When it was mentioned before, I pointed out a number of flaws. In the
first place, the weightings are often very arbitrary. Secondly, the
secondary effects of the upstream data are often ignored etc. It may be
a small step for man but I fear it does very little for mankind other
than to confirm a little of what is already known.

Brian

John Burke wrote:
> I may be mistaken but I have never seen a press release or announcement
> for the EPA report on Solders in Electronics: A Life-Cycle Assessment
> [PDF]
> <http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/pubs/solder/lca/lfs-lca-final.pdf>
> (3.53 MB, 472 pages)
>
>
>
> This 472 page weighty tome was apparently published in August 2005.
>
>
>
> I checked with a couple of industry peers and they never saw it either.
>
>
>
> Interestingly, it appears that SAC alloy has a higher impact than tin
> lead in a number of areas such as:
>
>
>
> Non renewable resource use
>
> Energy use
>
> Global warming
>
> Ozone depletion
>
> Water Quality
>
>
>
> I understand why this report might not be widely heralded by those with
> a commercial interest in lead free replacements, but as a US tax payer I
> for one would like the results of such an analysis to be widely read and
> available should the decision ever have to be made for instance, for
> reasons of reliability, to reverse the decision to remove lead from
> solders in Europe.
>
>
>
> For anyone thinking that I am "knocking" lead free - you are right -
> there continues to be no reason to support it given that WEEE laws in
> Europe mean that electronics never end up in a landfill anyway so
> leaching arguments and measurement methods are somewhat academic.
>
>
>
> I do however have a passionate concern for the environment. It makes me
> mad when I see that the "environmentally friendly" replacement for
> eutectic leaded solder is actually having a much greater impact on non
> renewable resources. Check out tables ES-4 and ES-5.
>
>
>
>>From the report:
>
>
>
> 2The difference between SAC and SnPb is 453 kg of NRR per 1,000 cc of
> solder applied. If this were all
>
> automotive gasoline, this difference is equivalent to 162 gallons of
> gasoline. Assuming a driver consumes 20
>
> gallons per week, this is also equivalent to approximately 8 weeks of
> driving.
>
>
>
> Anyway for environmentalists and engineers everywhere here is the link:
>
>
>
> http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/pubs/solder/lca/index.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> John Burke
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------