Two of the most popular and best selling phones, the iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III, are considered dangerous by researchers who argued that the substances contained in these devices can lead to the development of fetal malformations or other health problems.
According to a toxicity study by experts at Ann-Arbor Ecology Center and ifixit.org site, quoted by the online edition of Daily Mail newspaper, some parts of mobile phones are composed of substances that can seriously affect the health of the user.
Once they have analyzed the components of 36 phones of several popular brands and found that they have in their structure substances such as bromine, PVC, heavy metals: lead, tin and chrome, as well as fireproofing products, scientists have developed a top according to the degree of danger represented by these devices.
Thus, the first in the top and the least toxic mobile phone was named Motorola Citrus, followed by the iPhone 4S, LG Remarq and Samsung Captivate.
The new iPhone 5 was ranked fifth, better than its main rival Samsung Galaxy S III, which was ranked ninth. Samsung Evergreen was also placed on the fifth position. iPhone 4 and Samsung Reclaim are tied for the level of toxicity with Samsung Galaxy S III.
But the most toxic phone, according to the experts of the two sites is iPhone 2G, considered so harmful to the environment that activists from the environmental organization Greenpeace have drawn up a global warning report about this. The top five of most toxic mobile phones also includes Palm M 125, Motorola MOTO W 233 Renew, Nokia N95, Blackberry Storm 9530 and Palm Treo 750.
“These hazardous substances can pollute throughout a product’s life cycle, including when the minerals are extracted; when they are processed; during phone manufacturing; and at the end of the phone’s useful life,” reads an Ecology Center press release.
Information on substances that are used into the composition of mobile components are kept secret by manufacturers who do not want to put their business at risk, according to the authors’ research.
Reply