Apologies if I was snappy, I got a couple hours and then pasted the stuff up
on the site.
Take a look. I believe that I can put more support documentation into that
thing if needed but believe I have a complete data set and do not want to
cloud the Primary purpose of the application which is environmental.
I have noted reliability data only as a secondary notation.
All inputs welcome. It can be found by going to the site
http://www.RoHSUSA.com and going to the exemptions latest page where it is I
think in various hyperlinks to get the data, but if you hit the first
hyperlink on that page it will take tyou to the full application and also a
set of hyperlink bullets to the support data.
Had a little "accident with the "anon" ftp site though...................
maybe I should stick to using wrenches......8-)
It will probably be more like Tuesday before that is up and running.
Later
John
http://www.RoHSUSA.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Kirschner
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 7:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] Ray Franklin's defense of RoHS
John,
We are saying the same thing; you are certainly not attacking RoHS as a
whole; just the lead-in-solder ban. However, too often in these discussion
and even in the name of your website the subject gets defocused to "RoHS is
bad". People say "RoHS" when they mean "the restriction of lead in solder
due to RoHS". That's the lack of precision I'm talking about.
Good luck on the exemption request..."great minds think alike" ;o)
Get some rest, John.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: John Burke [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 9:52 AM
To: '(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)'; 'Michael Kirschner'
Subject: RE: [LF] Ray Franklin's defense of RoHS
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your input - I think............Could you please - very precisely
point me to any part of this email chain which is not looking at lead in
solders or the mentioned articles referred? I challenge you to do it knowing
that you cannot. Mr Franklin in his haste looked at the RoHSUSA web site and
decided that it was "knocking" RoHS which it most certainly is not and as an
environmentally concerned engineer I am mortified at his commentary which
states :
" Having read through the blogs and comments on the Pushback Initiative
site,I get the impression that the group wants to see the RoHS directive
repealed entirely."
I am sorry but if he cannot be bothered to read the thing - I can only
assume that he may have some attention deficit problem since anyone that
took the time to read it thing would tell you differently.
On Europe exemptions, I literally just hit the go button on the email which
applied for that very exemption using that evidence but not at your
suggestion.
The support files which will have been stripped off of this communication
will be available for download from RoHSUSA.com on Monday morning.
Since I have been up almost 36 hours in getting all of this stuff prepared -
excuse my email if I am a little blunt on this subject, but what exactly are
you guys doing about it - if anything? or are you not at all concerned about
the environmental impact?
I suggest that when the 6th round of stakeholder exemptions are announced
that you download the boilerplate support documents that I will be providing
for the global community at tbe RoHSUSA.com web site when the public
stakeholder consultations are announced and fill out the company details and
send them in as support for the exemption application support.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Kirschner
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 5:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] Ray Franklin's defense of RoHS
On Sat, 20 May 2006 10:17:06 +0300, Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I haven't time for a detailed reply, but it's clear that Mr Franklin's
>knowledge of toxicology, epidemiology, chemistry, earth sciences and
>engineering are sadly lacking. All he has done is propagate errors of
>others, usually out of context.
>
[deletia]
>Gordon, Harvey, Joe, Werner, John and many others (I'm too modest to
>name them all :-) ) have been arguing the **scientific** wisdom of RoHS
>from well before the time that the Directive split off from the proposed
>WEEE one and, I believe, none of us have any vested interest other than
>the well-being of our industry. I had published my feelings on the web
>long before Mr Franklin had started his study. You can see what I wrote
>at http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv/files/sustainability.htm#RoHS (this
>was originally published on the now-defunct protonique.com site).
>
What Brian, "Gordon, Harvey, Joe, Werner, John and many others" have been
arguing is against the impact of RoHS on lead in solders. You all have NOT
been arguing at all, as far as I can tell, about the REST of the directive.
There is no doubt that mercury, hex chrome, PBBs, PBDEs, and cadmium are
toxic and hazardous - some in use, some in manufacture, some in disposal. We
should elminiate them. Period. That's the vast majority of substances
restricted in RoHS - 5/6 to be precise ;o).
Lead is hazardous if ingested ... we at least know that. Don't sit there and
chew on that plastic coated wire (people do; they don't tend to chew on
PWAs...) or you could get lead poisoning...right? Is there a risk that it
can leach from landfills in to ground water where it presents a hazard? Is
it hazardous during use? Is it hazardous during manufacture? Is the mining
and refining process particularly hazardous? No the EU did not make clear
it's case for restricting any of these substances in products. The industry
should've done a better job arguing it 8-10 years ago. Now it's too
late...the law's in place. Get the scientific evidence together to detail
it's benign or controllable nature in each of these stages of its lifecycle
and then present it to the Commission.
But don't rail against RoHS; rail against the restriction of lead in solder.
Be clear; be precise.
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send:
SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
847-615-7100 ext.2815
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send:
SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
847-615-7100 ext.2815
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
