Mr. Poëtter:
Thanks for your prompt response to my email requesting information on the
extent to which the costs, risks, and benefits of abandoning lead and
halogens in electronic products would be covered at the Green 2000+
congress.
At the time I sent my request, I had not consulted the program announcement
on your web site, but only the email announcement that had been posted to
the IPC leadfree forum by Eve Schreckling. Now that I have looked at the
places you recommended, it appears that the papers whose titles and authors
I have listed below will address the question I have raised. In addition to
visiting the pages you cited, I reviewed the rest of the program. What I see
raises more questions.
In the Preface to the Advanced Program, Chairman Herbert Reichl says "New
product and process technologies should provide the proof that they
contribute to the solution of global environmental problems." What
constitutes proof? What if someone brings along a proposed improvement and
others don't agree it is an improvement? Who gets to decide? Why not help
things along by showing (and not just asserting) that existing product and
process technologies contribute to global environmental problems?
On the next page, it is claimed that "As a result of the worldwide economic
growth, environmental pollution has increased continuously over the past
years." Can the congress organizers support this claim? I have seen
convincing evidence that the environment in developed countries has been
improving for decades. If it has, then it doesn't follow that draconian
measures are called for.
On page 33, David Bergman of IPC says "The argument that 'it can't be done'
is no longer valid. It can, and it is being done." Lots of things can be
done; not all of them are worth the costs and risks. Also, one needs to
distinguish doing something for a noble cause "for the benefit of the
environment" and a commercial cause "to increase market share based on
public perceptions." This distinction seems to keep getting blurred.
Green 2000+ papers related to the costs, risks, and benefits of removing
lead or halogen from electronic products
Page 37
Toxicological Review Of Metal Substitutes For Lead In Solders, by M.
Antonsson et. al.
Environmental Aspects Of Lead Free Solders, by H. Griese et. al.
Page 14
The Industrial Ecology Implications of Lead-free Soldering, by L. J.
Turbini et. al.
Page 15
Brominated and Phosphorous Flame Retardants - A Comparison of Health
and Environmental Effects, by P. Hedemalm et. al.
I am somewhat familiar with the subject matter covered in the first three
papers. To the extent that I have investigated the effects on the
environment of the substitutes for lead, I have not seen that making the
switch will benefit the environment, in part because the threat to the
environment from lead in solder in electronic products has yet to be clearly
demonstrated, and in part because the alternates have their own toxicology.
As for industrial ecology, it is my understanding that this discipline
supports sticking with lead in solder. And as for the comparison of flame
retardants, I hope that the authors intend to include product safety in
their analysis.
Since there remains a substantial number of people who do not share your
belief that this is a noble cause but see it as being motivated by baser
motives, may I suggest that any findings, from these papers or anywhere
else, that support the effort receive prominent attention on your web site
and at the congress. For many, the assertions that appear in the program are
not self-evident truths but rather urban legends. I would think that in
addition to discussing "how to" bring about a better world among fellow
believers, attempts to convince the skeptic would be worth the effort. It is
entirely possible that as long as the skeptics remain, the true believers
will encounter severe obstacles in attaining their goal.
As an example of the skeptics that I am referring to, consider what Werner
Engelmaier posted this afternoon on the leadfree forum: "I am afraid its the
later [i.e., it has already been concluded that removing lead and halogens
from electronics is a noble cause that needs no further justification]. It
is 'politically correct', sounds like it is pro-active and scientific (we
ALL know the Roman Empire perished because of those lead pipes in
Rome)--wait until Gore hears about it and jumps on the bandwagon."
The comments of John Lynch, also posted this afternoon, are significant. He
says "I assure you the economics will be an eventual factor! With only 1/2
of 1% of the world's lead useage being affected, the question will keep
coming up at the operational level. ... All companies are studying impacts,
materials interactions and are getting ready. Truth is, many may not follow
through until a gun is held to their head." Persuasion is more civilized
than coercion, and in the long run, more effective.
Gordon Davy
Baltimore, MD
[log in to unmask]
410-993-7399
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Poetter [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 12:46 PM
> To: Davy, Gordon
> Subject: Re: Green congress
>
> Dear Mr. Davy,
>
> Thank you very much for your mail. There would be a treatment of the
> costs, risks and benefits of removing lead and halogens from electronics.
>
> For removing lead please have a look at page 37 (Posters about Lead Free
> Soldering), page 14 (Lectures of L.J. Turbini, K. Nimmo and O. Deubzer).
> The authors are available during the conference for discussions.
>
> For removing halogenes please have a look at session 1.4.
>
> But I agree to your statement, that in case of lead-free it's time to get
> on
> with the task of making it happen. Japanese are still presenting high
> volume lead-free products out of marketing reasons and automotive
> electronics manufacturer are working on high temperature (and therefore
> lead-free) electronics.
>
> Further I agree that in case of halogen-free electronics it is a noble
> cause
> and that it's time to get on with the task of making it happen? We have
> enough solutions to remove halogens from electronics with no increase of
> risk.
>
> Excuse this short and less detailled answer. As the responsible organizer
> I
> have not the time to answer in detail. I hope to have a further and more
> detailled discussion with you in Berlin.
>
> Best regards
>
> Harald Pötter
> Chairman Organizing Committee
>
> ---------------------------------------
> See you at the
> "Electronics Goes Green 2000+"
> Joint International Congress and Exhibition
> Berlin, September 11 - 13, 2000
>
> For more information see: http://www.izm.fhg.de/ee/2000/
> or mailto: [log in to unmask]
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Harald Poetter
>
> Fraunhofer Institut für Zuverlässigkeit
> und Mikrointegration
> Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25
> D-13355 Berlin
> http://www.izm.fhg.de/
>
> Tel ++49 30 464 03-139
> Fax ++49 30 464 03-131
> Email [log in to unmask]
################################################################
Leadfree E-Mail Forum provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
################################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask]
with following text in the body:
To subscribe: SUBSCRIBE Leadfree <your full name>
To unsubscribe: SIGNOFF Leadfree
###############################################################
Please visit IPC's Center for Lead-Free Electronics Assembly
(http://www.leadfree.org ) for additional information.
For technical support contact Keach Sasamori [log in to unmask] or 847-790-5315.
################################################################
|
