr. Dowdall commented "While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it doesn't mean that we are not focusing on all manufacturers to remove toxic chemicals from their products."

In this case, Greenpeace's method may do more to harm the organization than help it.

7 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

geoduck said:

member since 30 Dec 2003 with 1922 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:08 am

Quote:
In this case, Greenpeace's method may do more to harm the organization than help it.

I know I've come to think of Greenpeace as more interested in headlines than accomplishments. I support a lot of environmental causes and groups, but not one penny or one minute of my time goes to Greenpeace. Ten years ago I would not have said that. It isn't just their attacks on Apple either. Their overall behavior for the last decade or more looks IMO to have had a top priority of getting donations and headlines.

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 1002 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:15 am

You mean they put bromides in the iPhone to keep it from burning people's shorts and Greenpeace is more concerned about a miniscule chance of people getting cancer? I never woulda dreamed that up. What a bunch of busy body losers.

Quote this post ↓

Tiger said:

member since 17 Jun 2003 with 1018 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:20 am

Greenpeace, what about all those hot tubs across California, not to mention the rest of the US, aren't they a bigger threat for Bromine than a device smaller than my wallet?

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:44 am

Headlines are easy. Science is hard. You will notice that they have not provided the statistical probability of the worker in the Far East getting any sort of illness from the alleged compounds. And what if they wear gloves? What if they wear masks? My guess is that the risk, whatever it is now, is reduced to zero by those two simple, extremely cheap steps. Typical Greenpeace.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:15 pm

The most amusing part is "we don't know what form the Bromine is in."

Well, gosh. Warning Greenpeace: you have a couple of compounds that can be explosive or chemical warfare agents on your dinner table. And chlorine is even chemically similar to bromine. Woops, table salt also usually has iodine to prevent clumping. Yet another nasty chemical from the halogen column.

Quote this post ↓

Nemo said:

member since 28 Aug 2007 with 24 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:35 pm

Dear Greenpeace: It seems to me that at least one of the BSEF's arguments is well taken. You have not shown that it would be practical to replace the BFRs and the other hazardous, though licit, substances with alternatives that are not hazardous substances. And until you do, you haven't shown that Apple deserves to be singled out among other makers of cell phones for special criticism in its use of licit hazardous substances to make the iPhone, and, thus, your criticism of the iPhone reduces to a criticism of modern society's adoption of the cell phone as a means of mass communication.

A mere suggestion about what other manufacturers of cell phones have done doesn't cut it for at least two reasons. First, the iPhone is not like other cell phones, It represents a unique engineering challenge, so what others have done may not work at all on the iPhone. Second, as you admit in your response, supra, the other manufacturers all use BFRs and other hazardous substances in at least some of the components of their cell phones. Thus, all manufacturers find it necessary, as does Apple, to use these hazardous substances to make cell phones that perform their intended function in a safe and practical way.

Unless you can show that Apple could have safely and practically made the iPhone without some or all of the hazardous substances that you complain of, your criticism of Apple is really a misplaced criticism of international societies’ decision to adopt cell phones as a means of mass communication. Of course, you can make that argument, but it is an argument that is directed best and principally at our societies, rather than at Apple.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:32 pm

Greenpeace needs headlines, dead whales, and disasters to survive. They just have to help things along sometime, and what better way than to attack a well-known corporation that is very much in the news, such as Apple? As more and more people become environmentally conscious, the need for Greenpeace will decrease. This is just their way of trying to stay alive. I'm waiting to read the report on how laboratory mice that were using a cell phone for more than 20 hours a day for more than five consecutive years had a 53.72536745% greater chance of developing cancer of the eardrum than to die of sleep deprivation...

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.