Hacker News Reader

Comment by mitchty | Hacker News Reader

What is "pure"? Is one atom of lead too much? If so why? Is it realistic to expect perfection? At what cost? In comparison to what?

Stating Apple is employing misleading tactics without stating what isn't misleading is disingenuous at best.

Engineering isn't perfect, in fact the real world is anything but perfect. Do you consider chocolate with trace amounts of faeces impure? Even if it is measured in the parts per million?

Comparing an engineering reality with political maneuvering is specious at best. Willfully misleading at worst. Be specific please in what is so abhorrent.

View on HN

Weel, they could have been straightforward and said 'Yes.' And then they would explain how it's only trace amounts or whatever, and how this is a realistic expectation or a safe level and how it compares to other companies etc. This would have been the more honest answer.

Alright, so then we still arrive at what constitutes a requirement to say "yes our products contain the element lead"?

Is it 100 parts per million? Note, this is the amount allowed for inks for printing as an example. If yes, at what parts per million would Apple or any other manufacturer be required to state such?

Also what manufacturers do report and remove lead from their products that are in the same space as Apple? What cost are we willing as consumers to bear to enable this yes response? If it ends up meaning a phone is 10 000 dollars do you still believe this to be reasonable?

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Business--Manufacturing/Business-Educ...

I'm more of the opinion the general public should educate themselves on the allowed lead content and not Apple or any other company.

I find your arguing style effective.

How's this for a requirement to say 'yes our products contain the element lead'.. when you ask yourself the question 'Do [company name] products contain lead?' on your own website attempting to be transparent about environmental efforts. The company can then go on to put whatever qualifying content they'd like, such as the content you're linking to.

Keep in mind I've said when they are attempting to be transparent. That may not be the goal for http://www.apple.com/environment/answers/

Don't forget they're also the ones asking the question, in this case. It's their document, they write the questions and the answers. They could have written, "Do Apple products contain more than trace amounts of lead?" and then answered it with a clear "no".

In this case, I give them credit for asking a clear question, and then attempting to answer it in a nuanced way.

    > Stating Apple is employing misleading tactics without
    > stating what isn't misleading

I thought it was obvious from what I'd written. Prefixing their current answer with the single word "Yes." would have made the whole part feel considerably more trustworthy.

    > is disingenuous at best

Assuming bad faith and saying that the best possible interpretation of someone's actions is that they're being intentionally misleading really has no part on HN, especially as an add-on to poor comprehension.

Your answer implies that the only answer you would accept to the question of if a product contains trace amounts of lead to then be yes.

I am stating that is an unrealistic position without explaining why. Much like stating a reply must be yes or no and only yes or no directly ensures nuance cannot exist.

I was assuming good faith to your questions in my response to you as well. But in your last sentence here I will refrain from any further discussion. Thank you for your time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com