iPhone toxic sau netoxic

Doua moduri diferite de a vedea acelasi lucru:
Greenpeace acuza ca iPhone are in componenta doua tipuri de substante chimice periculoase, respectiv PVC-uri (des folosite in industrie, insa dificil de reciclat si care cauzeaza eliminarea de bioxid in productie) si BFR-uri ("brominated flame retardants" - substante chimice care intarzie propagarea focului.

Unele dintre acestea sunt considerate poluanti organici persistenti (POP) si datorita persistentei si bioacumularii prezinta un real pericol pentru mediu si sanatatea umana). Substantele in cauza au efecte negative asupra hormonilor si pot afecta organele genitale, sustine Greenpeace.
(hotnews)

respectiv:
Greenpeace admits iPhone 'compliant' with Euro chemicals rules
Greenpeace has laid into Apple's iPhone, alleging the device isn't eco-friendly enough - only to admit that the product not only meets the terms of Apple's own pledges on the use of certain hazardous chemicals but doesn't fall foul of European Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) legislation either.

"All components tested appear to be compliant with the requirements of the EU RoHS directive," Greenpeace's 12-page write-up says. No cadmium was found. No mercury was found. The lead and chromium detected were present only "in a small proportion of samples and at relatively low concentrations". There was "no evidence... of the most toxic and regulated form of chromium".

Apple launches the iPhone in Europe, here in the UK, on 9 November, and the handsets that go on sale must, under European law, meet RoHS standards. However, Greenpeace was quick to point out that its testing wasn't sufficient to say whether the product that's sold in the US - in other words, one not subject to RoHS restrictions - would pass muster in Europe. (register.co.uk)

Raportul de la Greenpeace e aici
Si urmarile raportului Greenpeace: Apple gets sued over Greenpeace iPhone report
California's Center for Environmental Health filed legal notice of a potential lawsuit against Apple alleging under California's Proposition 65 law that the iPhone's "phthalate" content requires the company to either put warning labels on the device, or, better yet, re-engineer it so it doesn't contain the compounds at all.
CEH hasn't actually tested an iPhone for the presence of these compounds themselves -- they're working off what they, like everyone else, read in the Greenpeace report. However, they have started testing and expect to be complete before the 60 days are up.