Bemused

Not naive at all. You have every right to be bemused. Many of us on this
forum are equally bemused by the downright stupidity of our legislators.
As for the forces behind them, they are either emotive (lead is a dirty
word) or commercially driven through lobbying by interested parties. In
this case, because no science is involved, and the commission concerned
openly admits that they have not taken a risk assessment into account in
the matter, there is no reason behind the rules. Unfortunately this
state of affairs came to light only after the procedure had passed the
point of no return. Personally, I think that this state of affairs is
scandalous, forcing a whole industry to change on a whim.

You are quite right to question future regulations. Silver, in
particular, is already in the collimator and may also become a "dirty
word" when the legislators cotton on to it. The photographic industry
has already been severely handicapped in this respect: even a photo
amateur enlarging a single negative must consider his used solutions as
hazardous waste.

Watch this space....

Brian

Paul Kerr wrote:
> Hi all,
>         Following your comments on logic; I have only recently begun to dip
> my toe seriously into the subject of lead free, and I apologise for my
> naivety.
> As far as I can gather the move to lead free solder paste has been primarily
> driven by, until recently, the threat of legislation concerning the
> environmental impact of lead on the environment?  However having looked at
> the University of Stuttgart Life Cycle Engineering dept. report on lead free
> solder pastes and their impact on the environment, which is on the
> lead-free.org website, it seems that almost all of the alternatives to
> standard SnPb solder paste are in the order of 30-40 times more harmful to
> the environment, with the SnAgCu being amongst the worst!  How likely is it
> that, since the commission have started with as little as possible on their
> list, and will be adding to it, that the alternatives to lead will
> themselves become classified as hazardous by the time the industry has
> adopted them?
>
> Bemused Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Fjelstad [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 11 December 2002 07:50
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LF] Leadfree automotive industry waiver
>
>
> Hello Erik,
>
> Thank you for your comments and sharing some of the history.
>
> I am wondering if anyone on the commission has ever seen or considered all
> of the very compelling arguments you have made in the past that looked at
> the total life cycle of solders and the environmental impact that goes
> beyond the matter of supposed toxicity. (I don't need to remind you that no
> one has ever produced evidence that lead in solder is a hazard)
>
> You made the comment: "To make this recycling as easy as possible, they
> wanted to start with as little as possible hazardous materials to begin
> with"
>
> There seems to be a bit of a discontinuity in their logic once again as
> toxicity has nothing to do with recyclability. They are completely separate
> matters. (Why else would there be so many exemptions? )
>
> Moreover and to the same point, I am wondering if they actually believe that
> is easier to reclaim or recycle a ternary/quatnary alloy or a binary one?
>
> You don't need to respond for yourself as I am certain that you know the
> answer.
>
> What continues to glare at us all is the lack of logic and common sense. I
> just have trouble understanding how it is possible to ignore it or pretend
> that it does not exist. Science is providing sound responses. Why is it so
> difficult for them to listen?
>
> You have made some excellent arguments for common sense in the past. I and
> many others have taken note of your findings and appreciate your fine work.
>
> Don't give up, Erik. When your right, your right and no politically
> motivated decision will change that.
>
> Kind regards,
> Joe
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---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: http://listserv.ipc.org/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: http://listserv.ipc.org/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: http://listserv.ipc.org/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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------