Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

dropbox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 331 posts

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#281

Post by ImaCake »

reaperman wrote: post #125
ImaCake wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>per continuous monitoring for a broad range of chemicals would cost about $1 million per monitoring station This seems a bit high, closer to $100k installation cost for fairly basic real time regulatory monitors seems about right. CEMS (automated stack testing) monitors should be somewhat cheaper if the engineers didn't screw up the housing location on the stack/vent. Otherwise, your prose very much matches my exper…

$100k is about right in the USA as well for a single family of chemicals. Like in this case, if they only wanted to test for fluorinated compounds. Testing for "Acetone, Acetonitrile, Acetaldehyde, Benzene, 1,2-Dichloroethane, Ethanol, Ethylbenzene, Hexane, Isopropanol, Isopropyl toluene, Methylene Chloride, Toluene, and Xylene." might be somewhere in the middle of $100k to $1M, depending on desired level of differen…

Yes, and that is for regulatory monitors. You might need one such monitor at a critical sensitive location and then get by with various e-sampler monitors elsewhere which kinda suck but are good enough to help build a picture of emissions.

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#283

Post by Infinity315 »

PROgrammerTHREE wrote: post #278
Infinity315 wrote: post #136

There is a disappointing amount of character slander rather than refutation of the author's claims happening on this thread. The foremost trustworthy party is the EPA. Note, I am not a lawyer or anyone who could professionally give an opinion on this.* The most egregious violation the author purports Apple did is the illegal venting of hazardous chemicals. IMHO, the most plausible evidence supporting the author's cla…

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.41... Do you also believe that Apple has broken into her homes across three states, follows her in unmarked vehicles, threatened to mail her a severed head, intercepted her home internet, and bugged her apartment, too? Or is bringing up her own dubious allegations against this company off-limits when she's analyzing an EPA report without any qualifications?

To be honest, I give very little if any credence to anything she's said, especially if it's unsupported by evidence. Notice I'm not relying on anything she's said. Even if she is mentally ill, it's not reasonable to always assume the opposite of everything she asserts; that's called being a reactionary.

Fact of the matter is, EPA reported that Apple was under accounting their waste streams leaving open the possibility that filters were not changed as often as they should have been.

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#284

Post by wewtyflakes »

PROgrammerTHREE wrote: post #272
eqvinox wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can be right and on a vendetta at the same time. The only thing relevant for this heading is: does the EPA report point at an actual problem?

No

This does not seem to align with what the report states. The report lists 19 potential violations.

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#285

Post by PROgrammerTHREE »

Infinity315 wrote: post #283
PROgrammerTHREE wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.41... Do you also believe that Apple has broken into her homes across three states, follows her in unmarked vehicles, threatened to mail her a severed head, intercepted her home internet, and bugged her apartment, too? Or is bringing up her own dubious allegations against this company off-limits when she's analyzing an EPA report without any qualifications?

To be honest, I give very little if any credence to anything she's said, especially if it's unsupported by evidence. Notice I'm not relying on anything she's said. Even if she is mentally ill, it's not reasonable to always assume the opposite of everything she asserts; that's called being a reactionary. Fact of the matter is, EPA reported that Apple was under accounting their waste streams leaving open the possibilit…

The EPA said that Apple may have been under accounting the types of waste because they were treating it without the permits the EPA requires, it said in the document they had things labeled as "California Waste Only" that should be under EPA jurisdiction.

I didn't see anywhere that they weren't changing the filters enough, only Ashley said she figured that out from public records requests. I don't trust her to understand anything she reads.

She has confused everyone at work into thinking we're breathing/drinking toxins more than once.

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#286

Post by PROgrammerTHREE »

wewtyflakes wrote: post #284
PROgrammerTHREE wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No

This does not seem to align with what the report states. The report lists 19 potential violations.

19 potential violations, most of which were mislabeled and unlabeled things or poor storage habits and addressed (meaning they aren't violations).

The rest of it was things being managed under state/local rules that should have been managed under federal rules which Apple still has time to fix and make them not violations.

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#287

Post by Infinity315 »

PROgrammerTHREE wrote: post #175
Infinity315 wrote: post #136

There is a disappointing amount of character slander rather than refutation of the author's claims happening on this thread. The foremost trustworthy party is the EPA. Note, I am not a lawyer or anyone who could professionally give an opinion on this.* The most egregious violation the author purports Apple did is the illegal venting of hazardous chemicals. IMHO, the most plausible evidence supporting the author's cla…

The problem is that the EPA report doesn't say what she says it does. 1. Apple doesn't do chip fab at Scott Blvd. They did R&D for Titan and microLED screens and were part of the layoffs in April. 2. The EPA says that they didn't have permits WITH THE EPA, but were permitted with California and Santa Clara County/City. 3. She says the carbon filters weren't changed, not the EPA. 4. She says Apple said materials weren…

With regards to 1 and 2: This is inconsequential to what the EPA reported. It doesn't matter whether they do R&D for plushies or whatever, fact is Apple was under accounting their waste stream.

> She says the carbon filters weren't changed, not the EPA.

I'm going by what the EPA says and not what she says.

> How is it this woman was nearly killed, while the employees who WORK in the building are perfectly healthy, the next door businesses have no sick employees, and the other thousands of residents in the apartment building are also not sick?

I don't know. It's a matter worth investigating. Also, it's perfectly consistent for people inside the building to be fine whilst working inside considering the toxic fumes are vented outside the building and aren't just circulating inside it.

> Why isn't the news covering this? Why aren't they shut down?

This is out of my wheelhouse. I'm guessing government agencies are bit more reticent with regards to shutting down businesses unless there is a readily apparent danger to public health (i.e. something that could hold up to scrutiny in court).

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#288

Post by PROgrammerTHREE »

Reason077 wrote: post #39
insaneirish wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's go with "definitely not", given the amount of other things that could be within a 7 mile radius of your location. The blog paints this as some secret lair of nefarious experiments. It actually refers to the facility as a "Secret Silicon Fab" which is quite the logical leap. I would suspect they're etching PCBs, perhaps? One thing is for sure, it's not a silicon fab. I'm sorry, but if you're going to come with g…

> "One thing is for sure, it's not a silicon fab." Why do you say that? Yes, the EPA report seems to be redacted to obscure what they're actually doing there. But there are multiple reports, some from Apple employees, that refer to it as a being some sort of small scale, "skunkworks" silicon fab.

According to numerous sources, it's microLED display screens that are made there: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-19/apple-is-... https://www.siliconvalley.com/2018/03/19/apple-secretly-deve...

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#289

Post by PROgrammerTHREE »

insaneirish wrote: post #40
Reason077 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "One thing is for sure, it's not a silicon fab." Why do you say that? Yes, the EPA report seems to be redacted to obscure what they're actually doing there. But there are multiple reports, some from Apple employees, that refer to it as a being some sort of small scale, "skunkworks" silicon fab.

> Why do you say that? Mainly because Apple's custom silicon could not even be prototyped in a small scale facility. It'd likely be in Taiwan. > But there are multiple reports, some from Apple employees, that refer to it as a being some sort of small scale, "skunkworks" silicon fab. I apologize if I missed them. Please highlight. Curious of the credentials of the folks reporting such a thing, as well.

https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/60155-123531-000-le...

This is clearly not a factory.

And Bloomberg reported in 2018 that's where they've been prototyping their microLED display screens.

https://www.siliconvalley.com/2018/03/19/apple-secretly-deve... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-19/apple-is-...

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#290

Post by wewtyflakes »

PROgrammerTHREE wrote: post #286
wewtyflakes wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does not seem to align with what the report states. The report lists 19 potential violations.

19 potential violations, most of which were mislabeled and unlabeled things or poor storage habits and addressed (meaning they aren't violations). The rest of it was things being managed under state/local rules that should have been managed under federal rules which Apple still has time to fix and make them not violations.

I do not think it is fair/honest to focus on the mundane findings, then use that to debase the entire report.
Post reply on HN