8 ms·

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

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 claim can be found in the (redacted) EPA report in observation #11.[1] My understanding is that waste streams (hazardous materials being vented into the environment) must be accounted for in order to accurately calculate how often you must change carbon filters (called breakthrough time in the report) and that carbon filters lose efficacy as hazardous gasses are passed through it. Anyways, the report found that Apple did not account for all the waste they were putting through the filters and thus could not accurately assess the "breakthrough time" of the filters. There is a plausible case that could be made that a filter had reached its "breakthrough time" -- potentially leaking hazardous gases into the environment. This reportedly has been occurring since atleast* Dec 2020, which could be around the time the author moved in which was also 2020 (unspecified range). 1. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/312oqvretg7yyhfx0ohx4/AGZduVXs0_1geqIyi0NA9nE?e=3&preview=2024_04_30_RCRA_Insp_Report_REPORT_Apple_3250_Scott_Redacted.pdf&rlkey=3aa2tw15ek3trqlbdh7pw9erh&st=4b364mkx&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/312oqvretg7yyhfx0ohx4/AGZduVX...

cyanydeez 2y ago
the coincidence between the author and the "atleast" date simply means there's not enough evidence before that date. Dealing with EPA and other pollution control agencies will tell you very much they dont want to get into these situations because it makes them look bad. It likely was happening way before this and the EPA could likely pinpoint the exact date based on simple log entries, but they won't stick their neck out farther than corroboration goes.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Aurornis 2y ago
  What do you mean they don’t want to? Their job is to report the facts in a legally consistent manner, not imagine what might have happened.
  - cyanydeez 2y ago
    it's not imagination to look at log books and say "well, they weren't reporting things here that they were reporting there". Thats not imagination. However, they're simply following up the "corroboration" part. Because someone identified a problem, _now_ they have to be a detective. I'd posit, _it is their job_ to find incriminating evidence and thus enforcement. In many places, they are not doing this. They are purely reactive. Thats my point; has nothing to do with imagination.
Aurornis 2y ago
Thanks for taking the time to read the actual reports. The Mastodon thread is editorialized and manipulated to an extreme and it’s clear that the author is pushing an agenda. I wish we had some better news coverage and analysis, rather than a social media post to link to. This author wastes no time mixing her imagined claims with the EPA report, such as insinuating that Apple was doing worse things but hid them before the inspectors could get there.
- moralestapia 2y ago
  The agenda of making companies operate in a safe and sane way? Sign me up!
  - lloeki 2y ago
    There's a notable difference between fucking up the filter efficacy lifetime expectancy - meaning there are filters that were expected to work - and "I don't care" venting toxic fumes straight out the window like a Breaking Bad meth homelab or a Dark Waters dig dump cover up. A GP scenario doesn't mean there's no blame either, but it's markedly different than the Dark Waters scenario described in the Mastodon thread, the latter which does read like it's using all the incendiary social media tropes. Which one it is in reality I don't know and certainly won't claim I do.
  - Aurornis 2y ago
    The agenda of injecting completely unsubstantiated claims into the story and trying to pass them off as fact, such as the claim that Apple hid many more violations before the inspectors could get to them. No basis in fact, just pure ragebait conjecture. Her agenda is about getting clicks and followers first. She’s not making companies operate safer, she’s just editorializing a public report from the agency that actually works on making companies operate safely. All of her editorializing and fake claims is undermining the actual situation by making the facts unclear and making people trust reporting on the subject less.
    - pxeger1 2y ago
PROgrammerTHREE 2y ago
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't hazardous waste, but the report says they were labeled "California Waste", meaning they weren't properly reporting the materials to the EPA, but were to the state of California. 5. 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? 6. Why isn't the news covering this? Why aren't they shut down? None of this makes any sense and looking at her lawsuit, she seems like she needs to serious mental help.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  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 works. How is it possible that Union carbide plant in Bhopal killed 16,000 people in one day but most employees were perfectly healthy? > the next door businesses have no sick employees other thousands of residents in the apartment building are also not sick? You are obviously wrong, have you ever tried going around your neighbourhood and asking people: "hey, there has been consistent release of dangerous chemicals, is anyone sick?". That's a population of thousands of people, dozens of people will have bronchitis, asthma, inflammation, cancer, god knows what. How do you know if it is related to the chemical pollution? Perhaps dozens of people have felt symptoms and went to the doctor, and maybe they were diagnosed with Asthma or allergies or some other erroneous disease. Maybe they moved to the countryside by now, believing themselves to be ill. Unless someone knocks on the door, polls the residents, takes blood samples and tests them at an independent lab, conducts statistical analysis of all the medical records, etc. you have no moral right to assert this.
PROgrammerTHREE 2y ago
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.417952/gov.uscourts.cand.417952.76.0.pdf 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?
- Infinity315 2y ago
  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.
  - PROgrammerTHREE 2y ago
    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.
    - Infinity315 2y ago
      > I didn't see anywhere that they weren't changing the filters enough. I don't think you've read observation #11 or my comment. From observation #11: > Apple does not appear to have included all the solvent waste streams when calculating the breakthrough times for the "Activated Carbon" boxes to ensure no VOCs are released into the atmosphere onsite. Breakthrough times are a function of how much VOCs you are putting through them. If you under account for the amount of VOCs you will overestimate the "true" breakthrough time.

cyanydeez 2y ago

the coincidence between the author and the "atleast" date simply means there's not enough evidence before that date. Dealing with EPA and other pollution control agencies will tell you very much they dont want to get into these situations because it makes them look bad. It likely was happening way before this and the EPA could likely pinpoint the exact date based on simple log entries, but they won't stick their neck out farther than corroboration goes.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Aurornis 2y ago
What do you mean they don’t want to? Their job is to report the facts in a legally consistent manner, not imagine what might have happened.
- cyanydeez 2y ago
  it's not imagination to look at log books and say "well, they weren't reporting things here that they were reporting there". Thats not imagination. However, they're simply following up the "corroboration" part. Because someone identified a problem, _now_ they have to be a detective. I'd posit, _it is their job_ to find incriminating evidence and thus enforcement. In many places, they are not doing this. They are purely reactive. Thats my point; has nothing to do with imagination.

Aurornis 2y ago

Thanks for taking the time to read the actual reports. The Mastodon thread is editorialized and manipulated to an extreme and it’s clear that the author is pushing an agenda. I wish we had some better news coverage and analysis, rather than a social media post to link to. This author wastes no time mixing her imagined claims with the EPA report, such as insinuating that Apple was doing worse things but hid them before the inspectors could get there.

moralestapia 2y ago
The agenda of making companies operate in a safe and sane way? Sign me up!
- lloeki 2y ago
  There's a notable difference between fucking up the filter efficacy lifetime expectancy - meaning there are filters that were expected to work - and "I don't care" venting toxic fumes straight out the window like a Breaking Bad meth homelab or a Dark Waters dig dump cover up. A GP scenario doesn't mean there's no blame either, but it's markedly different than the Dark Waters scenario described in the Mastodon thread, the latter which does read like it's using all the incendiary social media tropes. Which one it is in reality I don't know and certainly won't claim I do.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  The agenda of injecting completely unsubstantiated claims into the story and trying to pass them off as fact, such as the claim that Apple hid many more violations before the inspectors could get to them. No basis in fact, just pure ragebait conjecture. Her agenda is about getting clicks and followers first. She’s not making companies operate safer, she’s just editorializing a public report from the agency that actually works on making companies operate safely. All of her editorializing and fake claims is undermining the actual situation by making the facts unclear and making people trust reporting on the subject less.
  - pxeger1 2y ago

PROgrammerTHREE 2y ago

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't hazardous waste, but the report says they were labeled "California Waste", meaning they weren't properly reporting the materials to the EPA, but were to the state of California. 5. 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? 6. Why isn't the news covering this? Why aren't they shut down? None of this makes any sense and looking at her lawsuit, she seems like she needs to serious mental help.

ClumsyPilot 2y ago
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 works. How is it possible that Union carbide plant in Bhopal killed 16,000 people in one day but most employees were perfectly healthy? > the next door businesses have no sick employees other thousands of residents in the apartment building are also not sick? You are obviously wrong, have you ever tried going around your neighbourhood and asking people: "hey, there has been consistent release of dangerous chemicals, is anyone sick?". That's a population of thousands of people, dozens of people will have bronchitis, asthma, inflammation, cancer, god knows what. How do you know if it is related to the chemical pollution? Perhaps dozens of people have felt symptoms and went to the doctor, and maybe they were diagnosed with Asthma or allergies or some other erroneous disease. Maybe they moved to the countryside by now, believing themselves to be ill. Unless someone knocks on the door, polls the residents, takes blood samples and tests them at an independent lab, conducts statistical analysis of all the medical records, etc. you have no moral right to assert this.

PROgrammerTHREE 2y ago

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.417952/gov.uscourts.cand.417952.76.0.pdf 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?

Infinity315 2y ago
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.
- PROgrammerTHREE 2y ago
  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.
  - Infinity315 2y ago
    > I didn't see anywhere that they weren't changing the filters enough. I don't think you've read observation #11 or my comment. From observation #11: > Apple does not appear to have included all the solvent waste streams when calculating the breakthrough times for the "Activated Carbon" boxes to ensure no VOCs are released into the atmosphere onsite. Breakthrough times are a function of how much VOCs you are putting through them. If you under account for the amount of VOCs you will overestimate the "true" breakthrough time.