Good point on tin. Tin is also a "Conflict Metal" mined in Africa,  
primarily the Congo to buy virtual slave labor a story that  gets limited play in 
the developed world media.
Joe  
 
 
In a message dated 3/17/2010 5:12:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

I would  recommend "Recycled Content Lead".  About 85% of lead demand is  
met
from recycling.  Tin has very little recycled content.  There  may be an
opportunity for companies which have not over-capitalized tin  conversion to
market leaded solder as a choice in the market.

On  Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Dennis Fritz <[log in to unmask]>  wrote:

> OK - let's petition the IPC to change the name of this  forum to 
"Tin-Risk"
> not Lead-Free.
>
> Use the term  Tin-Risk wherever you find Lead-Free now!!!!
>
> Denny  Fritz.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Werner  Engelmaier <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>  Sent: Tue, Mar 16, 2010 10:01 pm
> Subject: Re: [LF] The Brainstorm:  Should the U.S. employ RoHS-like
> standards for imported  products?
>
>
>  Hi Bob,
> hile not all of RoHS  is bad, your points are well taken.
> o lets concentrate on the real bad  part—the Pb ban.
> e should actually turn the argument around. Since it  now is clear, that 
all
> the
> ubstitutes for SnPb are  environmentally more damaging—less 
sustainability,
> more
> nergy  use, worse in land fills, more scrap to go into land fills, lower
>  eliability, tin whiskers, ravaging tin mining, etc. etc., the USA  should
> ban
> lectronic imports that contain Pb-free solders  [unless their use can be
> xplicitly justified] on those grounds. That  would put USA products on a
> higher
> lane than those problematic  Pb-free electronic products with the 
arguments
> of
> ore  environmentally products that are also more reliable.
>  erner
>
>
>
>
> -----Original  Message-----
> rom: Bob Landman  <[log in to unmask]>
> o: [log in to unmask]
> ent:  Tue, Mar 16, 2010 11:48 am
> ubject: [LF] The Brainstorm: Should the  U.S. employ RoHS-like standards 
for
> mported products?
>
>  his is a response to those opposing the House bill in the Congress on
>  xemptions for lead in NEMA products.  IPC is against the bill as is  AIA.
> Bob Landman
> &L Instruments, LLC
>  http://www.nema.org/media/eiextra/20081020b.cfm
> Should the U.S. employ  RoHS-like standards for imported products?
> Regulatory officials in the  U.S. would have a hard time justifying
> RoHS-like
> hresholds for  imported products only because a standard that applies just
> to
>  oreign-made products would constitute a serious barrier to trade for
>  overseas
> anufacturers. Furthermore, it would imply that products  manufactured in 
the
> .S. are held to a lower standard of “safety” than  imported products. 
This
> is
> ot the kind of message consumers  expect to hear from our government.
> On the other hand, it’s clear now  that the European RoHS thresholds are
> becoming
> a de facto  global standard, influencing markets far beyond the EU. If the
>  U.S.
> oes not address this trend, it could find itself a “dumping  ground” for
> roducts that can no longer be sold elsewhere as more and  more countries
> adopt a
> RoHS approach. From this standpoint,  standards on imported products could
> serve
> o protect consumers  while simultaneously encouraging domestic 
manufacturers
> to
>  evelop “greener” products as a means to compete.
> So what’s the  solution? At NEMA, which represents the electrical product
> ndustry in  the U.S., we believe that if a product standard can be 
justified
>  on
> he basis of science, safety, and product performance, it should  be
> applicable
> o a product regardless of where it is  manufactured – imported or 
domestic.
> We
> lso recognize the  impact of RoHS-type rules on the worldwide regulatory
> arena
> nd  believe manufacturers should stay ahead of the trend, employing their
>  xpertise in product design and development to control events as much  as
> ossible.
> For these reasons, NEMA is striving to introduce  Federal legislation that
> would
> stablish hazardous substance  thresholds for many electrical products sold
> in
> he U.S.,  effective July 2010. When enacted, this legislation would apply 
to
>  all
> participants in the market and would preempt states from enacting  
different
> tandards. This will ensure a level, consistent playing field  without
> ompromising safety or performance.
> The U.S. should  definitely employ RoHS-like standards for imported
> products.  The
> world, and particularly the United States, is now making a valiant  push 
to
> go
> reen. Eliminating hazardous materials from products  in our homes,
> workplace,
> nd the landfill is vital to this  effort.
> The U.S. is still the largest consumer in the world. If we  demand higher
> tandards, it will help raise the bar for manufacturers  around the world 
who
> epend on our business. If we do nothing, it  undermines those who are 
trying
> to
> ake a difference and  improve our lives and our planet.
> AOS is a Swiss company, and we have  experience with RoHS. For us it 
applies
> to
> lectronic products  in the European Union (EU) whether made within the EU 
or
> mported. AOS  manufactures in Switzerland and draws from worldwide
>  resources.
> dopting RoHS created a lot of challenges for our company  and many other
> lectronic manufacturers in the European Union.
>  Modifying components and retooling was not an easy process, challenging  
our
> uality and process management to avoid unacceptable delays  while
> maintaining
> he same product quality and reliability.  Changing entailed a great deal 
of
> egotiation, planning and additional  cost. It is not a trivial thing.
> AOS’s U.S. office is located in  California, a state which passed SB 20:
> lectronic Waste Recycling Act  of 2003. This act follows many of the EU 
RoHS
> tandards for electronic  products being sold in California, but across a
> much
> arrower  scope. It only is a start and the nation should follow suit.
> Arguments  can be made for or against it. In fact, within DCA the best we
>  could
> o is reach consensus that it would be relatively  straightforward, low 
cost,
> and
> harmless to implement (and not  just for imported product, but for 
domestic
> as
> ell; if  implemented for imported product only it would be readily shot 
down
>  as
>  trade barrier).
> Implementing RoHS in the U.S. would  be relatively easy because the supply
> chain
> nfrastructure is  in place for it and most products (in terms of volume) 
are
> lready  RoHS-compliant. Companies (particularly those with products in 
high
>  olume and consumer markets) build one product for the world, and any
>  ocalization is based on software and maybe a power cord.
> However, the  fact is that RoHS is a point chemical regulation — it
>  addresses
> nly a few chemicals in a narrow range of applications.  Implementing it 
here
> ould still leave us several steps behind the EU's  leadership in
> environmental
> olicy — they have a "federal" WEEE  (Waste Electrical and Electronic
> Equipment)
> olicy, a product  energy policy (EuP - Energy-using Products), and a new
> overall
>  chemicals policy (REACH - Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and
>  estriction of Chemicals).
> The U.S. federal government therefore has a  long way to go in order to 
just
> put
> tself in a position to  harmonize with environmental regulations and
> policies in
> the  EU and other parts of the world, much less eventually regain its
>  leadership
> ole in environmental policy. Implementing RoHS in the U.S.  might put us 
on
> the
> ath, but it is far from the  endgame.
> The health risks and recycling difficulties associated with  the materials
> overed by RoHS are well known, but the product  life-cycle impact from the
> use
> f alternative manufacturing  materials like lead-free solder is just
> starting to
> be  understood.
> Although some manufactures, like Motorola, have been  successfully using
> ead-free solder since 2001, others have had serious  difficulties. In 
2006,
> watch watches experienced a nearly 5 percent  failure rate due to the
> evelopment of “tin whiskers” (small  thread-like strands that can sprout
> from
> ead-free solder and  cause short circuits) on circuit boards forcing a
> nearly
>  1billion dollar re-call.
> Creating reliability and product life-cycle  issues will affect safety,
> consumer
> atisfaction and ultimately  increase the amounts of waste generated. This 
is
> why
>  long-lived, mission critical equipment like medical devices and  
monitoring
> and
> ontrol systems are currently exempt from RoHS  compliance.
> Practically speaking, the fact that California passed the  Electronic 
Waste
> ecycling Act in 2003 means we have already adopted  these standards - very
> few
> oreign companies can afford to sell  into the U.S. and not sell in
> California.
> As a nation though,  we should wait and watch a couple more years of data
> from
> oHS  compliance overseas. Once the real effect and the potential  
engineering
> orkarounds are better understood we can more rationally  assess the
> benefits.
> So RoHS-like compliance will come, but  let's not be in such a hurry to 
make
> ecycling easier that we create  more garbage in the process.
> The answer is "No,” unless it is the same  as the RoHS-Directive
> (2002/95/EC) in
> etter and intent.  Europe’s RoHS directive, published in February 2003 and
> mplemented in  July 2006, led to a tsunami of products produced in the
> global
>  lectronics and electrical market, to be distributed across the USA.
>  Destined to
> regulate consumer electronics and electrical products and,  more
> importantly,
> xempt industrial, medical, aerospace and  national defense systems; it has
> nfortunately swallowed everything in  its wake.
> U.S. manufacturers now produce many (but not all)  RoHS-compliant products
> for
> he global market. Why should we  develop our own version, when the 
European
> ommunity has already  influenced the global market in this regard?
> Visit any  consumer-electronics, office supply store or Wal-Mart, and you
>  will
> ee a number of electronic and electrical products that carry the  WEEE
> Wheelie
> in and some form of a RoHS symbol. Like it or  not, legislation in the USA
> will
> ot change the fact that many  RoHS-compliant components, assemblies and
> products
> are already  in circulation here.
> Some naysayers and alarmists in the industry warn  against the potential 
for
> ailure of RoHS-compliant products with their  lead-free make-up and
> increased
> in-whisker risks. There are  those who would have us support a motion to
> reduce
> he  potential risks and allow for a better technical assessment of a
>  oHS-compliant U.S. Their response would be to support a BAN on
>  RoHS-compliant
> roducts entering the U.S.
> As a member of the G8  and WTO, however, we cannot introduce a potential
> trade
> arrier  on imported products and simultaneously protect U.S.-manufactured
>  roducts. The RoHS-Directive is an emotionally charged topic in certain
>  uarters, but so far no serious problems have become evident in the  U.S.
> onsumer electronics market.
>  =============================
>
> ob Landman
> &L  Instruments, LLC
>
>  ______________________________________________________________________
>  his email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>  or more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or  [log in to unmask]
>  _____________________________________________________________________
>
>  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee
>  Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> o  unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>  he BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> o temporarily  stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send:
> SET
>  eadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> earch previous postings at:  http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> lease visit IPC web site  
http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16for
> dditional  information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>  47-615-7100 ext.2815
>
>  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  ______________________________________________________________________
>  his email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>  or more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or  [log in to unmask]
>  _____________________________________________________________________
>
>  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee
>  ail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> o  unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>  he BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> o temporarily  stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send:
> SET
>  eadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> earch previous postings at:  http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> lease visit IPC web site  
http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16for
> dditional  information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>  47-615-7100 ext.2815
>
>  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>  ______________________________________________________________________
>  This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>  For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or  
[log in to unmask]
>  ______________________________________________________________________
>
>  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------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=4.3.16for additional information, or  contact Keach Sasamori at
> [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100  ext.2815
>
>  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>



--  
Robin  Ingenthron

______________________________________________________________________
This  email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more  information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]  
______________________________________________________________________

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---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
---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------