Greenpeace dismantles iPhone, discovers "hazardous chemicals"

Apple's no stranger to being slammed by Greenpeace, and while Steve certainly spoke of a "Greener Apple," it seems that the iPhone wasn't included. According to tests arranged by the entity, it was found that the iPhone contained "toxic brominated compounds (indicating the presence of brominated flame retardants) and hazardous PVC," which are said to be disallowed across the pond due to RoHS requirements. More specifically, the independent testing found "brominated compounds in half the samples, including in the phone's antenna, in which they made up 10-percent of the total weight of the flexible circuit board." As expected, Greenpeace wasted no time pointing to rival firms that have received pats on the back for their green efforts, and subsequently shook a finger at Apple while murmuring "tsk tsk" -- but we'll leave the actual politicking to you all in comments, cool?

Update: Our bad, Greenpeace does not claim that Apple is in violation of RoHS requirements.

[Via Switched, thanks Laura]

[BananaBoat @ Oct 15th 2007 3:53PM]

All Greenpeace ever does is whine. Who cares what it's made of.

[paul34 @ Oct 15th 2007 3:58PM]

Funny how its such a big deal about Apple. Welcome to the world of electronics - have you taken a look at other electronics lately, Greepeace? Yea, those things you used ot type up your whining.

[Dax @ Oct 15th 2007 3:59PM]

These people are psycho.

[Arthur Hall @ Oct 15th 2007 4:00PM]

Spoken like a true apple fanboy.

Tell me, whats your plan for helping the enviroment?

[mark wright @ Oct 15th 2007 4:04PM]

Well Aurthur Hall, YOU could start by getting off your energy consuming computer and stop posting on the internet taking up more bandwidth thus more energy consumption. Plus the energy it took for me to read that was just a waste also, furthermore the energy used to type this response was a waste also.

[required @ Oct 15th 2007 4:08PM]

just wondering mark wright, what makes you so certain aurthur hall's computer is wasting dirty energy and not clean renewables?

[w00fy @ Oct 15th 2007 4:09PM]

Okay, I'm not an iPhone fan and do no plan on getting one but Greenpeace is really full of crap. Apple is a nice target of opportunity. The iPhone just happened to have wandered in the crosshairs of a bunch of self-important psychos with a political agenda.

[Rik @ Oct 15th 2007 4:09PM]

Well i'm not a Apple fanboy but Greenpace is whining yes, those guys should get proper jobs...

[Argot @ Oct 15th 2007 4:10PM]

@mark wright:

If Nokia, SonyEricsson, Samsung and the others can make cellphones without poision in them, then why not Apple?

[timothy @ Oct 15th 2007 7:04PM]

The point is for them to "whine," also known as educating people about threats to the environment."

When your grandchild is dying because of a leaking landfill filled with dead iPhones, you'll be the one whining.

[dagamer34 @ Oct 15th 2007 4:37PM]

Especially since Apple already pledged to remove this stuff by the end of 2008. Is it the end of 2008 Greenpeace?

Lame.

http://www.apple.com/environment/

[Johan S @ Oct 15th 2007 8:45PM]

I think Greenpeace just wants money and publicity so they are going after Apple.

Now there's a good way for "environmentalists" to make money -sling accusations and then become consultants.

I think Apple is as environmentally concious as they need be (Al Gore being on their board must help).

Thanks to their totally irrational behavior, greenpeace has done nothing for the world's poor, or the environment. They have not solved any real environmental issues .. all they have done is slow economic growth in every country including the industrialized ones. At best, they have shifted pollution from some countries into others.

They should be working on cheaper ways to return the hazardous chemicals back to the natural soil and state .. not dissing companies. After all, if something came from the earth, it can be processed and returned back to it.

[D.L. @ Oct 15th 2007 6:20PM]

"I think Apple is as environmentally concious as they need be (Al Gore being on their board must help)."

Do you really think Steve Jobs takes advice about how to run Apple from Al Gore?

[James Cameron @ Oct 15th 2007 6:26PM]

@ BananaBoat

At least they are doing the dirty job for you/us and getting shit on by others while some of us are sitting on our ass thinking of new way to pollute. But it's something worth fighting for since if it weren't for the people like them, we would have nice chemical in our beautiful lakes and drinking water. We wuold probably continue to abuse and burn fossil fuel(you'll probably enjoyed living in a nice smog cities), use gasoline/oil in our car and wouldn't even think about creating new cleaner vehicles.

[Phreak511 @ Oct 15th 2007 6:28PM]

Ah..Greenpeace. Bunch of 20 soemthings who feel guilty about their trust funds. If they really wanted to reduce their carbon-footprints and help the environment from toxins, they would eat their own shit and breathe in their farts.


Oh, what...they do that anyway.

[MrFuNKy76 @ Oct 15th 2007 3:58PM]

Here we go again...

[Yem @ Oct 15th 2007 5:06PM]

Yeah really. Mention greenpeace and every ignorant nerd jumps immediately to the comments to mouth off. I can't be arsed responding; it's not even trolling, it's pure self-ownage.

[r3loaded @ Oct 15th 2007 5:10PM]

Lol, you just reminded of that Ok Go song! I suppose Greenpeace is putting Apple on the treadmill and sneakily turning the speed up, while ignoring the LED backlit (and hence mercury-free) MacBook Pro :p

[James @ Oct 15th 2007 5:27PM]

Looks like the jesus phone kills people. Doesn't sound very jesus-like

[Mmm Vapor @ Oct 15th 2007 3:59PM]

Who still cares about this piece. Apple sucks and will always suck. Despite having a mac book pro they still suck donkey balls. And greenpeace are some of the few people to realize that Only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize we cannot eat money. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it stupid apple fan.

[Steve Butler @ Oct 15th 2007 4:50PM]

Seriously; is it me or do all Apple haters use the phrase 'donkey balls' [usually preceded by sucks] what's with that? Is that the best insult they could come up with? Apple haters are just pathetic; they're usually jealous and mostly Windows users who've never used a Mac. I'm a Windows user saving for a Mac and I think Apple is one of the best companies around because they really care about their customers; they make things fun an interesting! When was the last time Microsoft got one of their top members of staff to jump off a platform to test an accelerometer or when was the last time Samsung/Motorola/LG got a HUGE WORLDWIDE hype buzz about a new phone? I know it's bad that Apple have put some harmful parts in their small pocket product but knowing Apple they'll find a way to recycle them safely and they I bet their new iPhone will be completely harmless to everything and everyone but then again the Apple haters would hate that because then they would have nothing to moan about they would just be more jealous.

I would also like to point out that Apple do not kill trees, poison rivers or catch fish. Also can I add that smoking is harmful to the environment therefore I shall not stick 'that' in any pipe and smoke it.

[Mmm Vapor @ Oct 15th 2007 4:58PM]

i own an apple and bottom line apple may not cut down tree's or pollute river or catch fish. But when does a corporation become environmentally conscience about its product it produces and sells to consumers. Make a safe product for all and i wont have any beef. Until apple becomes greener they can proceed to lick my ass and suck on my donkey's balls.

[siriusfox @ Oct 15th 2007 6:17PM]

I'm sorry. No mater your opinions on Apple, I refuse to join the church of the environment. And that's what it is. It is a belief, and if you don't share the belief and repent your sins by becoming "carbon neutral" or by using "green technology" you will die a fiery death in the environmental apocalypse.

Greenpeace didn't start as a radical extremest group, but they have become so.

[Sam @ Oct 15th 2007 3:59PM]

ROFLcopter City.

1) If they're disallowed across the pond, they should buy one at the London Apple Store and open THAT up.
2) What other phones have they opened up?
3) Are you going to eat it?

[Zach @ Oct 15th 2007 4:07PM]

Car Exhaust is hazardous and because we don't eat it we shouldn't worry right?

Same thing with Uranium right? Yummy.

BTW, they're targeting Apple because last time I checked, Apple owns about 75% or more of the MP3 Players business. That's a lot of iPods.

Obviously we can't be environmentally friendly yet support electronics, or at least from the above posters I get that impression.

[AdamY @ Oct 15th 2007 4:42PM]

@ Zach

I think, if I might be so bold as to interpret, the real beef that seems to arise is that GP seems to have fluctuating standards across the board.

You'd argue that pursuing the iPod meant targeting marketshare, but targeting the iPhone, assuming it makes the sales numbers Jobso predicts, would only be a 1% effect, as it's only 1% of the market, or will/might be.

It's the same reason Engadget posts about it here: it drives viewers.

Greenpeace gets their exposure, their hits, their donations, their political capital, their clout, and all they have to do is portray a hideously popular media device in an unpopular light.

See for instance their comment about the non-removable battery being more difficult to recycle... Doesn't it seem that this "fact" could also be painted to read "Because Apple doesn't let the user replace the battery, Joe Sixpack isn't throwing his away; the company takes over the impetus for recycling!!"

But then again, the headline: "iPhone: Still not destroying the world." isn't as catchy.

Greenpeace thrives by pursuing its agenda, and marketing is a MAJOR factor in pushing that agenda. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Greenpeace

Greenpeace, like Apple, like GWBush, like Samsung, like the DoD, is selling you something. If it's what you're in the market for, I suppose you ought to buy it. But that doesn't mean we can't examine their claims with a less critical eye.

[Hollywood Ron @ Oct 15th 2007 4:43PM]

And if this were about the iPod, you might have a good point Zach.

[Bob @ Oct 16th 2007 4:50PM]

@ Zach .....well said

[vanboy @ Oct 15th 2007 4:00PM]

It is important that we, customers, stay away from toxic compounds. There are many young kids trying to look cool with an iPhone but in fact it is harming their bodies.

[Tim @ Oct 15th 2007 4:07PM]

explains why Jackass was a cultural phenomenon, huh?

[Shane @ Oct 15th 2007 4:16PM]

Yes, because so many young kids eat the internal contents of their electronic devices thus being exposed to harmful levels of lead and other toxins...I'm all for protecting our bodies and the environment but this is ridiculous.

RoHS was a huge deal for any manufacturer doing business internationally. I find it hard to believe that Apple would make a device (for any market) that wasn't RoHS compliant.

[easymac30 @ Oct 15th 2007 4:23PM]

I qualify as one of those young people that owns an iPhone, and I forgot to open it and ingest the contents!!

What HAVE I been doing with my life? I didn't know you're supposed to eat electronic devices!

Wait...only a moron would actually believe that a closed device containing chemicals that can only harm a person when ingested would actually be an issue.

Oh, and vanboy; I love how you bring to light that only young people can be harmed by this. I suppose my boss is perfectly safe, then?

Please enlighten me further.

[Grant @ Oct 15th 2007 4:24PM]

Did you know:
Bromine actually absorbs radiation.
Now even though bromine is a toxic substance, it is at the same time probably absorbing some of that "harmful" cell radiation that a small part of the public believes will kill them.

So don't eat or lick your fucking phone and the bromine will only work to your benefit.
Jackass.

[Conor @ Oct 15th 2007 9:55PM]

Are you referring to the muggings or the chemicals ;)

[Conor @ Oct 16th 2007 2:11PM]

Harming their bodies when they get mugged for it, or the chemicals?

[oelewapperke @ Oct 15th 2007 4:00PM]

No worries. Greenpeace will discover just how spineless and luxury dependant their fanbase really is.

I doubt they could survive 20 minutes without lip gloss or a comb.

I actually met several of these nutcases that still have a minx scarf in the closet "for old time's sake".

[Argot @ Oct 15th 2007 4:11PM]

You forgot to mention that they also eat babies.

[Mark @ Oct 15th 2007 8:10PM]

Argot, (in Australian accent) Greenpeace ate ma bayby!!!
Sure, now Greenpeace are evil. ANYthing to exhonerate Apple from responsibilities that ALL multi-mega-gazillio-corporations have.

[Chicksta @ Oct 15th 2007 4:01PM]

I don't see why that matters, unless someone is careless/thoughtless enough to dispose of their electronic devices in an inappropriate manner. We have specific recycling programs for cell phones and other electronics; maybe they should focus more attention on improving those (and the awareness of them) and expend/waste less time being useless critics (it's always easier to attack criticize than it is to be helpful, isn't it?).

[HineyWipe @ Oct 15th 2007 4:27PM]

I don't see the issue here. I mean, most folks that purchase Apple products, keep their computers 2-3x longer than the PC user. And I bet most recycle or resell on ebay!

http://www.rbrc.org/call2recycle/

[thekid @ Oct 15th 2007 4:37PM]

I don't see reason not to do both. First I think you're giving people far to much credit in the way of disposing of things appropriately. I don't know where you're from that you see people taking that kind of responsibility but I assure you most people don't care to give that sort of time/energy/money.

Why can't this not be a problem in the first place? Everyone's pissing on greenpeace because it reviewed a popular consumer product for bad materials. Or more to the point, it found bad materials.

How is being a critic and proving information to people a useless? If you don't care, than don't don't care. You make it sound like because of this everyone has to give up their iphones.

Some people may want to know about these things before they lay out hundreds of dollars on something their going to have next their head for long periods of time. I'm chemically sensitive, so while this is useless for you, it's not for me.

[seoultrain @ Oct 15th 2007 5:07PM]

I threw away a broken vcr a few years ago by bashing it into pieces with a baseball bat, then throwing it away with my other trash. And before you say that isn't the proper way of disposing electronics, that's only because you haven't tried it.

[James Cameron @ Oct 15th 2007 6:08PM]

@ seoultrain

I would like to use a bat on you and bash you up and throw you away with the other trash. Now that I would like to try.

Greenpeace might be a bit overboard sometime but they do have a point about our disastrous environment. We at the moment might be feeling fine about this whole thing but my grandkids and your grand kids will have to face some kind of consequences down the road and will have to clean up our mess that we were responsible for.

[Josh @ Oct 15th 2007 6:53PM]

I have never actually 'disposed' of any of my cell phones. ever.

I still have a giant paper weight of one laying on a shelf in the garage if anyone wants one.

I seriously need to try disposing of the next VCR that dies that way - seems more practical.

[Mii @ Oct 15th 2007 9:23PM]

If you need help disposing of cell phones (especially the batteries), I there are drop boxes for cell phones (working ones) in many cities where they are given to battered women for emergencies. Better than being used as a paperweight. You can probably call your cell provider for a dropoff location.

[Dax @ Oct 15th 2007 4:01PM]

..an unhinged liberal!!!

[Meldon @ Oct 16th 2007 11:04AM]

Um, Greenpeace are not liberals, they are social environmentalists. And it is a serious difference.

[CUBSWILLWIN @ Oct 15th 2007 4:01PM]

Oh Apple...

[Dr Buzz0 @ Oct 15th 2007 4:02PM]

Holy crap! PVC??? Plastics? Flame retardants? Heavy metals?

I'm glad I found out. I'll be sure to get rid of all the products I own with these hazardous chemicals in them ASAP. I wonder if I should burn them or just chuck them into the woods. Hmm.. better be safe. I'll throw them in the ocean where they won't hurt anybody.

[Chris Macdonald @ Oct 15th 2007 4:15PM]

Hahahah that comment made my day