Gordon,
Well done. 
Tony Cosentino
Tekelec

-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Davy, Gordon
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] Official EU exemption request support for lead in solders - your input is needed - really important please read

This is one of my longer postings. For those who don't care to read the whole thing, the short version is this: Be noble and submit to the EU authorities your letter of support for the RoHSUSA exemption request (covering all electronics assemblies using lead in solder). There are risks in claiming that lead-free solder harms the environment and health more than tin-lead solder. Instead, point out the inherent inconsistency between the RoHS directive and the Precautionary Principle that it invokes.

 

Tim McGrady said recently that the EU and its advisors are not equipped to make the decisions they are making. I believe that this assertion applies more to the EU officials than to their technical advisors, who no matter how well equipped, are in the awkward position of having to recognize the political limits to what they can advise. At the risk of sounding harsh, here is a theory of why the officials are unequipped: they embrace their beliefs with such unquestioning tenacity (read dogmatism) that it overwhelms whatever technical competence and sound advice they might otherwise be able to command. It is a universal principle that suppressing any truth confuses one's thinking in that area. It's the officials' dogmatism and confused thinking that makes so many of us pessimistic that appeals that present a substantive challenge to the RoHS directive, no matter how cogent, will result in the EU's reversing course. 

Show your support. 

But no one knows the future. While I still doubt that John Burke's request for exempting all electronics assemblies using lead in solder will prevail, the fact that it has been given official status is significant. The present level of openness of EU officials to input from ordinary people is an improvement over their inaccessibility during development of the RoHS directive. Thanks, John, for persevering to get this far in what I didn't think could happen. By the way, does tin-lead plating as a termination finish count as solder?

We should all submit letters of support. Doing so won't improve the performance rating your boss gives you, but do it out of altruism - concern for the greater good. Challenge error with truth. Light a candle instead of cursing the darkness. Respond to the call of duty (a word and concept vanishing in our increasingly relativistic and individualistic age). 

I would suggest to any subscriber who has not yet submitted a letter of support, identify the company that you work for. For your peace of mind you can add a disclaimer about your comments being your own opinion. Be diligent in what you write and how you write it. Any submission by an industry representative could be regarded as self-serving, so you want to present yourself as impartial to increase the chance that yours will receive an impartial evaluation. Establish your objectivity and lack of bias in the matter. The person evaluating it may not be dogmatic. Point out that even though you work for a manufacturer of electronic equipment, your company is already RoHS-compliant (or, as in my case, builds electronic equipment that the directive doesn't cover) and you as a technical person in that company anticipate no benefit should the exemption be granted. This is particularly important for such a sweeping, high-visibility, and politically sensitive exemption request as John's is.

It is important, of course, that you not only express support for the exemption, but can document your claims. Demonstrate rigorous thinking. You don't want the reviewer to conclude that you are just repeating hearsay, are making unsupported claims, or present factual errors in your appeal. To demonstrate your competence you also want to express yourself clearly. (To help ensure the adequacy of what you say, imagine getting a telephone call from the reviewer asking you to explain what you have written.) Proofread carefully.

I've long tried to work toward these goals in my writing. My latest writing improvement goal is to write more politely - or at least less abrasively. Maybe that will increase my persuasiveness. But it's hard because I have my own strong beliefs (see abrasive aside below).

What the creators of RoHS believe. 

As you consider what you want to say, it helps to understand the beliefs and intents of the people who drafted and enacted the RoHS directive, even though you disagree with them. Their beliefs can be discerned from the preamble (the part of the directive that starts "Whereas"). Either because of the wording or because of the strength of my resentment, I've had to read the preamble (and the rest of RoHS) many times to make sure that I really understand what it says. Confused thinking leads to confusing writing. Also, legislators sometimes employ "studied ambiguity" to mask awkward differences.

Article 5 says that legislation on recycling and disposal of waste electronic equipment (i.e., the WEEE directive) is "necessary to reduce the waste management problems linked to the heavy metals concerned and the flame retardants concerned." (Since the writers are not chemists, we can forgive them for not knowing that neither chromium nor cadmium is a heavy metal.) 

It says further that even with recycling, a significant amount of waste electronic equipment "will continue to be found in the current disposal routes" (i.e., incineration and landfilling). It says that the presence in electronic equipment of the prohibited materials "would be likely to pose risks to health or the environment." (Not that it does pose a risk, but only that it probably does.) It isn't clear, but presumably that risk assertion is intended to apply to all discarded electronic equipment - whether it goes to a recycler or is disposed of conventionally. 

As an added benefit of prohibiting the materials, Article 6 says that it "is likely to enhance the possibilities and economic profitability of recycling of WEEE and decrease the negative health impact on workers in recycling plants." (Saying "likely" regarding these claims gives the impression that the legislators are just guessing. These are matters that had they wanted to would have been easy for them to verify before they enacted the directive.)

Read the preamble for yourself and see what you think of my summary of what it says about why it is necessary to prohibit the use in electronic equipment of the identified materials. 

*    Their presence might harm health and the environment.

*    Recycling is needed to reduce that (possible) harm.

*    Recycling is more likely to be profitable and less likely to harm recycling workers if the waste electronic equipment they receive doesn't contain them.

*    Not all electronic equipment will get recycled - some of it will remain in the waste stream (with the implication that it will therefore go into incinerators and landfills).

The entire directive is founded on the belief that even with implementation of the WEEE directive, "to achieve the chosen level of protection" the continued use of the prohibited materials in electronic equipment poses too big a risk to health and the environment. Quite significantly, given the centrality of that belief, the nature of the risk is not actually stated nor is it supported with any evidence. The reference to risks and probabilities instead of actualities puts the prohibition of lead in electronic equipment on a speculative foundation - a weakness that should be brought to the attention of anyone who will listen. 

Abrasive aside.

Since I've tried so hard to be polite in my letter of support (see below), I can't resist saying a few things here that would be most inappropriate there.  As I've studied the RoHS directive I have wondered how it came to be. As implied above, I have concluded that the officials responsible for it share a core belief - a dogma. While rarely stated or challenged publicly, that dogma is that, regarding health and the environment alone, it is desirable to eliminate from all industrial products all uses of any substance identified as toxic. 

Parenthetically, one environmental activist goes so far as to say - seriously! - that his goal is to "rid the biosphere of all toxic substances." He didn't mention what concentrations he would tolerate or whether that includes disease germs. Or the lead from burning gasoline that is distributed all over the world. Or whether he would allow arsenic, an enabling ingredient of cell phones. I hope he doesn't manage to get many people to join in his crusade. But his willingness to even put something as silly as this on his web site indicates how far people can get carried away with a notion. Remember the guy who put spikes in trees he didn't own to hurt anyone who tried to cut them down?

If I'm right that this dogma exists and is as I have characterized it, it is amazingly naïve. Another abrasive but appropriate word is hubris - a result of the EU officials' lack of accountability to the ordinary citizens who pay their salaries and in whose interest they profess to be governing.

Bluntly, the RoHS directive is superstition and demagoguery enacted into law. The usual reasoning accompanying superstitious behavior is "it can't hurt and it might help." The demagogue says "We are in a crisis - we can't afford the time that it would take to allow the normal processes of deliberation to occur. We must act now." In times past thinking like this led people to sacrifice their firstborn son to an idol and throw virgins into volcanoes. My, how we've progressed!

Here's my paraphrase. "The risk of harming health and the environment is so serious we can't allow you to continue with business as usual. Even though we can't prove that harm is occurring or that our rules will help, it is enough to know that it might be occurring or start occurring, and that the rules might help. You have to find some other way to build electronic equipment. We aren't interested in hearing how much more it costs you to comply with the rules, so don't even mention it. As a concession and to show how reasonable we are, if you tell us about specific situations where implementing these requirements would prevent you from putting that equipment on the market, we will consider requests for exemptions. But any relief we grant is for those situations only and we may decide later to remove it." Harsh as this sounds, who will call it an exaggeration?

Irresponsible environmental activists, at least the leaders, should know that the dogma is false but don't care. They are the originators. They employ bogeyman warnings to encourage this kind of confused thinking. It frightens their donors and demonstrates to them the activists' ability to influence legislation. That's important for maintaining their cash flow. I call it evil.

There, that was cathartic. I feel better from getting it out.

What to say.

As you decide what you want your letter of appeal to say, consider this. To make the appeal by claiming that more harm is done to health and the environment by lead-free than by tin-lead solder in electronic products is to imply that you accept the environmentalists' claim that tin-lead solder damages health and the environment. It also implies that you believe replacing it with lead-free solder will cause more damage. Do you really want to do that? Imagine getting a phone call asking you if the data you have submitted are irrefutable and relevant. Asking how rigorous your thinking is. Asking what makes you think that use of lead-free solder in electronic products will result in harm.

Have you considered the risk that someone will exploit what you say, especially if many others say it too? Now that RoHS is law, they need to find a new cause. Remember that the RoHS directive identifies no lead-free solder as an "environmentally friendly alternative." It would be a stretch for copper, but silver is right next to cadmium in the periodic table. Someone could start an effort to add silver to the list of prohibited RoHS substances. Given the opportunism of irresponsible environmental activists and the dogmatism of the EU officials, who can say that this couldn't happen?

Instead of comparing environmental and health consequences of changing the composition of solder, my supporting argument for John's exemption request focuses on lack of evidence and rigor in the RoHS directive. It asserts a fundamental and irreconcilable internal inconsistency in the RoHS directive (an assertion that I think offers less room for differences of opinion). My argument identifies the inconsistency between that the substance of the RoHS directive and the Precautionary Principle that it invokes. It asserts that the suitability for use of, and the environmental consequences of using, lead-free solder in electronic products have not been established. That is all that is necessary to say.

Also, the internal inconsistency argument (with the footnote) applies with equal force to the entire directive, not just lead in solder. If someone were to prepare and submit an exemption request to reverse the whole directive, I think my argument applies and is valid.

Before I submit my letter of support, in spite of its length I'd like to ask forum participants to read it and offer a response. I'd prefer for them to find the deficiencies, including gratuitous abrasiveness, in it. If it receives favor, perhaps others might want to use some of these arguments.

Gordon Davy                                                                                

In support of Exemption # 15

I am an engineer in a company that builds electronic equipment not covered by the RoHS directive. Hence, should this exemption request be granted I would receive no personal benefit. My company  (and its customers) would receive at most a secondary benefit. In other words, my support for this exemption is based solely on its merits and not on any anticipated gain. The grounds of my appeal are unrelated to the costs of implementing and complying with the RoHS directive, which I recognize by EU policy are irrelevant considerations for matters of health and the environment. 

I would have welcomed a meaningful opportunity to submit this appeal years ago while the directive was being developed and considered, but the legislative process did not provide it. I was told for years before its enactment that the directive was "a done deal" and that the legislators were not interested in receiving such comments from outside sources. So I am quite glad to get this opportunity. I have prepared and now submit my support for Exemption #15 with the hope that it will receive serious consideration.  

I respectfully oppose the RoHS directive's prohibition of lead in electronic equipment (including solder) because for the reasons shown below it is fundamentally contrary to the Precautionary Principle. This is a serious matter because adherence to the Precautionary Principle is EU policy (as indicated in articles 2 and 10 of the RoHS preamble).  

1. The Precautionary Principle says that those who favor a change have the burden of proof. They must show, publicly and cogently enough to convince opponents, that it will not make things worse. As a matter of simple prudence the Precautionary Principle must apply regardless of who favors the change. That is, if the Precautionary Principle is not just a convenient tool to promote an agenda but a valid principle for protecting health and the environment, it must be complied with equally by those who propose a new practice and those who oppose a prevailing one. The opponents of the prevailing practice of using lead in electronic equipment have scarcely begun to meet that requirement.

2. The Precautionary Principle applies to proposed changes. For any prevailing practice it is a misapplication to allude, as do Articles 5 and 8 of the preamble, to "risks." Opponents of a prevailing practice need to document the harm that is happening instead of speculating about harm that might happen. For them to resort to risk language (in essence expressing fear) suggests that they have nothing more substantive to offer. It weakens their position. 

3. The Precautionary Principle requires substantiation. Article 5 of the preamble only alludes to "available evidence" documenting waste management problems. No such "available" evidence has been made public. Without public scrutiny of purported evidence there is no impartial review of its validity and applicability.  In fact, despite ample opportunity no claim of harm (or even risk) to the environment or health due to lead in electronic equipment - from manufacturing, use, recycling, or conventional disposal - has been supported by public evidence*. 

I have been following the development of the RoHS directive for many years. The only relevant evidence I have seen that might be taken to support it - and this has long been established - is that a level of lead in a person's body above some threshold harms his health. However, that fact alone is quite insufficient to warrant prohibiting use of lead in electronic equipment. To have merit such a prohibition would need support by a finding that establishes that the presence of lead in electronic equipment increases the level of lead in people. It should also propose a plausible mechanism for how it causes that increase. 

For example, depending on how determined one is to make the case, one might try to show that it is common for people surreptitiously to grind up end-of-life electronic equipment and use it in significant quantities as a snack or as an additive to their food or drinks or cigarettes, or to use it as snuff. One would then show that these people have a significantly higher blood lead level than people who don't engage in such practices, and further that their behavior is addictive and hence unlikely to change by simply publicizing its disadvantages. So far no one has been that determined. 

The need for finding a connection between presence in product and presence in people is well known by epidemiologists It would be appropriate for the preamble to refer to such a finding - if it existed - as the grounds for the prohibition.

The root flaw in the RoHS directive is that it tacitly assumes a causal connection between lead in electronic equipment and lead in people. It does not so state, nor does it offer so much as a speculative connection. It also ignores the fact that rather than increasing, human blood lead levels have been decreasing, for decades, since the elimination of lead in gasoline (petrol) and paint. This too is well known by epidemiologists.

As for environmental effects, the directive ignores the fact that a great deal of lead is present everywhere as a result of decades of burning leaded gasoline. To be significant, a claim that disposal of electronic products increases lead in the environment would need to show that the purported increase was significant compared to the amount already present.

4. The Precautionary Principle requires identifying a proposed change and documenting its lack of harm. As is acknowledged in Article 10 of the preamble by the phrase "more environmentally friendly alternatives,"  if electrical and electronic equipment are to continue to be put on the market in Europe, abandoning the use of lead in effect mandates using something else. Where lead is used, it is not used capriciously but because its unique properties add value to the product's performance. Yet no evidence has been made public (or even claimed) showing favorable environmental or health effects of using purported substitutes for lead. What opponent of a new industrial practice would accept the use by its proponents of the vague term "more environmentally friendly alternatives"? Yet that is exactly the effect of the RoHS directive. 

To convince opponents that a proposed new practice is effective and safer than current practice, the Precautionary Principle demands that the proposed practice must be clearly stated, and environmental impact and risk analyses must be prepared. The RoHS preamble simply assumes that suitable and environmentally friendly substitutes for lead in electronic products exist (or can be found), and offers not even so much as speculation on what they are or how their friendliness has been (or is to be) determined. As environmental activists have been pointing out for a long time, the mere existence of a substitute believed to be effective is insufficient. Its environmental and health safety must have been established.

Given the lack of public evidence of any health or environmental problem attributable to use of lead in electronic equipment, and without well established evidence that a more environmentally friendly alternative is even known, it should be quite clear that to demand switching to an unspecified alternative of undetermined environmental friendliness is contrary to the Precautionary Principle. 

In addition to the above arguments showing why the RoHS directive is inconsistent with the Precautionary Principle, it must be recognized that the RoHS prohibition of lead in electronic equipment jeopardizes manufacturers who have adopted the lead-free solders now in use. Those solders have not received anywhere near the scrutiny or industrial experience that tin-lead solder has. Should significant health or environmental problems with them be found, consistent application of the Precautionary Principle would presumably require users to look once again for a substitute - of even less well established environmental friendliness, to say nothing of reduced suitability. 

Manufacturers of electronic equipment are also at risk because given prevailing legislative practice further unsubstantiated prohibitions could be proposed at any time, most likely with limited opportunity offered to challenge them before they are enacted. 

In summary, I believe that because of lack of any publicly available supporting evidence, the RoHS directive, even though it acknowledges the Precautionary Principle, irreparably violates it. The flaws are so basic and so systemic that no amount of tinkering with the wording would provide a remedy. More particularly, I believe that because of lack of any publicly available supporting evidence, any prohibition of lead in electronic equipment is not good public policy. 

Regrettably, it appears that those who drafted and enacted the RoHS directive failed to recognize its internal inconsistencies. The effect of the prohibition is to require using substitutes whose suitability and greater environmental friendliness have yet to be adequately established. Hence to act consistently with the Precautionary Principle, that prohibition should be vacated until those who oppose use of lead in electronic equipment can state clearly, and produce and defend convincing evidence, the change they favor. 

Simply pointing out that lead is toxic falls far short of that standard.

 

*Although this discussion is limited to the RoHS directive's prohibition of lead, similar arguments apply to the prohibition of all of the other prohibited substances. The now well known difficulties in measuring the concentrations of hexavalent chromium and the prohibited brominated flame retardants indicate that the maximum concentration levels were specified without scientific evidence. The primary sources of cadmium in people are food and cigarettes. The primary source of mercury is coal. The adverse health effects of hexavalent chromium have been found where significant quantities of that substance are airborne. 

No evidence has been made public to show specifically, as is necessary, that not only are the prohibited substances toxic, but that use of any of them in electronic products has caused measurable harm to the environment or health. In fact, for each there are good reasons from basic laws of chemistry why such use should have no effect - whether the equipment is disposed of in any municipal incinerator or landfill or responsibly recycled. For the case of the prohibited flame retardants, when their dangers became known, adequate substitutes known to be safe were available. All the prohibited BFRs have now been removed from the market. Hence that issue has become moot.

Please note that these allegations, while true, are not necessary to establish the validity of my appeal. It is the proponents of the RoHS directive who have been seeking a change. The Precautionary Principle puts on them the burden of proof. They need to respond to the issues I raise. They have produced no argument to support even the perception of risk, let alone document any harm. Hence one must conclude that the entire directive is based on unsubstantiated beliefs. 

 


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