Regarding item 6, below, an industry study we were involved with will be
issued shortly that was done separately from this official EU study. We
tried to extrapolate to the entire industry and think we have adequate
statistical significance to do so. I'll announce to the group when it's out.
Best Regards,
Michael Kirschner
President
Design Chain Associates, LLC
415.904.8330
--
Design Chain Associates, LLC - Design Chain Solutions for Competitive Advantage
www.DesignChainAssociates.com
www.ChinaRoHS.com
www.KoreaRoHS.com
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:13:51 -0800, John Burke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>FYI
>
>
>John Burke
>
>(408) 515 4992
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
>Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 1:04 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [TN] EU "simplification"
>
>Brian Ellis is on line. He doesn't have any knowledge of the Deubzer thesis.
>
>I haven't had either time or patience to wade through the whole doc. I
>was hoping for an ExecSum but had to satisfy myself by skimming through
>the start and the conclusions. It appears to be an interesting study but
>my skim reveals a few initial potential problems (some of which may be
>handled in the unread text):
>
>1. If CR(VI) is of so little importance, why was it included in the
>first place?
>
>2. I'm astonished at the figures for Cd: I believe that this may be
>ascribed largely to the use in Cd-Ni batteries which had already been
>largely phased out and replaced by NiMH ones long before RoHS was
>implemented. Is it correct to use legacy figures to promote
>self-congratulation?
>
>3. I'm astonished at the selection of just a few countries for the
>study, missing out such important producers of EEE as F and I and
>including relatively minor ones, such as B and LT. This is all the more
>surprising in view that it is admitted that the economic differences
>regarding EEE are so different between these countries, as are the
>attitudes towards purchasing (e.g., the French would be much more likely
>to consume products with a "Fabriqué en France" label than a Brit would
>choose a "Made in the UK" one) and the sectors are different (S and SF
>are strong on telecoms, while I is strong on white goods). Other than
>that, there is a wide difference in the way WEEE has been implemented
>across the Union. GR, for example, is very weak, as I suspect are most
>of EU27 minus EU15. I know, for a fact, that CY has done almost nothing
>towards the practical implementation of WEEE, other than stir a few
>words. There is a company at Strovolos, near Nicosia, that purports to
>collect WEEE but I see very little sector activity there; the public
>have not been advised and most domestic WEEE, other than large white
>goods, is still landfilled. I think about half the bulky items like
>large TVs and white goods are taken back by retailers when replaced, but
>I doubt whether they are disposed of correctly by the retailers, judging
>by what I see (only the other day, I saw a pickup truck loaded with
>half-a-dozen old washing machines drive off a main road to a major
>landfill. Of course, I have no idea whether the electrics had been
>stripped out or not).
>
>4. Small countries and particularly the island states of CY and MT are
>at an economic disadvantage when it comes to recycling. It implies
>exporting all WEEE, which can be very costly. If they contain HazMat,
>then the Basel Convention applies.
>
>5. The economic and environmental studies appear not to have taken into
>account all the holistic implications of the resources.
>
>6. Can the 36 companies that returned questionnaires be considered
>representative? I have no idea how many EEE manufacturers/importers
>there are in the EU. OK, CH is not in the EU, but it is estimated that
>about 3000 companies have some practical activity in electronics alone.
>Many of them are one- or two-man affairs, such as repair shops,
>consultants etc.; many are small departments of companies in other
>sectors; many are SMEs in the electrical/electronic sectors; some are
>massive stakeholders in the industry, such as ABB, Ascom, Siemens-Albis
>etc. But if 3000 for a population of 8M were extrapolated to the 500M of
>the EU, it would seem probable that the number of companies in the
>sector would at least approach 100k. 36 companies represent considerably
>less than 0.1% of the total. I suggest that it is nonsense to formulate
>anything based on such statistically invalid data.
>
>7. You may consider this trivial, but if a major report is published
>with atrocious use of language, then it loses some credibility.
>
>Just some thoughts... I await being shot down in flames.
>
>Brian
>
>John Burke wrote:
>> I was hoping someone on the link could throw some light on the answer to
>> that (is Brian Ellis on line?)
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> John Burke
>>
>> (408) 515 4992
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dennis Fritz
>> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 2:39 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [TN] EU "simplification"
>>
>>
>> Interesting in how they cite data. The US EPA study is in part
>"credible"?
>>
>> What is this 2007 study by Deubzer?
>>
>> Denny Fritz
>> MacDermid, Inc
>>
>> In a message dated 1/18/2008 1:56:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> [log in to unmask] writes:
>>
>> I received this email from one of my contacts. I strongly suggest a look
>> at
>> the environmental impact "DATA" contained in section 3 here is the link:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/environment/reports_studies/studies/draft_rep
>> _study_rohs_directive_dec07.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
>> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
>> To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
>> [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
>> To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to
>> [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
>> Search the archives of previous posts 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
>> To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
>[log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
>> To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to
>[log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
>> Search the archives of previous posts 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
>To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
>To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to
>[log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
>To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to
>[log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
>Search the archives of previous posts 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
