Apple VS. Greenpeace

  Today, a comment was made regarding the iPhone is a hazardous phone after Greenpeace inspected the device. This accusation is partly true. Sure, the iPhone may contain Bromine which, i guess is considered hazardous – but what Greenpeace failed to mention is that they have not done extensive tests on OTHER phones and in a rebuttal report from the organization, you can find that they were merely targeting Apple to ride the iPhone press bandwagon. Shame-shame Greenpeace!I would like to shed some more light on the “Toxic iPhone”.The reality is – ALL phones are subject to this “toxic” build of a device. Greenpeace has ultimately simply targeted Apple and the iPhone.In point #4 of the argument, Greenpeace says: 4. The BFR most likely used in the iPhone is actually a reactive—i.e. it reacts with other substances to form a plastic and, once reacted, it is also no longer available to the environment.What about all the device dismantled by hand in China? This does no harm what-so-ever to humans, especially when taking apart a cellular phone.After questions had risen with Greenpeace accusations, the Greenpeace organization responded with a full rebuttal. In the rebuttal they say:

“While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it doesn’t mean that we are not focusing on all manufacturers” Source: Gizmodo.com

This is the heart of the matter: Greenpeace is using the iPhone (and Apple before, in Macworld) as an instrument to get more publicity, and Greenpeace’s video (as well as the targeting of a widely known 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 address or ignoring facts as the actual law doesn’t make Greenpeace look good either. As Greenpeace rebuttal points out, the law is the law. Apple or anyone else can hardly be considered guilty of anything if the laws don’t tell them that what they are doing is harmful for the environment. (If it is, in fact, harmful. We, the media, and we, the public, want to know the straight facts.)Like Greenpeace says, other manufacturers are at fault. Why do a video about Apple and the iPhone first instead of publishing their findings as a whole report, including the other manufacturers, with references, clear methodology and, hopefully, in a scientific journal or publication so it can be peer reviewed;then make an announcement and crush any company they want? Doesn’t Greenpeace think that this will give their allegations more weight rather than making them look like publicists cashing in on the latest fad? While we take the piss here in the Giz quite often, we do believe that serious accusations require serious methodology, not showmanship.  Full Story: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/greenpeace-vs-iphone/greenpeace-responds-to-alarmist-claims-admits-targeting-apple-grabs-headlines-313728.phpRebuttal: http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/2007/10/bromine_industry_lets_out_the.htmlTake my word for it and do some research, check out the links, and you’ll find that the iPhone isn’t as bad as some people say, or think, or assume, or talk about. In reality, it’s a downright sexy phone and I’m going to buy the next version – due out sometime in January.

Looks like Apple is still ahead of Microsoft in something.

Photo Source: Greenpeace.