Out of the millions upon millions of phones Apple produced, has anyone gotten sick from using it?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Bans Two Hazardous Chemicals From Final iPhone Assembly Process
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do you have any source to support your statements or is it just a speculative rant?
So responding to pressure and petitions is now apparently "taking the lead"? 
Interesting way to spin that I guess.
Interesting way to spin that I guess.
.................................................
orly?
Wouldn't that be nice.
Good guess.
Already used.
Now that's good to know.
No, sorry, the answer we're looking for is MagicTM.
Thanks for playing.
So........
While I doubt anyone could disagree with this and I'm sure we're all glad Apple is being transparent when it comes to manufacturing I do think Tim's Apple is a lot more PC than Steve's Apple was. Case in point the diversity numbers Apple released. I doubt that would have happened if Steve was still running the show. Even if there was pressure for him to do so he probably would have resisted it and provided a response that would have shut everyone up, IMHO.
----------
So responding to pressure and petitions is now apparently "taking the lead"?
Interesting way to spin that I guess.
What other consumer electronics company is as transparent as Apple is when it comes to manufacturing? Do HP, Dell, Lenovo, Samsung, Acer, Asus, LG, HTC, Microsoft, etc. provide this kind of information?
Had an iPhone since the release of the 3GS - I've not yet seen a reason for me to change. Only annoyance I had was the lack of tethering for a while - but that was a network issue.
OK, let them ban the chemicals but for mother earths sake - NOT because because of health concerns. Don't get me wrong. The safety of the the employees should have been top priority from the beginning.
If you ever worked in the semiconductor Industry you know that there are more than two hazardous chemicals around but with proper training and handling procedures it is safe to work with them.
But how do those fabs handle the residues of fabrication chemicals? This is by far more hazardous to the people. Because outside the Fabs - there is neither protective clothing nor ventilation.
But OK - better to care a little than not at all - every step in the right direction is welcome!
If you ever worked in the semiconductor Industry you know that there are more than two hazardous chemicals around but with proper training and handling procedures it is safe to work with them.
But how do those fabs handle the residues of fabrication chemicals? This is by far more hazardous to the people. Because outside the Fabs - there is neither protective clothing nor ventilation.
But OK - better to care a little than not at all - every step in the right direction is welcome!
Good on Apple, but I'm sure that won't stop people from complaining about why they didn't do this years ago. Some might even complain that they didn't do this before Apple existed at all just to have an excuse to bash them about it.
how twisted is your logic?
we are talking about hazardous chemicals linked with leukemia and nerve damage and you use words like complain and bash for people to have expectations from apple to not use them.
i dont get this kind of perverted loyalty towards any company (no matter its name or country)
So there was no safety issue.
If there was no safety issue, why did they ban such commonly used chemicals?
Oh. Because of the protest in front of the Fifth Avenue store last April:
And online petitions.
This. Apple, Samsung and other companies are constantly telling their suppliers not to do this or that, but it happens anyway. Partly because the same companies want the parts to be as cheap as possible.
Didn't read the article, but from what I gather from the picture, Cook has gotten something of a demotion. Is anyone else as surprised as I am?
..I sort of thought the more obvious implications might be safer environments for workers.
..I sort of thought the more obvious implications might be safer environments for workers.
Well, also because benzene is a pretty unpleasant compound. Even if you can handle it safely (I use it from time to time for various reactions), disposing of it has to be taken into account.
The same is true for hexane, which is a neurotoxin.
When all you're doing is degreasing components, then you can usually find something that is less toxic to do the job, like toluene or pentane (to name an alternative aromatic and aliphatic solvent).
There's no reason not to reduce the dependence on these sorts of compounds during the process for environmental as well as worker safety reasons.
Organic solvents like these are often destroyed by incineration. The less benzene you have to burn the better.
It's no different to reducing the use of lead in a product. It's toxic, but exposure to lead is pretty low for the workers and consumers (it's a solid, after all), but the environmental impact is high when the product reaches the end of its life.
For solvents like this that are used during manufacture (they aren't actually parts of the product), the environmental impact is up front. Reducing that impact is just as important as limiting worker exposure.
While it's clearly handled as safely as possible (the report notes no deaths from exposure), if you can avoid having large drums of benzene on the premises you eliminate the potential for an accident involving exposure or environmental contamination.
True, they are well known, commonly used chemicals, which most people are exposed to fairly often in usually small, but sometimes higher than safe, amounts.
Hexane is in glues and paints which many people use in hobbies or at work.
Benzene is in our gasoline, and we breath it around gas stations and from car exhaust.
Worse, benzene is in cigarette smoke.
I suspect that these particular final assembly Chinese workers get far more benzene exposure from automobile smog and smoking.
--
So I agree it's a nice move, and might help a bit, but it's more about PC than safety.
It would be helpful to know what is replacing them.
Unless it means a poorer quality device, or a price increase of more than $0.01, or a longer repair time, or a longer time between product launches.
If people really cared about these workers they'd refuse to purchase anything made in the factories until conditions improved.
But you don't really care, so you're not going to.
iPhone should use UMTS900 priority over UMTS2100, the same for UMTS850 over UMTS1900. That would greatly improve our health and battery life.
According to my tests UMTS900 uses exactly 24x more power (radiation) than UMTS2100 in the same place where both signals are max (200m from the cell tower).
According to my tests UMTS900 uses exactly 24x more power (radiation) than UMTS2100 in the same place where both signals are max (200m from the cell tower).
Last edited:
I guess you didnt read the news about people getting sick due to Nickel used on iPads and Phones? But those were a small group of people who were allergic to that metal.
With Apple's enviro friendly policies I am sure it is used in some form on their covers.
Not really. I couldn't care less.
----------
+1, dude!
Fanboys are funny!
Apparently yes. See this 2010 MacRumors thread:
Workers Suing iPhone Manufacturing Partner Over Chemical Poisoning
MacRumors said:
A related interview with a worker explained that they held iPhone screens in one hand, while swabbing them with n-hexane soaked cotton held in the other hand. And they did this hundreds of times a day.
Apple only banned the chemicals during the final assembly of the parts.
They did NOT ban these solvents during the manufacturing of the individual parts.