https://gizmodo.com/electronics-industry-analyst-group-dismisses-greenpeace-313411
Greenpeace receive the debate that has been sparked by our report analyzing hazardous chemicals used in the iPhone .
We are confident that , whatever opinions are express , air this government issue will help increase pressure on producer such as Apple to do the right matter and eliminate the employment of hazardous chemical .
I ’m happy we agree on one cardinal issue — the benefit to consumers in the farsighted streamlet .
But there are a number of issue in your blog which , in the interest of unity , we would be grateful if you would address .
permit us first call the major accusal , that of “ wrong methodology ” :
– The study clearly identify bromine in a wide compass of textile and components in the iPhone . The proficiency used is widely recognize for this use ( XRF ; X - Ray Fluorescence spectrum analysis ) .
– likewise , psychoanalysis of other hazardous chemicals in the iPhone , such as phthalates , were conducted using recognised techniques .
As so many components were found to contain bromine ( 9 of the 18 material tested ) , it was not feasible for Greenpeace to undertake the panoptic and costly work necessary to determine ( as far as it is possible to do so ) the precise brominated chemical substance or chemical substance present in all these sample .
However , the study did admit additional analysis so as to characterise as fully as potential the nature of the brominate chemicals in two of the nine fabric . This relied on using an additional proficiency ( gaseous state chromatography / mass spectrometry ) , as is detailed in the theme .
Despite use of this appropriate and widely recognize proficiency it was not possible to determine the nature of the brominated chemicals in these two stuff .
This , however , was not due to the use of incorrect methodology or techniques .
As the report tell , it is likely that the bromine present in the materials is present in a reactive polymeric bod .
To prevail data by analysis on the chemical nature of the bromine in this form is exceedingly unmanageable and may not even be potential with any currently available analytical proficiency .
at last this information may only be useable from the producer themselves . Unfortunately this selective information has not been made publicly usable by Apple .
The composition does not arouse “ an alarm without any basis for doing so . ”
As the report states , due to the iPhone take bromine in whatever form , wallop can result at the intersection ’s oddment of life . These arise from the unintentional establishment of toxic brominated by - ware ( including brominated dioxins ) during some disposal or recycling operation . This has been march in another late independent scientific discipline ( Gullett , B.,K. , Linak , W.P. , Touati , A. , Wasson , S.J. , Gatica , S. , King , C.J. ( 2007 ) picture of tune emission and residuary ash tree from overt burn of electronic waste during simulated rudimentary recycling operations . Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 9(1 ): 69 - 79 . )
The other inaccuracy :
1 . Electronics Industry Analyst Group give the sack Greenpeace Claims on iPhone ?
This is inaccurate . BSEF is the external organisation of the bromine chemical industriousness . The title of the article would more accurately be : “ Chemical Industry Group Dismisses Greenpeace Claims on iPhone . ”
2 . Greenpeace study is not only alarmist , since all substances are approved for manipulation by EU regulatory requirement .
Despite current EU regulations being the most rigorous in the world , these regulations do not cover all kinds of hazardous chemicals , including all BFRs . It is for sure reasonable to expect that an diligence which pride itself on excogitation should be well ahead of the curve on take as fundamental as the employment of hazardous means .
3 . No alternatives as in effect as BFRs to prevent fires in consumer electronics :
This suggests we are stuck with BFRs . However , it is possible to importantly reduce the exercise of BFRs by substituting non - flammable fabric for plastics in nomadic telephone , as some manufacturing business already do .
4 . The BFR most probably used in the iPhone is actually a reactive — i.e. it reacts with other substances to form a plastic and , once oppose , it is also no longer available to the surround .
This fails to take into score the real - life situation in which consumer electronics are dismantled by hand , in nation such as China .
Tom also makes other allegations in his mail :
Hi ,
paste below is our rebutter for public use of goods and services — it ’s quite long but if title are made about our reports and science being wrong then it needs a long account in reply .
It ’s late in the even here in Amsterdam , I also post this on our weblog as the story has been posted on other blog .
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/ar …
We would appreciate if you either post our response text or link to the weblog with a contact from the current article . If you require it in a different format or have questions get me know .
If you call back we just dissent against Apple then look out for presently a report comprehend a wide range of producer as we have done in 2006 . While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it does n’t think that we are not focalize on all manufacturers to take out toxic chemical from their products .
Regards ,
Tom
We have published Greenpeace ’s rebuttal in its totality , but we find we also need to clarify our position regarding our reportage on this account , for Greenpeace and our readers . First , we are not fight the industry or attacking Greenpeace , even if we joke about it . We object to this :
“ While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it does n’t mean that we are not focusing on all producer ”
This is the heart of the matter : that Greenpeace is using the iPhone ( and Apple before , in Macworld ) as an official document to get more publicity , and Greenpeace ’s video ( as well as the targeting of a wide sleep together corporation and über - media - darling like Apple ) is clearly designed to take advantage of the iPhone ’s popularity to Greenpeace ’s own benefit . Failing to speak or ignoring fact as the actual law does n’t make Greenpeace see good either . As Greenpeace rebuttal manoeuver out , the law is the law . Apple or anyone else can hardly be consider guilty of anything if the laws do n’t say them that what they are doing is harmful for the environment . ( If it is , in fact , harmful . We , the medium , and we , the populace , want to know the straight facts . )
Like Greenpeace say , other manufacturers are at demerit . Why do a television about Apple and the iPhone first or else of publish their findings as a whole account , including the other manufacturers , with references , clear methodology and , hopefully , in a scientific journal or publication so it can be match reviewed ; then make an declaration and jam any party they want ? Does n’t Greenpeace reckon that this will give their allegation more weight rather than make them take care like publiciser cashing in on the latest fad ? While we take the piss here in the Giz quite often , we do believe that serious accusations command serious methodological analysis , not showmanship .
We suppose that these sort of motion harm their cause , rather than throw out it — even if we wo n’t look politically correct for saying it . It ’s leisurely to give the sack our literary criticism as “ not like Greenpeace , ” but that ’s not the case . If Greenpeace decides to act as a merchandising fellowship , the public and the media , include us , will deal them as such — as any other potbelly avid for media attention , market power , mind - share , money and stain awareness .
Greenpeace also deliberately dismiss the fact that Apple already presented a road design toget rid of these components by the ending of 2008 . We do n’t know if they did this for dramatic effect or they just do n’t rely Apple , but sure as shooting , it seems to us that — in all fair-mindedness and knowing the market reality of bringing a product like the iPhone to the market — Apple should be held accountable at the remnant of that roadmap and not now . When that clock time comes , Gizmodo will be ready to take on Apple if hope are not met .
https://gizmodo.com/apple-to-greenpeace-stop-saying-words-311235
Until then , we believe Greenpeace should be clearer on their claims unless they desire an manufacture radical to easily , and successfully , cast doubts over their news report .
Daily Newsletter
Get the best tech , skill , and refinement news in your inbox day by day .
News from the future , extradite to your present .
