Green: the color of controversy

What a paradox that Apple Inc.’s iPhone has become at once the gold standard for wireless devices and, according to critics, plaintiffs’ lawyers and others, all that is wrong with a mobile-phone industry that conscientiously controls what goes into the phones and onto networks.
There’s the lawsuit over the iPhone price cut not long after its debut in the U.S. Then there’s the locking lawsuit over the iPhone’s exclusive marketing and operational arrangement with AT&T Mobility, whose tantalizing third-quarter results should help offset legal headaches and quiet second-guessers about its strategy. Whether AT&T Mobility can extend Q3 momentum through the holiday season and into next year is unclear, given the upcoming introduction of new, high-end phones.
With the uneven consequences of massive publicity, Verizon Wireless and other carriers might want to apply a soft touch before touting the next iPhone killer. Too much hype could attract the attention of the greenies. Ask Steve Jobs.
By mid-December, or about the time LG’s Voyager and other new Verizon Wireless phones are well into their rollout, the Center for Environmental Health is set to pull the trigger on a suit alleging the levels of phthalates in the iPhone violate the California law known as Proposition 65. Prop 65 requires businesses to disclose information to Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in products known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. Can an iPhone do all that, too?
“There is no reason to have these potentially hazardous chemicals in iPhones,” said Michael Green, executive director of Oakland-based CEH, when giving Apple the required 60-day notice of its intention to sue a couple weeks back. “We expect Apple to reformulate their products to make them safer from cradle to grave, so they don’t pose a threat to consumers, workers or the environment.” The action is based on a Greenpeace study.
Apple has said nothing publicly, though Jobs vows to continue pursuing a greener Apple.
Meantime, the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, a chemical industry group, says the Greenpeace report is hazardously flawed. “In fact, all of the substances reported by Greenpeace are approved for use, and provide critical performance and safety functions in a wide range of electronic products,” the BSEF stated. “Among the substances reported by Greenpeace are brominated flame retardants, which are commonly used in electronics to provide a high level fire safety-in certain applications, they are the most effective products available. Preventing fires in electronics is particularly important, as they often contain heat sources and significant amounts of highly flammable plastics.”
For the moment at least, the fire argument is apt to trump the alleged chemical danger for many Californians.