David Suraski has posted without comment a propaganda piece that was
published in the news today dealing with lead leaching from discarded
electronic products using the EPA test. While David chose not to comment, I
feel compelled to do so. The article is just one more example of how
frequent repetition of an assertion brings about general acceptance void of
supporting evidence. Note the opening scary sentence: "Electronic gizmos,
..., once discarded, can be really hazardous." The rest of the article
discusses how this Florida professor, using $40,000 of EPA funding, and the
EPA test for leaching, found that if you grind up electronic products and
measure the amount of lead, it exceeds the EPA guidelines, thereby
qualifying them as hazardous waste. There's a big difference between
flunking the EPA test and causing lead poisoning, as has been argued here on
many occasions. However, the distinction seems to be lost on professors
looking for funding and news reporters looking for a sensational story (they
are supposed to follow the money, meaning inquiring as to whether the money
had any effect on the outcome).

Just in case there are any readers who missed previous postings on this
subject, I've copied an excerpt below of a comment I originally posted in
August 2002 under the title "Lead leaching: science or politics?"

Gordon Davy
Baltimore, MD
[log in to unmask]
410-993-7399

The so-called TCLP test for leaching of lead uses a "rigged" set of
conditions totally unrepresentative of what actually exists in a landfill.
It almost seems that it was concocted to give the answer they were looking
for. It uses not only a pH far lower, but acetic acid, which does leach lead
somewhat. Acetic acid is the basis of vinegar, and it is just conceivable
that there might be some cole slaw right next to a TV's CRT or solder
connections in a landfill somewhere. But what of it? With any luck, there
would be some egg salad nearby that would precipitate the lead acetate as
lead sulfide. Without luck, the acetate will precipitate as a carbonate or
sulfate, anions that are available in abundance everywhere in the world. [As
it turns out, even steel reduces the leaching!]

If you were to take the flask containing the leachate from the EPA's test,
dump in some dirt (or bubble some carbon dioxide through at the risk of
global warming) and then check for the new level of dissolved lead, it would
be far lower. A few weeks ago, Steve Conley alerted us to a National Public
Radio program that covered conflicting data from a Florida university
professor (who studied ground-up CRT's - source of funding not identified
[now we know!]) and the administrator of a Palo Alto landfill. The professor
- who revealed his own agenda by some of his comments of advocacy - found
leaching, the landfill did not. As stated also by Chuck Dolci, the landfill
data are real; the lab data are illusory. It has been pointed out repeatedly
that the lead level of ground water is in the low single-digit parts per
billion and is not increasing. What exactly is the EPA trying to do? Why not
pick a real environmental problem to address instead of a phony one?

The EPA - and professors who accept its money - should be ashamed of
themselves for using this test.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------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 delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL
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 847-509-9700 ext.5315
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------