Can you inform us as to the current state of the iPhone vs the competitors??
No, not beyond the link I provided before. I'd be the first to admit that the information there is from Greenpeace, and that they certainly have an agenda. However, they seem to have done a decent job of analyzing the environmental plans of many of the industry producers with specific criteria used to judge their environmental policies. I'd welcome similar reports from other sources.
They are looking at practices of companies, and do not provide an analysis of iPhone vs. competitors content. Also, the information in the link is from March, and I am not aware of what may have changed at this point. If somebody else has more current or complete information, great. I'm certainly no expert, and as I said before, my hope is that Apple significantly ups the ante and leads on this front as well. My post was a response to the contention that Greenpeace's statements were "Nothing but a lame publicity stunt. Did you notice in the YouTube clip that Motorola and Sony Ericcson elimintaed "most" hazordous chemicals? Nice wording there eh? It seems as if they are no better."
Edit: I found a Sept '07 version of the report sited above, and Apple went from a score of 2.7 to 5.3 out of 10. Possibly this kind of pressure bears fruit.
" Motorola and Sony Ericsson have already products on the market with BFR free components."
This does not state that Motorola and Sony Erricsson's ENTIRE product line is free from these chemicals. They likely still sell more phones with toxic chemicals in a week than Apple has in the market total.
10% of an antenna and 1.5 % of the earbuds? Seriously?!!! Did you see the condition of the "Scientist"'s "lab?" he probably could easily pick any of that tiny percentage up from the air.
So How credible is it that Greenpeace has their own Lab? Sorry, has to be independant.
*sues Greenpeace for giving us flaming liberals a bad name*
As if they needed any help
But I love my flaming liberals, otherwise, what's a right wing nut job to do???!!!
Maybe Al, the environmentalist, should spend less time, in my opinion, making propaganda movies, fictional books, and blatant holier than thou, do as I say, not as I do actions and pay more attention as a member of the Board of Directors at Apple to add his insightful environmental knowledge on such matters as to prevent this in the first place.
No matter the exact laws, both the CEH and Greenpeace shared the opinion that the iPhone was not living up to the spirit of Apple chief Steve Jobs' new environmental policy, which pledged to scrub BFRs, PVCs, and other toxic materials from Apple products by the end of 2008.
Does the spirit of the pledge mean get rid of them right away or what? It's rarely realistic to expect an immediate change. The end of 2008 is a little over 14 months away. If iPhone II is released in June without these chemicals, then I'd day they did a fair job in meeting their stated goal. To me, not living up to the spirit would be taking care of all of it on Dec 31, 2008, rather than gradually phase in improvements as they are ready.
I think the problem is that Apple is high profile and attention-getting, and the fact that Apple does seem to overhype its environmental sensitivity by a lot when they aren't necessarily as crispy clean as they try to imagine themselves.
Liberal activists and Democrats these days can be categorized as two different species. All these non-profits, Greenpeace, MediaMatters buffoons all failed the burger-flipping test.
I agree with you. Everyone wants a piece of the pie and there are a bunch of them that the only way they can do it is slime their way into it.
Except for one thing. If this is true, there is no excuse for it. All of these materials have more than acceptable substitutes that cost the manufacturer no more than the former materials, or just a bit more. Some actually cost less.
I'm surprised that Apple wasn't more careful about making certain that the iPhone didn't have these problems.
Next, it will be the iTouch that's examined, as that one has many of the same components.
Are you saying that Apple should be allowed to slide?
Frakking linked off the main damn page of Apple.com.
Do I need to wipe you ass in the toilet too, or are you capable of pulling paper off the roll? Because your displayed lack of ability to do the most rudimentary basic research is appallingly pathetic.
Hiro, that's still a year late.
Quote:
And OBTW: It's still LEGAL to put phthalates in BABY BOTTLES and TEETHING RINGS in the US and state of California! The governator signed a law last night that finally addresses phthalates for products made for YOUNG CHILDREN, and manufactured in 2009. I don't think internal components are liable to be eaten or used as a teething ring by young children. Not to mention that is they aren't even illegal for those uses WTF is the big deal that they are inside a phone?
This is a hot issue for us Apple users, but it is partly Apple's fault that Greenpeace is after them. They've made statements over the years about being "green", but haven't really done as much as they could have for being so forward on the issue.
And, by the way, just because the law says that companies have some time to elininate these components doesn't mean that companies must wait until that comes into effect. They can act sooner, out of public interest. It's also good publicity.
I would think that after Job's statements earlier this year, they would have been more careful, at least for the sake of not having this kind of publicity. It wasn't smart to go ahead without making sure that this product met all applicable laws and regulations that either are in effect, ot that will shortly be in effect.
Remember that it will cost Apple more to have the product redesigned with these slightly different components than if they had been used in the first place.
This was a slip-up of the first order. But, remember where these are being made. Because of that (unless Apple approved of using these materials) more vigilance was required.
They don't. But Apple, along with a number of other large companies was working with Greenpeace a few years ago, then broke off relations, no one knows why, though I'm assuming that Greenpeace was pushing for quicker results.
After that, Apple kept making statements about how green they were, and how far ahead of the curve.
This reminds me of the presidential race here in the 1980's. I think it might have been 1984. The leading Democratic candidate, Gary Hart, had marital fidelity problems. When asked about it at a press conference, he challenged the press to catch him.
Well, you know that the press isn't going to let that pass, and so they did. That ended his Presidential ambitions.
Apple is in the same situation with Greenpeace, and they aren't letting Apple off the hook, though earlier this year they sort of reconciled.
Does the spirit of the pledge mean get rid of them right away or what? It's rarely realistic to expect an immediate change. The end of 2008 is a little over 14 months away. If iPhone II is released in June without these chemicals, then I'd day they did a fair job in meeting their stated goal. To me, not living up to the spirit would be taking care of all of it on Dec 31, 2008, rather than gradually phase in improvements as they are ready.
I think the problem is that Apple is high profile and attention-getting, and the fact that Apple does seem to overhype its environmental sensitivity by a lot when they aren't necessarily as crispy clean as they try to imagine themselves.
As a former manufacturer of electronics, let me tell ypu how I see it.
If a product has been in production when new rules are laid down, but not yet in effect, then you are allowed to continue producing that product for its normal lifetime, as long as it doesn't contain truly egregous materials.
But, if you come out with new products between the time the regs are announced and they go into effect, you are fools not to incorporate the proper materials from the get go.
When you are producing a product that will be sold worldwide, you have to make sure that you meet, or exceed EVERY possible reg that is in effect, or is going to be in effect, as well as ones that are not yet approved, but will be, and that's for every jurisdiction your product will be sold into.
No doubt, this can be a burden, but that's no excuse for not doing it. Every manufacturer has to meet the same regs, so it's fair. If a company doesn't want to meet some regs, they don't have to sell into that market.
Apple is too visable to get away with it, though other companies have their products tested as well.
Why aren't companies that still manufacture CRT monitors held under the same accountability?
There are exceptions for essential products that can't be produced without using certain materials.
But, the laws there are being tightened as well.
The same is true of compact fluorescent bulbs, and other products, such as batteries. Remember mercury cells? Not legal, except for certain restricted uses. Nickel-cadmium? Can't be made any other way, though I won't be surprised if, in a few years, once other battery types have mostly eliminated them, that it won't be legal to make products that can use them, and later, ban the use of Ni-cads altogether.
This is a hot issue for us Apple users, but it is partly Apple's fault that Greenpeace is after them. They've made statements over the years about being "green", but haven't really done as much as they could have for being so forward on the issue.
And, by the way, just because the law says that companies have some time to elininate these components doesn't mean that companies must wait until that comes into effect. They can act sooner, out of public interest. It's also good publicity.
I would think that after Job's statements earlier this year, they would have been more careful, at least for the sake of not having this kind of publicity. It wasn't smart to go ahead without making sure that this product met all applicable laws and regulations that either are in effect, ot that will shortly be in effect.
Remember that it will cost Apple more to have the product redesigned with these slightly different components than if they had been used in the first place.
This was a slip-up of the first order. But, remember where these are being made. Because of that (unless Apple approved of using these materials) more vigilance was required.
No this isn't a slip up of the first order. Apple is under threat of being sued, in California by a California organization, for having chemicals inside the phone which are still legal to put in baby chew toys.
Would it be good PR for Apple to substitute them, yes. I also don't buy the measurements reported though. Those were "carefully" chosen misleading statements about the actual amounts of materials in question. The prop 65 warning is also a poorly reported issue. It does not require labeling of PVC products unless they have lead which will rub off on fingers at or above a certain rate. Not all PVC has that issue, nor does prop 65 refer to any internal components, only external parts which would come into daily contact with a persons skin.
Maybe if some of these organizations actually read what they use as justification they might actually be able to be taken seriously. But it's all about PR and they need to strike while the product is hot.
Brominated Flame Retardants have been included for safety reasons: they make the internal plastic components more resistant to heat and less likely to burn.
Brominated Flame Retardants have been included for safety reasons: they make the internal plastic components more resistant to heat and less likely to burn.
Are BFRs really that hazardous to our health?
Is there an alternative?
They are a known carcinogen. They were eliminated as fire retardents for childrens clothing years ago.
PVC is hazardous?? Jesus tapdancing Christ, that means like half my wardrobe is toxic (yes kids, I wear PVC/Latex).
OK, so it's not a coffin, though wearing things made from any artificial material feels like a form-fit coffin to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crees!
Liberal activists and Democrats these days can be categorized as two different species. All these non-profits, Greenpeace, MediaMatters buffoons all failed the burger-flipping test.
I agree with you. Everyone wants a piece of the pie and there are a bunch of them that the only way they can do it is slime their way into it.
Outlandish activism is hardly an affliction that only affects one party. But I don't think it's an argument that should be carried out here.
Comments
Hopefully this shames Apple into catching up with Nokia, Sony Ericsson and Motorola...
Catch up how? by making disposable phones?
Can you inform us as to the current state of the iPhone vs the competitors??
No, not beyond the link I provided before. I'd be the first to admit that the information there is from Greenpeace, and that they certainly have an agenda. However, they seem to have done a decent job of analyzing the environmental plans of many of the industry producers with specific criteria used to judge their environmental policies. I'd welcome similar reports from other sources.
They are looking at practices of companies, and do not provide an analysis of iPhone vs. competitors content. Also, the information in the link is from March, and I am not aware of what may have changed at this point. If somebody else has more current or complete information, great. I'm certainly no expert, and as I said before, my hope is that Apple significantly ups the ante and leads on this front as well. My post was a response to the contention that Greenpeace's statements were "Nothing but a lame publicity stunt. Did you notice in the YouTube clip that Motorola and Sony Ericcson elimintaed "most" hazordous chemicals? Nice wording there eh? It seems as if they are no better."
Edit: I found a Sept '07 version of the report sited above, and Apple went from a score of 2.7 to 5.3 out of 10. Possibly this kind of pressure bears fruit.
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/conten...onics-ap-5.pdf
" Motorola and Sony Ericsson have already products on the market with BFR free components."
This does not state that Motorola and Sony Erricsson's ENTIRE product line is free from these chemicals. They likely still sell more phones with toxic chemicals in a week than Apple has in the market total.
10% of an antenna and 1.5 % of the earbuds? Seriously?!!! Did you see the condition of the "Scientist"'s "lab?" he probably could easily pick any of that tiny percentage up from the air.
So How credible is it that Greenpeace has their own Lab? Sorry, has to be independant.
*sues Greenpeace for giving us flaming liberals a bad name*
As if they needed any help
But I love my flaming liberals, otherwise, what's a right wing nut job to do???!!!
Maybe Al, the environmentalist, should spend less time, in my opinion, making propaganda movies, fictional books, and blatant holier than thou, do as I say, not as I do actions and pay more attention as a member of the Board of Directors at Apple to add his insightful environmental knowledge on such matters as to prevent this in the first place.
http://britainandamerica.typepad.com...h-judge-f.html
So, in case there is an earthquake and I run out of food, I can just eat my iPhone...and then my TV, and finally my car.
No matter the exact laws, both the CEH and Greenpeace shared the opinion that the iPhone was not living up to the spirit of Apple chief Steve Jobs' new environmental policy, which pledged to scrub BFRs, PVCs, and other toxic materials from Apple products by the end of 2008.
Does the spirit of the pledge mean get rid of them right away or what? It's rarely realistic to expect an immediate change. The end of 2008 is a little over 14 months away. If iPhone II is released in June without these chemicals, then I'd day they did a fair job in meeting their stated goal. To me, not living up to the spirit would be taking care of all of it on Dec 31, 2008, rather than gradually phase in improvements as they are ready.
I think the problem is that Apple is high profile and attention-getting, and the fact that Apple does seem to overhype its environmental sensitivity by a lot when they aren't necessarily as crispy clean as they try to imagine themselves.
Liberal activists and Democrats these days can be categorized as two different species. All these non-profits, Greenpeace, MediaMatters buffoons all failed the burger-flipping test.
I agree with you. Everyone wants a piece of the pie and there are a bunch of them that the only way they can do it is slime their way into it.
Except for one thing. If this is true, there is no excuse for it. All of these materials have more than acceptable substitutes that cost the manufacturer no more than the former materials, or just a bit more. Some actually cost less.
I'm surprised that Apple wasn't more careful about making certain that the iPhone didn't have these problems.
Next, it will be the iTouch that's examined, as that one has many of the same components.
Are you saying that Apple should be allowed to slide?
Your ignorance shouldn't be our problem.
Frakking linked off the main damn page of Apple.com.
Do I need to wipe you ass in the toilet too, or are you capable of pulling paper off the roll? Because your displayed lack of ability to do the most rudimentary basic research is appallingly pathetic.
Hiro, that's still a year late.
And OBTW: It's still LEGAL to put phthalates in BABY BOTTLES and TEETHING RINGS in the US and state of California! The governator signed a law last night that finally addresses phthalates for products made for YOUNG CHILDREN, and manufactured in 2009. I don't think internal components are liable to be eaten or used as a teething ring by young children. Not to mention that is they aren't even illegal for those uses WTF is the big deal that they are inside a phone?
This is a hot issue for us Apple users, but it is partly Apple's fault that Greenpeace is after them. They've made statements over the years about being "green", but haven't really done as much as they could have for being so forward on the issue.
And, by the way, just because the law says that companies have some time to elininate these components doesn't mean that companies must wait until that comes into effect. They can act sooner, out of public interest. It's also good publicity.
I would think that after Job's statements earlier this year, they would have been more careful, at least for the sake of not having this kind of publicity. It wasn't smart to go ahead without making sure that this product met all applicable laws and regulations that either are in effect, ot that will shortly be in effect.
Remember that it will cost Apple more to have the product redesigned with these slightly different components than if they had been used in the first place.
This was a slip-up of the first order. But, remember where these are being made. Because of that (unless Apple approved of using these materials) more vigilance was required.
Why does Greenpeace ONLY focus on Apple products?
They don't. But Apple, along with a number of other large companies was working with Greenpeace a few years ago, then broke off relations, no one knows why, though I'm assuming that Greenpeace was pushing for quicker results.
After that, Apple kept making statements about how green they were, and how far ahead of the curve.
This reminds me of the presidential race here in the 1980's. I think it might have been 1984. The leading Democratic candidate, Gary Hart, had marital fidelity problems. When asked about it at a press conference, he challenged the press to catch him.
Well, you know that the press isn't going to let that pass, and so they did. That ended his Presidential ambitions.
Apple is in the same situation with Greenpeace, and they aren't letting Apple off the hook, though earlier this year they sort of reconciled.
Does the spirit of the pledge mean get rid of them right away or what? It's rarely realistic to expect an immediate change. The end of 2008 is a little over 14 months away. If iPhone II is released in June without these chemicals, then I'd day they did a fair job in meeting their stated goal. To me, not living up to the spirit would be taking care of all of it on Dec 31, 2008, rather than gradually phase in improvements as they are ready.
I think the problem is that Apple is high profile and attention-getting, and the fact that Apple does seem to overhype its environmental sensitivity by a lot when they aren't necessarily as crispy clean as they try to imagine themselves.
As a former manufacturer of electronics, let me tell ypu how I see it.
If a product has been in production when new rules are laid down, but not yet in effect, then you are allowed to continue producing that product for its normal lifetime, as long as it doesn't contain truly egregous materials.
But, if you come out with new products between the time the regs are announced and they go into effect, you are fools not to incorporate the proper materials from the get go.
When you are producing a product that will be sold worldwide, you have to make sure that you meet, or exceed EVERY possible reg that is in effect, or is going to be in effect, as well as ones that are not yet approved, but will be, and that's for every jurisdiction your product will be sold into.
No doubt, this can be a burden, but that's no excuse for not doing it. Every manufacturer has to meet the same regs, so it's fair. If a company doesn't want to meet some regs, they don't have to sell into that market.
Apple is too visable to get away with it, though other companies have their products tested as well.
Why aren't companies that still manufacture CRT monitors held under the same accountability?
There are exceptions for essential products that can't be produced without using certain materials.
But, the laws there are being tightened as well.
The same is true of compact fluorescent bulbs, and other products, such as batteries. Remember mercury cells? Not legal, except for certain restricted uses. Nickel-cadmium? Can't be made any other way, though I won't be surprised if, in a few years, once other battery types have mostly eliminated them, that it won't be legal to make products that can use them, and later, ban the use of Ni-cads altogether.
I found a Sept '07 version of the report sited above, and Apple went from a score of 2.7 to 5.3 out of 10. Possibly this kind of pressure bears fruit.
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/conten...onics-ap-5.pdf
To compare against Nokia: http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/conten...kia-rank-2.pdf
To me, my main concern is comparing like -to- like. I didn't like comparing Apple's current iPhone to Nokia's 2008 plans.
Comparing these 2 pdfs is much more useful. And Apple should step up
Hiro, that's still a year late.
This is a hot issue for us Apple users, but it is partly Apple's fault that Greenpeace is after them. They've made statements over the years about being "green", but haven't really done as much as they could have for being so forward on the issue.
And, by the way, just because the law says that companies have some time to elininate these components doesn't mean that companies must wait until that comes into effect. They can act sooner, out of public interest. It's also good publicity.
I would think that after Job's statements earlier this year, they would have been more careful, at least for the sake of not having this kind of publicity. It wasn't smart to go ahead without making sure that this product met all applicable laws and regulations that either are in effect, ot that will shortly be in effect.
Remember that it will cost Apple more to have the product redesigned with these slightly different components than if they had been used in the first place.
This was a slip-up of the first order. But, remember where these are being made. Because of that (unless Apple approved of using these materials) more vigilance was required.
No this isn't a slip up of the first order. Apple is under threat of being sued, in California by a California organization, for having chemicals inside the phone which are still legal to put in baby chew toys.
Would it be good PR for Apple to substitute them, yes. I also don't buy the measurements reported though. Those were "carefully" chosen misleading statements about the actual amounts of materials in question. The prop 65 warning is also a poorly reported issue. It does not require labeling of PVC products unless they have lead which will rub off on fingers at or above a certain rate. Not all PVC has that issue, nor does prop 65 refer to any internal components, only external parts which would come into daily contact with a persons skin.
Prop 65 analysis site
Maybe if some of these organizations actually read what they use as justification they might actually be able to be taken seriously. But it's all about PR and they need to strike while the product is hot.
Are BFRs really that hazardous to our health?
Is there an alternative?
Brominated Flame Retardants have been included for safety reasons: they make the internal plastic components more resistant to heat and less likely to burn.
Are BFRs really that hazardous to our health?
Is there an alternative?
They are a known carcinogen. They were eliminated as fire retardents for childrens clothing years ago.
PVC is hazardous?? Jesus tapdancing Christ, that means like half my wardrobe is toxic (yes kids, I wear PVC/Latex).
OK, so it's not a coffin, though wearing things made from any artificial material feels like a form-fit coffin to me.
Liberal activists and Democrats these days can be categorized as two different species. All these non-profits, Greenpeace, MediaMatters buffoons all failed the burger-flipping test.
I agree with you. Everyone wants a piece of the pie and there are a bunch of them that the only way they can do it is slime their way into it.
Outlandish activism is hardly an affliction that only affects one party. But I don't think it's an argument that should be carried out here.
They are a known carcinogen. They were eliminated as fire retardents for childrens clothing years ago.
Well, when your kids start wearing parts of iPhones for clothing let us know.
Greenpeace really annoys me and I'm green. The Al Gore kinda green where technology isn't evil green.