Why are these toxic manufacturers literally getting away with murder? It's because the Bushies don't care who gets hurt or who dies from what as long as their rich cronies get high profits. This is criminal behavior from criminal Bushies and criminal CEOs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whilst I normally applaud Greenpeace in almost everything else they do, in this they have published seriously flawed findings! So, borrowing heavily from an excellent exposé of the Greenpeace findings by Daniel Eran Dilger, a tech consultant, here's some background:

The report lists the results of hundreds of lab tests performed on five laptops Greenpeace acquired:

• Acer Aspire 5672WLMi
• Apple MacBook Pro
• Dell Latitude D810
• HP Pavillon dv-4357EA
• Sony Vaio VGN-FJ 180

Each was tested for a range of chemicals restricted by the RoHS, as well substances that are not banned: PVC, a plastic commonly used to insulate wires, and TBBPA, a flame retardant.

Interestingly, the lab tests provided results entirely opposite to the "Greener Guide" rankings which Greenpeace distributed earlier this month!

Greenpeace made a big deal about non-regulated flame retardants in their earlier report, and specifically attacked Apple in a splashy press release for not having published information on their website about chemical usage not restricted in the RoHS or other government or industry regulations.

Interestingly the lab tests only found 262 ppm of TBBPA (a non-regulated flame retardant) in the internal fan assembly of the MacBook Pro on test. That's one quarter of the amount legally allowed of the restricted flame retardants.

In other words, if Apple were using a regulated toxic chemical, they could get away with using four times as much and still meet the strict RoHS standard.

The notebook from HP was found to be non-compliant with the RoHS; however, despite ranking Apple "so low in the overall guide" that it required special mention in the press release, Apple's MacBook Pro was found to be compliant, even though the unit was purchased in Europe in March 2006, three months ahead of the RoHS regulatory cut off date.

The HP laptop was also the only test unit found to contain lead in the samples taken. Dell had the highest overall bromine concentration for circuit boards, fans and external plastic parts. Sony had the highest concentration of bromine in internal plastic connectors. So why target Apple specifically in the press release and in this story?

Also interesting was what Greenpeace didn’t find. After nearly two hundred tests for chromium, they found none of the cancer causing hexavalent chromium in any of the laptops, which is great to hear. All in all, there was less chromium found in the tests than one would find in common silverware.

Greenpeace eventually apologised for their misleading [to put it kindly] press release, albeit in a rather oblique way.

So why does Alternet play the same card in this nearly two week old report?

Before any of you anal retentive types out there attack me for my comments, reread the lead paragraph in my response. I have financially supported Greenpeace countless times over the years, but on this story they are wrong. They resorted to sensationalizing a report - by highlighting the buzz company of the moment, in Apple - to justify the huge amounts of money they spent on a report that ultimately showed very little when the details are broken down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It seems that the political arena has entered the computer/technology arena. I too have wondered why Apple is being targeted for this "toxic" claim. In the past I have noticed that many innovations Apple has introduced are immediately taken to task and shot down. Why? Apple is the inventor of the personal computer and all the good things that follow that. There are some heavy-duty competitors out there for control of techno world. Always read between the lines!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As someone who is very concerned about the environment, I generally applaud the efforts of Greenpeace. However, as an engineer I am also realistic about pollution. There will always be some level of pollution in an industrialized society. It is an unpleasant task to try to draw a line in the sand on concentrations of pollutants that are acceptable, but it must be done so long as the consumerist feeding frenzy is in full swing. It's impossible and financially untenable to drive the pollutant concentrations and the resulting risk from these pollutants to zero. This is especially true since the demand for (and resulting production of) massive quantities of non-essential goods is accelerating here in the US and around the world.

By far the best answer to this pollution from consumer goods is to substantially reduce the consumption of these good (preferably via world-wide population reduction and change in consumer habits). We see no environmental benefit from reducing the concentration of pollutants in a cell phone, for example, to one-tenth while increasing production by 20x. The advent of these "green" machines will only make people feel more comfortable with consuming even more. I mean, why on earth do we need a brand new telephone every 2 years when our old one lasted us 20 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This report is bullshit sensationalism. It has already been debunked.

Greenpeace Lies About Apple

Greenpeace Apologizes For Apple Stink

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unfortunately, it's reporting of this kind that gives anti-environmentalists the ammunition to call greens knee jerk and reactionary. This article makes it sound as if every laptop user has a personal Love Canal on their lap.

As others have stated, the fact is that this and every other consumer product is of course a collection of toxic materials, or precursors to toxic materials (PVCs are particularly troublesome when they're burned which is a common way to treat solid waste). The same can be said for the typical medicine cabinet, or the cabinet below the sink where you might have your household cleaners. Let's not talk about the average American garage, or all the plastic wrap and garbage we end up with from the grocery store. Or bottled water for that matter.

PC makers like HP or Dell have more incentive to differentiate themselves from one another since there are multiple players- and over the years they have experimented with different materials and designs to lessen their impact at end-of-life. Apple does this b/c of its corporate image, lest we forget that people won't buy a Mac solely b/c it's greener than a Windows machine.

The irony is that many of the chemicals that raise concern are chosen precisely to enhance the safety of the product during its operation. The classic case is the use of fire retardant plastics- halogenated compounds are used to make sure a computer during a fire doesn't make things worse. Sitting there, a plastic treated with a fire retardant doesn't pose a big risk. It's when they're subjected to the high temperatures of a waste incinerator that potential carcinogens can be released into the air. Engineers also choose materials to enhance the product's use of course- special materials to make batteries last longer, other materials to shield the computer or things nearby from radio frequency inteference, yet other materials to make it lighter, stronger, or to give it a feel and look that makes the product more attractive.

Until recently, these designers have not thought about "end of life," i.e., what happens to the computer when it's time to toss it?

Landfills are a medieval end-of-life technology, completely unsuited to deal with the 21st c. reality of huge population and rapid technical change. We just want our garbage out of the way so that we don't walk in, see, or smell it. When the population was smaller, and waste tended to be more organic in nature (i.e., more biodegradable), this did not pose a problem. Now that we are much more populous and continue to introduce thousands of new kinds of chemicals into our economies which are now ending up in landfills, we need to rethink about what we do with our discarded waste, and create systems that are in line with these new goals. It's possible that if computer makers were forced to retrieve their products once they were no longer useful, designers would choose different materials and make the computer easy to dismantle from which to harvest or mine used materials for another application. The giant Xerox copiers used to be leased, not sold, to customers. As a result, they're designed to be easily serviced in situ, and it's likely their parts are interchangeable and reusable across product lines.

As someone who worked on this issue in one of the aforementioned companies, I do applaud the efforts of NGOs (and government agencies) to keep the pressure up- I've witnessed it to be a positive influence on designers' decisions. But if the author of this article thinks HP and Apple are maliciously poisoning their products, anyone can think of a hundred other, much, much bigger fish to fry.

Why doesn't Greenpeace work with computer makers to come up with a plan to improve this public good, the processing of materials at their end-of-life?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Launch the positives, and globally; saturate the market. Repeal the estate tax. When the negatives begin to emerge, that's an issue for the 'public sector'. Oh, and don't forget to beef up our 'defense' and police forces- just in case. And don't worry too much, the 'invisible hand' will make everything all right since we all are rational actors and agents participating in these wonders of the knowledge revolution. And watch that Economy grow!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Apple Recycling Program. Purchase any qualifying Apple computer or monitor and receive free recycling of your old computer and monitor — regardless of manufacturer."

Click here for more info.

AlterNet should really fact-check before posting articles like this - I'm extremely disappointed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everyone who reads this has to either own or have access to a computer. Regardless of the brand, every manufacturer of electronic equipment has to use materials that could pose a health hazard.

What matters is that the use of such materials is done properly and in a manner that keeps their use to a minimum. Whatever type or kind of computer you sit at, it has been made with toxic compounds and a number of the same have been produced as a by-product of their manufacture. Otherwise, you are already involved in this issue.

The stats used by Greenpeace have already been shown to be inaccurate by a number of independent fact checks. Apple, while not perfect, actually has not the worst but some of the best stats in this issue. The Greenpeace report is just sensationalistic bunk and has done a disservice to Greenpeace's reputation, that of Apple Computer and the public Greenpeace purports to serve.

Apple has a good track record in many ways regarding the environment. First, long before the global warming issue came to common attention, Apple has produced some of the most energy efficient computers available on the market. Less energy use means less fossil fuels burned to run your computer.

Second, they recycle computers, iPods and laptop batteries. These days they will not only take their product, but that of any competitor and see that it is properly recycled.

Third, they have to use the materials and processes available to them. You may want a fuel cell car, but cannot buy one yet as the cars and supporting infrastructure do not exist yet. Likewise, Apple and others can only choose among the materials and processes currently available in order to manufacture their products.

Apple has as good a track record in this area as any major manufacturer and has been unjustly attacked for some overzealous, headline seeking person. Any time someone passes off shoddy, poorly vetted and incorrect 'reporting' they have done more harm to their cause than good. The ends do not justify the means. Disinformation is wrong- whatever the source.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]