Print
You probably never considered the chemical composition of your smartphone, but it's a topic HealthyStuff.org decided to breach, the results of which were posted on iFixIt. iFixIt, best known for tearing down electronic gadgets and rating them with a "Repairability Score" on a scale of 1-10 (the higher the score, the easier it is to service a product), explains why the chemical analysis of 36 mobile phones, including the iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III, should be of concern to consumers.
"Why does it matter? Toxic chemicals don’t disappear when you throw your phone away. Though electronics recycling is up in general in the US, cell phone recycling rates lag behind," iFixIt explains. "Each year, Americans discard 130 million cell phones, of which only 8 percent are recycled properly. When phones are not recycled, they often end up in landfills or incinerators, which can release heavy metals into groundwater and air, respectively."
According to iFixIt, some states have enacted bans on dumping electronics in landfills and incinerators, but 32 states still don't. The result is that the groundwater underneath ends up contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls, which iFixIt says are linked to liver, thyroid, and immune diseases.
"Even sending a phone to an electronics recycler will not always keep it from polluting the environment," iFixIt adds. "Some 'recyclers' actually ship used electronics overseas to places such as Ghana, China, and India. In the best cases, these electronics are refurbished or repaired, used, and eventually dumped (usually in landfills without expensive liners to protect groundwater). Unfortunately, formal recycling practices in developing countries are currently minimal at best, where they exist at all."
So that's iFixIt's motivation in a nutshel. As to the method, HealthyStuff.org submitted the components of three dozen smartphones to X-ray fluorescence spectrometry. Phones were then rated on a scale of 1-5, with lower scores representing lower levels of toxicity.
Image Credit: iFixIt
The least toxic of the 36 devices examined turned out to be the Motorola Citrus, followed by the iPhone 4S, LG Remarq, Samsung Captivate, iPhone 5, and Samsung Evergreen. A little bit higher up on the chart is Samsung's Galaxy S III, though it isn't terribly far behind the iPhone 5.
Make of all this what you will, but if you ever wondered how "toxic" your smartphone is, there you go.
Follow Paul on Google+, Twitter, and Facebook
Comments are closed on this article
Neville Berger
October 06, 2012 at 8:26pm
To be honest, more and more people talk about these two mobile. And who can tell people which one is better or why? Maybe just heard to heard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7XKCxG3P8U
slibinz
October 06, 2012 at 7:31am
It's not the iPhone's toxicity that I'm worried about, as I won't be ingesting one and electronics recycling services are ubiquitous these days. It's the toxicity of the iPhone users themselves. Mention anything about how the Galaxy S3 is a better, cheaper phone...and you can see the toxic hate oozing out of their pores and hear it from their mouths...
Engelsstaub
October 06, 2012 at 2:38pm
I doubt you hear it from their mouths. I'm guessing you just imagine it coming from their mouths because you sit on the internet agitating for a cyberfight over something so *important* as one's choice in cellphones.
I'm not sure if you realize this but words like "better" are subjective and have to do with these things called "opinions."
You can tell someone it's "cheaper" (now that's called "a fact") but they probably already know that and don't care. Do you want to know why? ...because it's their money, their choice, and they will probably say "I will pay for what I like. You pay for what you like."
Zoandar
October 06, 2012 at 7:45am
This was better than the article itself. :) To be of any real use, the article should have included the best places to properly recycle cell phones.
Jox
October 06, 2012 at 6:14pm
"Useless and uninformative" are the hallmarks of a Paul Lilly article.
-Jox
warptek2010
October 05, 2012 at 10:53pm
My first reaction was who in the hell throws away a $400 plus phone? I still have Motorola i90's lying around from back when I was on Nextel.
Can't seem to get rid of them though on Ebay.
Mayhemm
October 05, 2012 at 4:16pm
So, the conclusion here is that the iPhone 5 is safer to throw out than the Galaxy SIII?
Good to know.
EKRboi
October 05, 2012 at 1:18pm
well considering its nearly half the size (exaggerating a little) of the S3 its no wonder. I don't complain about MPC news articles really ever but c'mon now.. really?
ApathyCurve
October 05, 2012 at 8:54am
Municipal landfill construction and operation under EPA guidelines:
1) Dig hole. Construct containment berms.
2) Construct liner on compound drainage grade using select fill of sandy clay. Minimum thickness three feet, compacted in 6" lifts to 97% proctor.
3) Cover liner in 22 mil HDPE sheeting which is seam-welded to provide a contiguous barrier.
4) Leachate extraction pipe, wrapped in rock and lister fabric, installed on compound drainage grade. Pipe pulls all leachate to extraction basin, WHERE HEAVY METALS REMAIN IN CONTAINMENT.
5) Extract leachate, flare off gases and burn suspension to fly ash.
6) Push continuous cover (dirt) onto top of landfill during its entire life cycle in order to prevent overflow.
Explain to me again how the heavy metals get into the ground water.
I really dislike people who start mouthing off about subjects on which they are grossly uninformed. Unfortunately, the Internet is full to overflowing with exactly that sort of individual. Stick to tearing down gizmos, iFixIt.
Yes, I've done it. As a project manager for a major civil engineering firm. And this was fifteen years ago; it's probably more strict now. NOTHING leaves a modern American landfill unless you specifically extract it, and it certainly doesn't get into the groundwater.
I can't speak to engineering practices and regulations in Pakistan or Ungabunga or Whatthefuckistan, but I'm pretty sure the number of cell phones in landfills in those places are minimal at best. I'm also old and wise enough that I really don't give a crap what they do in those places; it's their country, they may do as they will.
spacegoast
October 05, 2012 at 8:36am
I like how the title suggests iPhone 5 beats out SGSIII in another trivial category. Does anyone really care how their phone is discarded? Plus, many carriers now do trade-ins. So how the phone gets disposed of is up to the carrier it is returned to. I find this to be a pointless study...
Zoandar
October 06, 2012 at 7:52am
When "trivial" is all you have to go on, you exploit it. It "looks and feels" pretty, and its less toxic than a nuclear disaster (at least physically. No one seems to have done a study on the synergistic affects of choosing to buy Apple products, but I suspect it leads to, or is the result of, brain cancer).
Eagle70ss
October 05, 2012 at 10:46pm
It's trivial regardless which phone won the eco battle. They just had a little less chem dust floating around foxconn that particular day.
Engelsstaub
October 05, 2012 at 6:31pm
I'll bet your comment would have been quite different or non-existent if this pointless study had found the S3 to be better for the environment.
But yes, it does seem a bit trivial.
