TECHNET Archives

October 2001

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML 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:
"Stephen R. Gregory" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Sun, 28 Oct 2001 20:55:35 EST
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (3152 bytes) , text/html (3281 bytes)
Hello Joe...

Speaking for myself, you are singing to the choir (so to speak), I agree with 
you 100%!!!

What's even more irritating is this new TRI reporting legislation. By what 
has been detailed out, some of my hunting buddies could be legally bound to 
submit because they use more than 100-lbs. of lead shot when reloading. The 
same thing could apply to commercial fishermen who make their own sinkers...

It's a bunch of bull@$%t!!!

-Steve Gregory-


> Hello friends, 
> 
> I continue to be amazed at how much energy is being leveled at the 
> lead-free issue. Which is a shame because there are so many truly important 
> issues that are not being looked into. Especially given that lead in 
> electronics has never been shown to be a hazard or a problem to humans. 
> (Lead in human blood plasma has actually gone down significantly in the 
> past 20 years) CRTs are a possible exception as the leaded glass to stop 
> x-rays may be an issue but that lead is at least bound in glass.  (Alas, 
> such the power of fear based marketing) 
> 
> In my limited research, lead in electronics appears to account for less 
> than 0.5% of all lead used globally on an annual basis. It may be less than 
> 0.25% as one soon to be released research report I just read has the number 
> at 0.2%  or a factor of 10 times less. 
> 
> (I know the IPC web site says less than 2% and it is true but not accurate 
> because 0.5% is in fact less than 2%. It appears to have come from a US EPA 
> study that was done in the 1980s and relates primarily to the US. I think 
> they will get around to changing it someday when they have the time. I 
> mentioned this to David some time back and he was going to have Chris look 
> into it but Chris moved on before that happened, I am guessing) 
> 
> Remember that different profiles will be required for all of the different 
> solders you use as military, medical, automotive and high reliability 
> electronics are exempted you will likely have two or more solder lines 
> running several different profiles. Also be reminded that the lines will 
> likely have to be slowed down to get good wetting in reflow soldering and 
> NEMI is recommending a wave soldering temperature of 275ºC. You may wish to 
> read the NCMS and NEMI reports. 
> 
> Remember also that there is no "world wide" directive yet. The US is, 
> however, going to be taking a science based look at the issue. The IPC, EIA 
> and EPA are going to do a co-sponsored risk analysis of lead-free. If a 
> small part of what I have read and learned is true lead-free is going not 
> going to get any green stickers due to the excessive energy requirements 
> for prebakes and long assembly cycles. 
> 
> I have nothing to sell or gain from all of this, no matter what happens 
> over the long haul I do, however, have a strong interest in truth. ( For 
> the record, I also favored lead-free on principle when it first came about, 
> but my deeper look into the matter has caused me to question the 
> intelligence and rational of the movement) 
> 
> Best wishes and kind regard to all, 
> Joe 
> 



ATOM RSS1 RSS2