US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

Post by jmah » Mon, Jun 24, 2024, 8:55 PM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #256

murderfs wrote: post #55

The author of this has been on a crusade against Apple for years, stemming from an incident that was probably hypochondria. They've outright lied about multiple incidents (see https://twitter.com/shantinix/status/1433297575914971136 ), and I would very strongly doubt any new claims made. For example, a spot check of one of the claims has them currently saying "Still, Gjovik’s limited testing returned results showing…

"The Author"? Was this once a different link? The current link seems to be a report by the EPA.

Post by vineyardmike » Mon, Jun 24, 2024, 9:59 PM UTC

jldugger wrote: post #215

vineyardmike wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> YMMV but some people are crazy. The EPA is however not. But what the EPA say and what the woman claims are disparate. To complicate it further, this woman did in fact live on top of an industrially-zone area which had industrial contamination on site. The apartments are very new (finished construction in ~2019) and they had to agree to a ton of cleanup to get permits to build. There are so many confounding factors…

I'm honestly surprised the area is zoned for residential; the central expressway corridor has lots of industry nearby, including Intel. Plus that apt complex is right next the intersection of a major highway and major expressway, which won't be helping anyone breathe. But she's not the only resident and I haven't heard any indication of a class action.

Post by PROgrammerTHREE » Mon, Jun 24, 2024, 10:17 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #249

PROgrammerTHREE wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why are you so keen to whitewash potential mishandling of dangerous chemicals and poisoning of the public? You do not appear to have any more understanding of the situation that a layman. Your points to do not sound convincing and do not engage with the issue at all. > How is it this woman was nearly killed, while the employees who WORK in the building are perfectly healthy This is quite ignorant of how this actually…

Post by PROgrammerTHREE » Mon, Jun 24, 2024, 10:21 PM UTC

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #7

martinky24 wrote: post #3

Is there any backing to this that doesn’t originate from a very disgruntled former employee?

Agreed, also, if anyone has ever dealt with regualtors before things like: > at least 19 potential violations Is about 00.00% noteworthy to me until it is defined as to what those are, and I guarantee that none of them will be “poisoned employees living quarters”. Same with the repeating “illegal” over and over. Not having the right sticker on something might be illegal (EDIT: good guess? More like I know this game,…

Post by PROgrammerTHREE » Mon, Jun 24, 2024, 10:23 PM UTC

cbsmith wrote: post #11

DanAtC wrote: post #2

Context: https://mastodon.social/@ashleygjovik/112668309100333232

Even better context: https://www.ashleygjovik.com/3250scott.html