It takes around 10 minutes to run a gas-mass analysis on a scrape of the PCB. 20-30 at most.

Gas chromatography coupled to a mass spectrometer equipment is available in most commercial environmental control labs and is standard equipment in most university chemistry departments. They even have it at airports nowdays (just do not mention the name in front of the security droids because they consider it magic and anyone who recognises the superduper equipment is an immediate suspect). It is not like we are talking something that is rocket science.

So the question "what did apple use for a fire retardant" could have been answered in half an hour as long as someone was happy to violate the sanctity of the "Jesus Phone" with a sampling hammer.

how many dangerous chemicals are there in Greenpeaces computers?

Any organisation that campaigns for the removal or reduction of hazardous substances are welcome in my book. Why? because they substances are hazardous to health. If they end up in landfills or whereever then the risk exists that chemicals can leach out into the water table. You'd soon complain, feel pretty miffed if YOU got cancer because some large company could not be arsed to clean its act up. But these things only happen to other people, don't they? To me you are "other people"

You had me at "Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers".

I'm all in favor of folks like Greenpeace advancing whatever political agenda they want. I lose interest when they begin damaging and stealing private property, as they frequently do. I just hope their new campaign against the common industrial chemical di-hydrogen oxide goes smoothly for them....

"I wonder.... how many dangerous chemicals are there in Greenpeaces computers?"

What does it matter? Greenpeace can do far more work preventing dangerous chemicals by sacrificing their ideals to use a machine that includes them than they can by boycotting them.

Sometimes you just have to put your ideals aside if it means you've got a better chance at achieving your ultimate goal. I'm amazed there are people so short sighted in this world as to be unable to comprehend that and hence make such idiotic comments in the first place.

Groups such as Greenpeace (the same people who campaign against building new recycling facilities on the basis that to do so will encourage people to throw more away) have never given so much as a flying f**k about the environment. In fact, the absolute worst thing that could happen as far as Greenpeace &c. are concerned would be the development of a cheap, plentiful and innocuous energy source capable of replacing fossil fuels altogether. They would be joining forces with the fossil fuel industry to get it buried. Why? Because if we could have all the energy we wanted without pollution, Greenpeace &c. would no longer have a stick to beat us all with.

Greenpeace were the ones who complained when we cut down trees, despite private ownership of land making it suicidally uneconomical not to replant new ones. As soon as we we found a better substance -- unplasticised PVC, i.e. the hard form of polyvinyl chloride without nasty phthalate plasticisers -- to make window frames out of, they still complained, even managing to flesh out their PVC hate list (between items relating to phthalate plasticisers -- what does that "u" stand for again?) with "it's not biodegradable". Which used to be considered a positive *advantage* in a building material.

It's clear from the way Greenpeace behave that don't care about protecting the environment; all they care about is making people feel guilty and increasing their membership. Anyone who actually understands science to O-level or better must cringe with embarrassment every time a Greenpeace spokesperson opens their mouth.

For the flutter-loving types among you: It's probably worth sticking a few quid on Greenpeace having a pop at Iodine (the next member of Group VIIb in the periodic table; they've already vilified Chlorine and are now trying to do a similar hatchet-job on Bromine) sometime in the future, if you can get reasonable odds.

You ppl make me sick; I going to use my iphone to order some fur!

Just to grab headlines! They will be the first ones to conplain when the iPhone they are using grows tin whiskers and stops working while their silly boat is swamped. As mentioned before, Greenpiece ought to concentrate on getting Di-hydrogen Mono-Oxide (aka DHMO) banned for all uses.

Why not have nuclear power. It works quite well, and after the plant is built, the cost is the cheapest per unit (kWh). Oh, by the way it doesn't have too much carbon emissions to gripe about (if they do anything).

What is wrong with global warming? Without it, we would be in the ice age still, with snow covering most of the hemisphere!!

I remember recently walking down the street from work and being stopped by two Greenpeace recruiters/fundraisers. They told me all about the horrible things that happen at our (Canada's) nuclear plants. They told me how they were polluting the lakes with radioactive waste, and that the legal limit was set ridiculously and dangerously high.

"Oh? How high?" I asked.

"7000 Bqs per liter of poisonous and radioactive Tritium!!!!!" She responded, filled with outrage.

"And what does Bq stand for?"

"........ Umm, it's a measurement of radiation."

"Sort of," I replied. "It stands for 'Becquerel', now let's do a little math..."

To sum it up, I calculated for them that a person would have to drink about 20000 liters of contaminated lake water to get one percent of a dangerous dose. Assuming you follow the "eight glasses a day" rule, you'd end up consuming about 800 liters a year. (What's the Register Unit for liquid measurement? I couldn't find one. Should I just use volume?)

The problem I have with their arguments and their practices, is that someone who doesn't know any better would have absolutely no defense against these people, and would walk away from the encounter convinced that the world was ending, when in fact they were getting more radiation just from being outside in the sun. Sure, there is no real "safe" level of radiation, but these people are masters of FUD. However, I can't help but wonder how much of the human population *needs* to be scared shitless to do something, because if there is one thing we as humans excel at, it's ignoring a problem until it's too late.

If I may close with a quote...

"On the one hand we a scientists are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect, promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. Which means we must include all the doubts, caveats, if, ands, and buts.

On the other hand we are also human beings as well and as such, would like to see the world a better place. To do that we need to get broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. To do that entails getting lots of media coverage, so we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have.

This ethical double-bind we frequently find ourselves in cannot be resolved by any formula. Each of us must determine what the right balance is between being honest and being effective." - Stephen Schneider