Post by: Paddy on October 15, 2007, 09:59:28 PM
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/10/15/greenpeace/index.php
While I agree that Apple probably could have done a better job with materials since Nokia manages it, I can't help but think that Apple has just become one big target lately.
So, are we to assume that the "60 days notice" of the filing of the lawsuit is the "communication" the Center for Environmental Health is talking about?
Post by: krissel on October 15, 2007, 11:45:41 PM
http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California/CA_Sc...s_311177C.shtml
The phthalates are used to help with the plasticity of products and are only banned in children's products because they might put them in their mouth. If you're leaving your iPhone earbuds lying about for a kid to suck on its cable....
The brominated compounds are there for flame retardency. The problem with this would be in the damage to the environment when the iPhone is end of life. That might be a legit concern if other materials are available that could be substituted.
But Greenpeace is using the popularity of the iPhone to piggyback and get headlines, of course.
The full report says in part:
QUOTE
Although the use of PVC and phthalate esters is not currently prohibited or even regulated under RoHS, it is worth noting that none of the four phthalates found in this study are permitted for use in components of toys or childcare articles sold in Europe.
QUOTE
it is possible to conclude that the flexible antenna circuit board, at least, would be in compliance with existing EU laws on the presence of brominated flame retardants
So the real concern is this:
QUOTE
Although none of the BFRs covered by RoHS could be detected in the sample with the highest bromine content (10% by weight, in the flexible circuit board of the phone's antenna), all forms of BFR (even if chemically-bound into polymers) can act as a significant source of toxic and persistent brominated pollutants once the iPhone handset enters the waste stream.
Read the report yourself:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/...hone-s-haza.pdf
Post by: Paddy on October 17, 2007, 11:52:26 AM
Apple says iPhone complies with eco standards
Legally, I'm not sure how far the Center for Environmental Health is going to get on this one. Apple has broken no laws - I don't seen any grounds for a lawsuit. But hey...that has never stopped your average lawyer yet, has it?
As for the phthalate issue, even with the new legislation, Apple has not broken any laws:
QUOTE
Beginning in 2009, any product made for young children that contains more than one tenth of one percent of phthalates cannot be made, sold or distributed in California.
(emphasis mine)
Unless of course, the Center for Environmental Health wants to claim that iPhones are the ultimate baby accessory. After all, this IS California we're talking about!
Post by: LR827 on October 17, 2007, 12:08:51 PM
QUOTE(Paddy @ Oct 17 2007, 11:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...Unless of course, the Center for Environmental Health wants to claim that iPhones are the ultimate baby accessory. After all, this IS California we're talking about!
Very good!
Post by: Gregg on October 17, 2007, 12:09:46 PM
QUOTE(Paddy @ Oct 17 2007, 11:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Legally, I'm not sure how far the Center for Environmental Health is going to get on this one. Apple has broken no laws - I don't seen any grounds for a lawsuit. But hey...that has never stopped your average lawyer yet, has it?
.....depends on which political party controls the executive branch. Really, it does!