...is glued in, making it effectively non-replaceable. Sure, the iPhone meets the current requirements. But since they can get away with glueing an otherwise seperately replaceable battery into the unit, the requirements are clearly deficient.

Seems their love affair with scare 'em headlines has continued unabated since the days of the Brent Spar.

This is so typical of greenpeace, screaming as loud as they can on very little or no actual testing whilst failing to see the bigger issues.

Well done greenpeace!!!!

Exactly how many user replaceable batteries are disposed of properly and how many more end up in land fills? By needing to have Apple replace the battery it is guaranteed to be disposed of properly instead of simply thrown out with the trash.

Amazing.... How do we know the MacLiveExpo is coming around again?

Simple, Greenpeace are up in arms about something Apple have done again and they want to make a point. And this time they are serious... wait hang on....

"Ah!.... No... False alarm everyone, now why are we going to the MacLiveExpo.... Must remeber to not piss off the other stall holders again.."

On a side note perhaps we need to start telling children not to suck their headphone cables.... TAXI!

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/10/26/greepeace_ejected_from_mac_expo/

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/26/green_apple_campaign/

Just shut it.

The battery is glued in because some idiots who don't understand the basic rules of maintaining battery life, kill theirs and then buy cheap knock offs from dodgy sources which then either pollute the planet or blow up in your pocket.

In short the battery is glued in to save you from yourself.

Well El Reg fell for it...

Greenpeace have a product and that product is anxiety.

They havn't randomly chosen Apple, they have singled them out so they can piggyback on their successful media presence. The fact that they basically found they had kept to their obligations and meet appropriate laws is irrelevant if they can spin it to further their own agenda.

If this was a story about, say, Samsung mobiles no one in the mainstream media would be interested.

I think the point about the battery being otherwise separately replaceable isn't that it should be disposed of properly but more about replacing the whole unit. When the battery dies in a few years time maybe you'll think it's so expensive to get it replaced by Apple that you might just as well buy the next new phone/toy and discard the entire phone which you might not have done had it been user serviceable.

TBH I don't see many people with battery explosion related injuries so I presume this exploding phenomenon is either rare, nonexistent or fanboy justification.

So the iPhone isn't classified as Toy?

Yeah right.

Who is kidding who?

As the author fails to link to the actual report or the link on the Greenpeace website I'll put it here to inform readers of exactly how the iPhone and Apple compares to other mobile makers.

In May Steve Jobs, "Apple is ahead of, or will soon be ahead of, most of its competitors" on environmental issues.

Other mobile makers like Nokia, Motorola have publicly stated they have removed toxic chemicals like PVC. So we tested the iPhone to see exactly how it compared to new phones from other makers. In the story is exactly this text that Tony manages to completely ignore in his story.

"Analysis revealed that the iPhone contains toxic brominated compounds (indicating the prescence of brominated flame retardants (BFRs)) and hazardous PVC."

"Nokia is totally PVC free, Motorola and Sony Ericsson have already products on the market with BFR free components. Apple's competitors have also identified extra toxic chemicals they intend to remove in the future - beyond current minimum legal requirements. (Like RoHS)"

RoHS is irrelevant to this issue - everyone knows that all major electronics firms who sell in Europe should be completely RoHS compliant.

The purpose of our analysis was to see how the iPhone compares to competitors on toxic chemicals and its clear that Apple is behind other phone makers

Read the report here:

http://www.greenpeace.org/iphonereport

and the full story and full links to all supporting information here:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/

Tom

Greenepace

I contributed to Greenpeace every year but will no longer do so. This is really dishonest, especially when they don't look at other companies.

...as ROHS etc regulators ? It's time this crackpot organisation was forcibly disbanded.

The French had the right idea in 1985 but didn't go far enough.

the real ROHS regulators ( The National Weights and Measures Laboratory ) hav e no problems with the iPhone battery

Green Peace is making such big noise about Apple (all bluster no importance) that it seems to have missed the 1,000,000 + toys that came out of China with all that lead in the paint. Of course we know which land fill they will be dumped in when they go back!!!

Hey, the FDA says the the iPhone is bad to eat. I agree. Green Peace, Don't eat your iPhone, shove it up where the sun don't shine and let it get absorbed naturally. :-)

en

Isn't Greenpeace really just another lifestyle gimmick? If they had any courage in their convictions they'd be saying that any consumer-led society is gravely incompatible with the environment. Also could they do me a favour and stop stuffing my letterbox full of junk mail bollocks (I'm sure they've "shared" it to other charities too) that is absolutely antithetical to any environmental stance. This white noise about the battery in the sodding iPhone is a puerile distraction.

So Greenpeace are being economical with the truth. Well that's a surprise.

They rely upon arts graduates in the BBC taking everything they say at face value.

I'm no fan of Apple, but in this they seem better than the average.

By being a static part, it doesn't require it's own casing, instead being able to rely on the main phone case for protection. This is what allows Apple to fit as much batery capacity as they do into a small space. A replacable battery would either make the iPhone run out of beans faster, or larger, neither of which are desirable attributes for the core demographic buying them.

Re the battery worries:

The battery in iPods is a static part also however it is now possible to replace them or send them away.

Is this such an issue or are people looking for something to knock the iPhone on? How about the cost instead?

After all aren't most iPhones going to be replaced in 18 months when the contract runs out?

Who can possibly take these wierdos seriously?!? They are nothing more than leeches and scum. They try and profit from misleading information and downright lies, and they know they are doing it, too. Anyone who denies this is simply not being honest. Has Greenheave ever done anything useful? I don't know. All I do know is that they have suction-cupped themselves to Apple over the past several months to suck off attention and (in their minds, apparently) maybe steal some money. They are attention starved babies who produce and provide nothing but bad gas and strife. They do no good that I can see, in fact, all I see from them is harm. The sooner they go form their own country in the world's hottest desert, the better.

So, a completely misrepresentative piece of "journalism" based on highly selective quotes and plain untruths is justification for labelling Greenpeace as "leeches and scum", etc, is it ? Who is the attention whore here ? Greenpeace, or Tony Smith ?

What a wonderful world.

David,

Are you truly asking that question or just being funny? Okay, I'll straighten it out for you. The attention whore is Greenheave. Got it? Good.

In complaining so vociferously about one vendor, Greenpeace risks looking foolish.

They're not exactly known for their accurate science; remember the plane hitting Sizewell B scare ad?

... it seems nobody followed the links to the report, as posters afterwards are still on a mindless rant. Somebody read the word battery in a comment, which has then been asumed by other posters as being part of the article, it is not.

I think the upshot of it is, that Apple have kept within the regulations but still aren't doing as well as other phone manufacturers, but then that's no surprise as Apple are children to the phone industry (clearly evident in the cell technology they have employed in the phone). So no wrong by Apple, but it appears they could do better.

"As the author fails to link to the actual report or the link on the Greenpeace website I'll put it here to inform readers of exactly how the iPhone and Apple compares to other mobile makers."

Thanks Tom. I've read the PDF. Looks like Tony Smith's article is correct. You say you want to compare the iPhone to other manufacturers but the article doesn't does it. No.

What's the point of singling out Apple? Oh because they still use PVC whereas Nokia don't and other top manufacturers are starting not to in "some" products.

Seeing as Apples mobile phone market share is minuscule that doesn't really add up does it. The volume of phones that the other top companies churn out dwarfs Apples contribution so that argument isn't really robust enough either.

Which brings us back to the original articles conclusion.

If you really wanted to help then give us a report comparing all the top manufacturers progress. Don't just try to shoot one that you've taken umbridge with.

While your at it. Why not take your biased, flower headed, politically bankrupt, self serving agenda and shove it. Riding the world of such clap trap might mean that we can concentrate on dealing with some real global issues of note.

Type your comment here — plain text only, no HTM

There are already $20 battery replacement kits with tools available.

Okay all you Greenheave apologists, on The Register website, even THEY are admitting Greenheave is simply looking for attention. Read it for yourselves. Now, go find an organization worth defending and let's give Greenheave a new home base, oh, someplace in the Iraqi desert.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/23/apple-defended-chemical