Thanks Brian,

Will pick this up tomorrow - getting a little late here.
John

-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] Ray Franklin's defense of RoHS

John

[log in to unmask] (interestingly, note it's a dotcom, not a dotorg,
implying it's commercial)

I am, certainly, one of his "naysayers", whom, he states, have never
heard of the precautionary principle. I am also a **professional**
environmentalist and venture to suggest that I have contributed much
more to the well-being of this planet at national and international
levels than Mr Franklin ever has or is likely to. To support this
argument, I have a dozen or so awards and citations from such
organisations as the UNEP, US EPA and a number of large corporations; I
say this, not to boast, but as a testimony to the fact that I have
worked long and hard in many countries, often to my financial
disadvantage, to help the citizens of this world. I would like to know
how he can reconcile my position as an environmentalist with opposition
to what he is promoting. I can give the answer: because I have the
intimate conviction, as an environmentalist, that the change from
lead-bearing solders to lead-free ones is holistically environmentally
harmful, very harmful. The problem is that it was never looked at
holistically. Remember that, historically, it started out as a Directive
on how to dispose of end-of-life EEE; the banning was an afterthought,
tagged on at a later date, to ease the WEEE problem and was never
researched. So, yes, I am a naysayer to RoHS, but one who is on the SnPb
issue alone (I have not studied the other issues very deeply) and one
who has thought the problem through and not taken position because of
potential vested interests.

I have had differences of opinion with some of my fellow naysayers, such
as on the sustainability of natural resources, but the basic premisses
are unanimous.

And, for the record, I have heard of the precautionary principle and
have urged, through a UNEP committee which I chaired, that it be applied
to a substance, used in our industry, which is a known reproductive
toxin and is strongly suspected to be a grave neurotoxin, potentially
causing permanent damage (a number of anecdotal cases have been reported
in serious literature). It is also an ozone-depleting substance. Our
request was shelved pending further environmental and epidemiological
studies, which will take years to complete and was watered down to a
recommendation that it be used with due care. In the meanwhile, we have
no idea how much damage will be caused by the tens of thousands of
tonnes of this substance that are being manufactured.

Brian

John Burke wrote:
> Ooops,
>
>
>
> Might want to take a look at this:
>
>
>
> http://www.rohswell.com/News/Genl022.php
>
>
>
> Mr Franklin cannot is seems distinguish between Pushback and input from
> other "fan mail"  he receives in his inbox.
>
>
>
> Given the dialogue on this channel over the past few days, he would do
> better to annotate them "letters from the IPC Leadfree group"
>
>
>
> Does anyone actually have his e-mail address?, I may need it for the
> lawyers...
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: John Burke [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 6:14 PM
> To: 'Michael Kirschner'; '(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)'
> Subject: RE: [LF] Ray Franklin's defense of RoHS
>
>
>
> Watch out for the air pollution............8-)
>
>
>
> Its terrible in some places there - I speak from personal experience...
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: Michael Kirschner [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> To: John Burke; '(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)'
> Subject: RE: [LF] Ray Franklin's defense of RoHS
>
>
>
> John,
>
>
>
> I did put "run" in quotes ;o).
>
>
>
> Oh I believe there is no cognitive dissonance regarding paragraphs 7 and
8.
> Lead's nasty stuff as a general rule. But is it in this particular
> application? Perhaps not...so the precautionary principle allows a measure
> to be temporary and "if necessary, adjusted to take account of available
> technical and scientific information" as the last part of paragraph 8
says.
> So this is perfectly consistent. You're just reading it from one direction
> while they are writing it from the other. ;o)
>
>
>
> Regarding the scientific research, they never said "they did it"; they
said
> "it's been done" but they never state by whom and at what level and under
> what circumstances the research was done (perhaps by the Roman Empire in
the
> case of lead...). Since they are banning substances and exempting specific
> uses, it would make sense to consider that the scientific research they're
> resting the decision on is at the substance level, not the application of
> the substance and in fact that is what it says: the SUBSTANCES themselves
> ... are scientifically well-researched, not these particular applications
of
> the substances. So providing further scientific evidence that shows there
is
> no toxicity problem, or that environmentally it is the lesser of two
evils,
> in a particular application (i.e. lead in solder) is presumably the right
> way to proceed, which you are doing.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> I'm 15 hours ahead here, where it's a miserable rainy, warm, muggy Monday
> morning...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Burke [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 7:21 AM
> To: '(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)'; 'Michael Kirschner'
> Subject: RE: [LF] Ray Franklin's defense of RoHS
>
> Mike,
>
>
>
> Depends on your idea of "running".....8-)
>
>
>
> They don't have countries to run - as such - they just have policy to make
-
> trust me I am a European - if they had a country to worry about we might
not
> see these kinds of issues since they would have one environmental
department
> involved instead as I suspect of a committee.
>
>
>
> They have legislation to make based on "common policy" FOR other countries
> as evidenced by the total confusion on WEEE and RoHS implementation by
those
> countries in the EU, If they were "running" them this would not have been
a
> factor. The governing body in Brussels called the EU is what used to be
> called the "EEC" or European Economic Communit before which it was simply
> called the "common market", whose member countries can I believe opt into
or
> opt out of; and basically is there to create common policy for the member
> countries - although England ( yay -  that's where I was born - London)
has
> chosen not to adopt the monetary policy.
>
>
>
> As regards due diligence expectations I quote from the EU Directive
> 2002/95/EC:
>
>
>
> (7) The substances covered by this Directive are scientifically well
> researched and evaluated and have been subject to different measures both
at
> Community and at national level.
>
> (8) The measures provided for in this Directive take into account existing
> international guidelines and recommendations and are based on an
assessment
> of available scientific and technical information.
>
>
>
> And of course it is dated 2003. So there we have it - they SAY they did it
> but try asking for the report..........
>
>
>
> So on the "due diligence" it is not my "expectation" it is their rule book
-
> they have to do it, they said they did it according to this,  but didn't
as
> Brian pointed out - freaked out? You betcha..........and with good reason.
>
>
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> PS how many hours ahead of Pacific are you?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Kirschner
> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 3:19 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LF] Ray Franklin's defense of RoHS
>
>
>
> John, et. al.,
>
>
>
> I was reading some of the posts on pcb007 and stumbled on a reply from Ray
>
> Franklin:
>
>
>
>
http://www.pcb007.com/anm/templates/article.aspx?articleid=7405&zoneid=127&v
>
> =
>
>
>
> I sent him the URL for this forum ;o)
>
>
>
> Ray does make the point that this is the "precautionary principle" at
>
> work...it is as he says the opposite of the prior governmental approach to
>
> chemicals promulgated by the US in 1976's Toxic Substance Control Act,
which
>
> places responsibility for determining that a chemical is toxic and should
be
>
> removed from the market on the EPA, then ties it's hands. REACH and the
>
> precautionary principle would have industry understand fully the toxic and
>
> ecotoxic nature/risks/hazards of new (and old) chemicals and chemical
>
> applications before putting them on the market, vs putting them on the
>
> market and seeing what happens. Thus your expectation that "government"
does
>
> the "due diligence"; they expect industry to do the "due diligence".
>
> Suddenly our world is turned topsy-turvy and that's what has everyone
>
> freaked out.
>
>
>
> Members of the European Parliament are elected officials. I think they
have
>
> many countries to "run", but in a seemingly very different way than most
>
> other political monsters we have seen.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: John Burke [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>
> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 2:41 AM
>
> To: '(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)'; 'Michael Kirschner'
>
> Subject: RE: [LF] Ray Franklin's defense of RoHS
>
>
>
>
>
> Hey Mike, didn't realize you were traveling.
>
>
>
> Interesting dialogue.
>
>
>
> I believe one of the potential issues with the EU legislation is that they
>
> did not as Brian pointed out do the "due diligence".
>
>
>
> Maybe part of the issue here is that they do not have a country to run?
And
>
> so do not have the usual boring issues of standing for re-election in the
>
> country whose laws they changed without "due diligence".
>
>
>
> To answer the question "why now?" - not entirely accurate, people have
been
>
> applying for (and having turned down) applications for a lead in solders
>
> exemption since '2004, I actually sent one case of this back to the EU as
a
>
> part of my support for the 9 exemption requests on which RoHSUSA has sent
>
> support docs to the EU, and can be downloaded either there or from the
>
> http://www.rohsusa.com site. The reason I sent that document back is to
show
>
> them that since they didn't do due diligence there are now available
plenty
>
> of materials where people did, including the EPA report which I have sent
in
>
> support of those applications. WE also sent that same document among
others
>
> as primary evidence for the blanket application which I filed with the EU
>
> Commission for a complete lead in solders exemption on environmental
grouds
>
> and which arrived there yesterday - again details on the site.
>
>
>
>  Lets face it they (the EU)only cut this thing together officially in 2003
>
> here is the document header:
>
> =======================================================================
>
> 32002L0095
>
> Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27
>
> January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances
>
> in electrical and electronic equipment
>
>
>
> Official Journal L 037 , 13/02/2003 P. 0019 - 0023
>
>
>
> Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
>
> of 27 January 2003
>
> =====================================================================
>
>
>
> So I guess the difference is before release it was just an ugly rumour as
>
> far as the "main industry" was concerned. Of course trade associations and
>
> people "in committee" saw it coming a long time before, and in the case of
>
> the trade groups should in my opinion been pushing back on the foundation
of
>
> the proposals which would have revealed the lack of due diligence.
>
>
>
> It is late, but the environmental question mark still hangs over this one.
>
>
>
> The reviews for round 5 and 6 stakeholder consultations will be
interesting.
>
>
>
> Travel safe.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Kirschner
>
> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 6:08 AM
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Subject: Re: [LF] Ray Franklin's defense of RoHS
>
>
>
> Brian,
>
>
>
> This forum agreed a couple years ago to keep it called "lead-free" despite
>
> the fact that it was becoming more and more about RoHS. It is not simply
>
> about "lead-free" and has not been for a long time. So [LF] does not mean
>
> that this forum is ONLY about solder. If it were it would be far less
>
> interesting.
>
>
>
> As I say every time I give the presentation about these laws being adoped
>
> around the world, we're not at the "United Federation of Planets" stage
yet
>
> so stating that the only way this is acceptable is if the entire world
>
> implements it is a red herring...things like this have to start somewhere,
>
> then they propogate for better or worse...then hopefully they change. So
if
>
> there was no "risk assessment" why was the directive allowed to go all the
>
> way to law without legitimate and hard-fought protest? Why is protest
>
> starting now, three and a half years after promulgation? Feh.
>
>
>
> The EU is exercising it's new-found power. Go read my friend Mark
Shapiro's
>
> article entitled "New Power for 'Old Europe'" at
>
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041227/schapiro (it's dated at points but
>
> explains the situation well). The world has to bend to the EU's whims for
>
> products that are built uniformly for the entire world...like electronics
>
> (and soon chemicals)...or skip the EU as a market; that is an option,
right?
>
> (I guess it's an option like the Existentialists say there are options
>
> besides suicide). That's what the EU diplomats say.
>
>
>
> You think understanding toxicity of chemicals is folly? You want PBBs and
>
> PBDEs back in electronics? Really? There's this concept of the "line item
>
> veto" here that we need ... I disagree that all of RoHS is bad solely
>
> because of the lead in solder issue...and as a counter to your "parson's
egg
>
> rule" I would present the "Jackson Five rule": "one bad apple don't spoil
>
> the whole bunch" ;o)
>
>
>
> By the way, the UN has a long-term chemical plan called SAICM - the
>
> Strategic Approach to International Chemical Management that will be
rolled
>
> out over the next 15 to 20 years. So there is international action on
>
> this...just not nearly to the degree that REACH manages chemicals.
>
>
>
> Mike (punchy in Shenzhen)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>
> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 4:27 PM
>
> To: (Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum); Michael Kirschner
>
> Subject: Re: [LF] Ray Franklin's defense of RoHS
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree, but, if you look at the subject of these e-mails, they are
>
> prefixed [LF], not [CdF], [HgF] or any of the others, even though there
>
> has been the occasional thread about these from time-to-time.
>
>
>
> However, if the parson's egg is all right in parts, it really means the
>
> whole egg is rotten. Believe me, no environmental risk assessment has
>
> been conducted on any of the other elements and substances, as used in
>
> electronics, either. There is a requirement for such an assessment
>
> before a Directive is proposed. This was ignored, "for lack of funding".
>
> I therefore suggest that it could be argued that the whole of RoHS and
>
> WEEE could be declared null and void on procedural grounds.
>
>
>
> As for REACH, I would welcome something along those lines, on condition
>
> that it were promulgated on a global basis, not just in Europe, perhaps
>
> jointly by UNEP, WHO, WTO, ISO and BIT. It would then mean that everyone
>
> would be subject to the same regulations and the stupendous cost of such
>
> a folie de grandeur would be more evenly distributed, with no competing
>
> norms.
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> Michael Kirschner wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.cypenv.org Cyprus environment/energy
>
> http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv World environment/energy
>
> http://www.cypenv.org/weather Cyprus weather
>
> http://www.cypenv.org/smf/index.php Environment/energy forums
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cypnature/ Cyprus nature forum
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---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
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>

--
http://www.cypenv.org Cyprus environment/energy
http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv World environment/energy
http://www.cypenv.org/weather Cyprus weather
http://www.cypenv.org/smf/index.php Environment/energy forums
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cypnature/ Cyprus nature forum

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------