um reasonable concern was raised LAST TIME Greenpeace did this. The organization is at best a extremist organization that many of its founding members want nothing to do with. They have for years gone out of their way to misrepresent the truth.

Is Pear Audio a subsidiary of Greenpeace?

Damn dirty hippies.

So, they were able to knock down one of the concerns Greenpeace has, and suddenly they are now the bad guys? Certainly, if Greenpeace is playing fast a loose with the facts, they need to hear that - but, to only focus on one point and ignore the rest is a bit of a red herring.

I can't blame Greenpeace to try to advance their corporate agenda, as I can't blame the manufacturers to try to advance theirs. At the end, I think this power fights benefit consumers in the long run. Or maybe I'm just being naive.

@strider_mt2k: they are hardly hippies anymore. That's why one of the founders left and criticize their politicization.

[rant]The sad fact is that, like everything in this world, once an organization get really big, they get corporate and become part of "the establishment," another piece of the global consuming machinery. Like indie films, indie music, etc.

Not that I'm an anarchist (yet another movement that has become a brand), but if you look at the world now, most of it is all about money and branding.[/rant]

What happened to you, Greenpeace?
It used to be about the whales . . .and getting oil drums dropped on your Zodiac.
If I actually dontated money to them, I would be a little more than steamed that this is what they are using it for.

@Monty: it's not that Greenpeace are the bad guys. It's just that this article just scratched the surface of their report and promptly discovered that Greenpeace's methodology and their claims are weak and faulty, which raises doubts about the whole thing.

In other words, if they apparently didn't do their homework for the BFRs, should we question their other claims as well?

I think we should. Cross-examination, rebuttals, tests, peer review is what drives the truth forward, not faith in what organization X or Y says. I'm looking forward Greenpeace's rebuttal to this, as well as a clarification of their methodology and what it all actually means.

In other words, less flashy videos and more hard core arguments.

At this point, however, the whole debate is quite empty: 1) Apple complies with international regulations and 2) they already said they are phasing out these components in time a long time ago.

The above fails to mention that "electronics industry analyst" is in fact the press release from:

BSEF the international organisation of the bromine chemical industry.

An industry lobby group will of course they say the study is allegedly flawed - they exist to promote the use of bromine.

They are on the attack because other companies have already phased out their toxic chemicals from phones and Apple will be doing it in 2008.

JesusDiaz

I work for Greenpeace - if you are interested in our rebuttal and will publish it I'll be happy to provide it. In the mean time the debate is not empty, these chemicals are still being used and still ending up polluting people and the environment especially where electronics are dumped, like China.

Here's a scientific study that I'm sure the Bromine Industry lobby doesn't like either:

[pubs.acs.org]

@TominAms: um no the above article fails to mention it because the press release was not FROM them. Reading comprehension is your friend, the article was from EMSNow, they cited the BSEF though but the release was not FROM them.

The EMSNow story is basically the same as the BSEF press release

[www.bsef.com]

At least MacWorld is clear on who's behind the story:

"Naturally, the chemical company trade body is protecting its own vested interests, but claims that its remit is "to ensure that the best available scientific information is used when addressing" issues concerning bromine."

[www.macworld.co.uk]

@TominAms: I love how Greenpeace is saying a naturally occurring chemical that is present in massive amounts in our environment is polluting it....

@TominAms: Thanks for the info. That's helpful.

But do you have any information that Apple's producers are doing the same things as the general survey of the industry that you cite?

The reality is that quality control in China varies widely from one factory to another. While I assume that fewer toxic chemicals is always a good thing, the specific oversight, handling and disposal of these chemicals by particular companies seems to be more important.

@TominAms: Well can you blame them going after you since your basically saying that a element that is present in .2% of seawater is dangerous... yet it is vital for our body.

Granted high amounts are dangerous, thats quite clear... but we are not talking about high amounts here are we? But you dont want to admit that fact because it goes against your extremist agenda doesn't it?

Are you suggesting the Greenpeace has no credibility? Who ever would have thought?

@TominAms: That's right. Article corrected. The claims against Greenpeace still stand, however. Like I said in the original article:

While the article is as impartial as the Greenpeace Corporation's report, and only deals with bromine but not the rest of the allegedly hazardous substances present in the iPhone (and other cellphones) according to Greenpeace, it raises reasonable concerns over the organization's research methodology.

Both Greenpeace and their industry have their own interests and, from here, it looks like both are trying to advance their PR agendas at the expense of Apple.

As for providing with an official Greenpeace rebuttal to these claims, please contact me via email. Thanks!

Falconfire seems to believe that if something is present dissolved in seawater and necessary for life - as, for instance, arsenic is - then any other form and location should be no big deal, except as part of an "extremist agenda". Perhaps bromine in seawater is just dandy, but sucking up some bromine gas wouldn't be. Similarly, sea salt is nice on my french fries, but if you drink seawater, you die. And chemical concentration is NOT always low at manufacturing sites - just visit Jersey City sometime.

Speaking as neither a member of the bromine industry nor Greenpeace, the whole "naturally present" argument is an irrelevant and pointless debating point often used by corporate shills (and some in the herbal supplement industry) to trivialize potential dangers. Hemlock and botulism grow naturally. So what?

I'm just glad that groups like GreenPeace use their donations for creating and developing safer materials for us and not just complaining and painting porsches like piggies.....oops.

@Falconfire: Methane and CO2 are also naturally occurring compounds. Anything in excess is potentially harmful, on both a personal and a global scale.

For example, water is a naturally occurring compound. The human body, composed of roughly 70% water needs it too survive. Too much water is deadly. Just look at the late James McBride, who died of hyponatremia during a marathon in which he had drunk up to 3 gallons of water before and during the race.

The key is balance. Saying that a naturally occurring compound should not be considered a pollutant takes an overly parochial view of what a pollutant is.

Greenpeace has tarnished the environmentalist movement.

Greenpeace is to the environmental movement as PETA is to the animal welfare movement - they both use hyperbole to achieve their results. The only reason that Greenpeace isn't dismissed outright is because when Greenpeace started, they really did good work. Unfortunately, they've corrupted themselves into their current form that cares more about press releases than doing actual environmental work.

Let's face it; Greenpeace is attacking a target of opportunity. The target has no real significance except that it gets then boat loads of free publicity...albeit bad publicity. Had another company come out with a product with this much hype, they probably would be attacking that target. Oops...did I say probably? I meant "definitely". Apple should treat this like it is; a whole lot of nothing.

Gizmodo's attribution here is poor. The source of the rebuttal is a press release from the BSEF. From the article (and the BSEF website):

"BSEF is the international organisation of the bromine chemical industry, whose remit is to inform stakeholders and commission science on brominated chemicals such as flame retardants."

Gizmodo's source is EMSNow, an electronics industry blog that has reprinted the BSEF press release.

I should hope that the importance of correctly attributing a rebuttal about the use of bromides to the bromine chemical industry is obvious.

Gizmodo should further correct the heading of their article.

@flotson: No, you are wrong.

The headline was corrected minutes after this story was published earlier this morning. It's Gizmodo policy to keep the original term struck next to the correction to show our factual edits. Same in the text. "Electronics Industry Group Dismisses Greenpeace Claims on iPhone" is a perfectly correct headline.

As for source attribution, I found the information in EMSnow no in the interest group sit. Unlike other blogs, we always link to the publication in which we find the information (in this case, the PR note.) EMSnow didn't show any linke that I could see to the original source at the time of publication.

Anyone who has followed Apple for long has seen activists from Greenpeace or other environmental groups bash the company’s use of toxic or difficult to recycle materials in its products.