LEADFREE Archives

March 2001

Leadfree@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Charbonneau, Richard A" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Leadfree Electronics Assembly E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:46:47 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (74 lines)
Here, here!

re: Proposed WEEE Directive

It seems to me that the IPC had a solution to eliminate lead from circuit
boards, so they backed off. Fortunately, AeA and EIA have continued to
encourage a more scientific approach. IPC is the right group to lead the
effort against stricter (EPA) standards, but is it the right group to lobby
the EC on WEEE?


-----Original Message-----
From: Harvey Miller [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 5:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [LF] Join us in an Appeal to the IPC


March 22, 2001

Dear Electronics Industry Colleagues,

The IPC through its President, Dennis McGuirk, has stated, "banning lead is
not based on good science", (EPP, Jan2001, pg 34).  With regard to banning
lead in solder for electronics specifically, in the final analysis it is
clearly a bad choice both for the electronics industry and for the
environment.
While one can easily agree with President McGuirk's assessment, it seems
logical that we need a more pro-active policy actively opposing a misguided
initiative that by all appearances is primarily motivated by marketing
opportunism and pays little heed to the needs of the environment or the
overall impact of lead-free on it.
The IPC, as the leading trade association representing the electronic
interconnection industry, should do more in leading the way for
science-based
risk assessment. To that end we are suggesting a modification to the current
position statement of the IPC as adopted by the board of directors.

If you are in support of this premise and are interested in obtaining a copy
of the present IPC position statement and a copy of the proposed alternative
statement, please respond.

Note that this is primarily an individual based effort and it is based on
individual conscience and their desire to see that the full impact of
lead-free be fully, fairly, honestly and scientifically evaluated before we
proceed further down this unproven path.

Joe Fjelstad and Harvey Miller

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Leadfee Mail List provided as a free 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: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases >
E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700
ext.5315
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leadfee Mail List provided as a free 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: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2