Brian,

This forum agreed a couple years ago to keep it called "lead-free" despite
the fact that it was becoming more and more about RoHS. It is not simply
about "lead-free" and has not been for a long time. So [LF] does not mean
that this forum is ONLY about solder. If it were it would be far less
interesting.

As I say every time I give the presentation about these laws being adoped
around the world, we're not at the "United Federation of Planets" stage yet
so stating that the only way this is acceptable is if the entire world
implements it is a red herring...things like this have to start somewhere,
then they propogate for better or worse...then hopefully they change. So if
there was no "risk assessment" why was the directive allowed to go all the
way to law without legitimate and hard-fought protest? Why is protest
starting now, three and a half years after promulgation? Feh.

The EU is exercising it's new-found power. Go read my friend Mark Shapiro's
article entitled "New Power for 'Old Europe'" at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041227/schapiro (it's dated at points but
explains the situation well). The world has to bend to the EU's whims for
products that are built uniformly for the entire world...like electronics
(and soon chemicals)...or skip the EU as a market; that is an option, right?
(I guess it's an option like the Existentialists say there are options
besides suicide). That's what the EU diplomats say.

You think understanding toxicity of chemicals is folly? You want PBBs and
PBDEs back in electronics? Really? There's this concept of the "line item
veto" here that we need ... I disagree that all of RoHS is bad solely
because of the lead in solder issue...and as a counter to your "parson's egg
rule" I would present the "Jackson Five rule": "one bad apple don't spoil
the whole bunch" ;o)

By the way, the UN has a long-term chemical plan called SAICM - the
Strategic Approach to International Chemical Management that will be rolled
out over the next 15 to 20 years. So there is international action on
this...just not nearly to the degree that REACH manages chemicals.

Mike (punchy in Shenzhen)

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 4:27 PM
To: (Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum); Michael Kirschner
Subject: Re: [LF] Ray Franklin's defense of RoHS


I agree, but, if you look at the subject of these e-mails, they are
prefixed [LF], not [CdF], [HgF] or any of the others, even though there
has been the occasional thread about these from time-to-time.

However, if the parson's egg is all right in parts, it really means the
whole egg is rotten. Believe me, no environmental risk assessment has
been conducted on any of the other elements and substances, as used in
electronics, either. There is a requirement for such an assessment
before a Directive is proposed. This was ignored, "for lack of funding".
I therefore suggest that it could be argued that the whole of RoHS and
WEEE could be declared null and void on procedural grounds.

As for REACH, I would welcome something along those lines, on condition
that it were promulgated on a global basis, not just in Europe, perhaps
jointly by UNEP, WHO, WTO, ISO and BIT. It would then mean that everyone
would be subject to the same regulations and the stupendous cost of such
a folie de grandeur would be more evenly distributed, with no competing
norms.

Brian

Michael Kirschner wrote:
> On Sat, 20 May 2006 10:17:06 +0300, Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I haven't time for a detailed reply, but it's clear that Mr Franklin's
>> knowledge of toxicology, epidemiology, chemistry, earth sciences and
>> engineering are sadly lacking. All he has done is propagate errors of
>> others, usually out of context.
>>
> [deletia]
>> Gordon, Harvey, Joe, Werner, John and many others (I'm too modest to
>> name them all :-) ) have been arguing the **scientific** wisdom of RoHS
>>from well before the time that the Directive split off from the proposed
>> WEEE one and, I believe, none of us have any vested interest other than
>> the well-being of our industry. I had published my feelings on the web
>> long before Mr Franklin had started his study. You can see what I wrote
>> at http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv/files/sustainability.htm#RoHS (this
>> was originally published on the now-defunct protonique.com site).
>>
> What Brian, "Gordon, Harvey, Joe, Werner, John and many others" have been
> arguing is against the impact of RoHS on lead in solders. You all have NOT
> been arguing at all, as far as I can tell, about the REST of the
directive.
>
> There is no doubt that mercury, hex chrome, PBBs, PBDEs, and cadmium are
> toxic and hazardous - some in use, some in manufacture, some in disposal.
We
> should elminiate them. Period. That's the vast majority of substances
> restricted in RoHS - 5/6 to be precise ;o).
>
> Lead is hazardous if ingested ... we at least know that. Don't sit there
and
> chew on that plastic coated wire (people do; they don't tend to chew on
> PWAs...) or you could get lead poisoning...right? Is there a risk that it
> can leach from landfills in to ground water where it presents a hazard? Is
> it hazardous during use? Is it hazardous during manufacture? Is the mining
> and refining process particularly hazardous? No the EU did not make clear
> it's case for restricting any of these substances in products. The
industry
> should've done a better job arguing it 8-10 years ago. Now it's too
> late...the law's in place. Get the scientific evidence together to detail
> it's benign or controllable nature in each of these stages of its
lifecycle
> and then present it to the Commission.
>
> But don't rail against RoHS; rail against the restriction of lead in
solder.
> Be clear; be precise.
>
> Mike
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>

--
http://www.cypenv.org Cyprus environment/energy
http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv World environment/energy
http://www.cypenv.org/weather Cyprus weather
http://www.cypenv.org/smf/index.php Environment/energy forums
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cypnature/ Cyprus nature forum

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