Gordon et al:
I'm caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place on this issue of
substantiation. Gordon is one of the finest electronics packaging minds
in the U.S. and Erik de Kluizenaar, based in the Netherlands, is equally
capable. I've had extensive dealings with both gentlemen (in the case of
Gordon, dating back almost 20 years) and have nothing but the greatest
respect for them. The fact that they are seemingly opposed on the
question of toxicity of metals other than tin makes for intriguing
reading.
I have no competency in this area at all. However, I do have an internet
connection and used it to look for links between nickel and toxicity. I
discovered an international symposium on Nickel Metabolism and
Toxicology was held in Paris in 1984. Apparently it was the third in a
series. The proceedings were published in the book Progress in Nickel
Toxicology (S.S. Brown & F.W. Sunderman, Blackwell Science, 1985 ISBN
0632013559. Judging from the summary of contents, it seems there is
indeed scientific reason for concern about nickel.
The summary of Contents reads:
Introduction: 100 years of nickel toxicology;
Muscle tumorigenesis
by nickel compounds Carcinogenesis; In vitro study
of
Ni3S2-induced rhabdomyosarcomas in normal and
polymyopathic
hamsters; Effects of calcium and megnesium salts
on nickel
subsulfide carcinogenesis in Fischer rats;
Nickel-induced malignant
tumors; Tumor induction in rats after intrapleural
injection of nickel
subsulphide and nickel oxide; Electron microscopy
of pulmonary
lesions, including carcinoma, induced by
inhalation exposure of rats
to nickel oxide aerosol; Electron microscopic
observations on
leiomyosarcomas induced with nickel subsulfide;
Toxicology and
carcinogenesis studies of nickel oxide, nickel
sulfate and nickel
subsulfide: design od study and characterization
of nickel
compounds; Alterations of human fetal kidney
epithelial cells
produced by nickel sulfate; Biological
characterization of cells
cultured from a sinonasal carcinoma of a former
nickel worker;
Incorporation of Ni3S2 and NiS into human
embryonic pulmonary
cells in culture; Toxicology X-ray microanalytical
and
autoradiographic detection of nickel in bacterial
cells; Solubility of
metallic nickel and nickel oxides in a biological
fluid at different pH
levels; An in vitro genotoxicity assay to
complement in vivo
inhalation studies and for occupational monitoring
of metallic
aerosols and welding fumes; Pulmonary deposition
and clearance of
inhaled nickel oxide aerosol; Comparative toxicity
of nickel salts to
the lung; Alveolar proteinosis induced in rats by
long-term inhalation
of nickel oxide Increased lipid peroxidationin
liver, kidney and lung
of NiCl2-treated rats; Effects of unilateral
administration of nickel
subsulfide to rats on erythropoietin
concentrations in serum and in
extracts of both kidneys; Further insights into
mehanisms of
nickel-induced DNA damage: studies with cultured
rat liver cells;
Relationships between nickel ingestion and
calcium, magnesium and
glucose in the rat; Critical review of the
evidence for nickel(III) in
animals and man; Left-handed structures of
alternating
purine-pyramidine polynucleotides induced by Ni2+
ions: an I R
spectroscopy study; Activation of the
calmodulin-dependent
phosphoprotein phosphatase by nickel ions;
Clinical pathology;
Simultaneous determination of nickel and cadmium
in whole blood
by Zeeman atomic absorption spectrophotometry:
blood nickel and
cadmium levels in the general population of
Denmark; Square wave
voltammetry: a new approach for the sensitive
determination of
nickel and cobalt in human samples;
Hypernickelemia in hemodialysis
patients; Serum and lymphocyte nickel and
aluminium
concentrations in patients with extracorporeal
hemodialysis; The
measurement of nickel in chronic renal failure;
Serum nickel
concentrations in patients with unstable angina
pectoris and acute
myocardial infarction; Urinary excretion of nickel
and chrmium in
workers of a steel foundry; External and internal
nickel exposure of
arc welders during one working week; Effects of
NiCl2 and
diethyldithiocarbamate on heme oxygenase,
metallothionein,
glutathione and trace metals in rat liver and
kidney; The effect of
nickel and manganese on natural killer cell
activity; Nickel-induced
occupational asthma: immunological and clinical
aspects; Biological
consequences of long-term exposure to orthopaedic
implants;
Cytology as a screening method in the detection of
precancerous
nasal mucosal changes in nickel workers;
Occupational Exposures;
Atmospheric monitoring of nickel-containing dusts
at the INCO
refinery in Clydach, Wales; The determination of
occupational
exposure to airborne dust containing nickel;
NiPERA 82-06 air
sampling method for inorganic nickel;
Concentration du nickel et du
chrome dans l'atmosphere des ateliers
siderurgiques; Un nouvel
appareil de prelevement de poussieres, le CI P10;
Estimating past
exposures to airborne nickel compounds in the
Copper Cliff sinter
plant; Mortality analysis in a Canadian sinter
plant: a comparison of
two cohorts based on year of first hiring;
Incidence des cancers
respiratoires chez les travailleurs d'une
entreprise d'extraction et de
raffinage du nickel et dans la population generale
en
Nouvelle-Caledonie; respiratoires parmi les
travailleurs d'une
entreprise d'extraction et de raffinage du nickel
en
Nouvelle-Caledonie: une etude cas-termoins au Sein
d'une cohorte;
Toxicological and occupational medical
investigations concerning
nickel exposure in different industrial areas in
the FRG; Health
surveillance of SLN workers; Health surveillance
of workers
exposed to nickel and its compounds; Study of
nickel-bearing dusts
and biological implants by microdifferentially
thermal analysis;
Generation of various types of nickel-containing
aerosols and
detection of nickel species in these aerosols;
Nickel oxide and nickel
subsulfide resulting from attack of super alloys
in aeronautical gas
turbines by fuel combustion products
A more recent collection of information is available at
http://www.nipera.org/effects.htm. (At that site, I discovered that
there is such a thing as nickel dermatitis, which evidently precedes
dispersion into the lymph nodes and attacks on T cells.)
Presumably the same sort of research is available for the noble metals
and all other elements.
In sum, Gordon is asking the right scientific question: what's the
proof, aside from nameless and potentially baseless claims. And Erik
seems to have hit on the right issue: do we know whether the substitute
elements are safe? I'd say the internet provides evidence to support or
refute Erik's concerns (bearing in mind that science is always a work in
progress) and answer Gordon's challenge. I'm delighted with the high
level of intellectual digging the topic has provoked.
Jim Smith
Managing Director
Cambridge Management Sciences, Inc.
4285 45th St. S.
St. Petersburg, FL 33711-4431
Tel: (727)866-6502 ext. 21
Fax: (727)867-7890
eMail: [log in to unmask]
"Davy, Gordon" wrote:
>
> Over the weekend Brian Ellis, Guenter Grossmann, and Mike Fenner responded
> to my posting in which I appealed for substantiation of non-obvious claims
> of the environmental hazards of nickel and noble metals as used in
> electronic products, and expressed concerns that nameless people will
> continue to add to the list of forbidden elements. Although they don't say
> so, I gather that these people concur with Mr. de Kluizenaar that tin - at
> most - is the only environmentally acceptable finish and that those working
> on other finishes should switch. I would like to thank these men for the
> effort they made in preparing their responses, but after reading them I can
> see that I failed to make my points adequately. I'd like to try again.
> First, I did not mean to imply that Mr. de Kluizenaar is one of the nameless
> people who are trying to adjust reality at will, and if that is how it came
> across, I am sorry. After all, I know his name! My concern was rather that
> he repeats the assertions of such people without providing the technical
> basis. (I was glad to see Mr. Grossmann's reassurance that "most of us,
> including Eric, never forget to mention how doubtful we are about the sense
> of the lead ban when we are at conferences or meetings.")
> Second, while I am glad that Mr. Grossmann gives us the name of one of the
> nameless people: Margot Wallstrom, the EC Commissioner for environment, he
> does not refer us to anything that she has to offer in support of her agenda
> so that we can assess its validity. Asserting that the juggernaut can't be
> stopped is a self-fulfilling prophecy. To the extent that the market is
> demanding electronic products free from a growing list of elements, it does
> so on the basis of beliefs that persist because no one seems to think that
> it is worth while to challenge them. That itself is a belief.
> Third, Mr. Ellis has asked that before I challenge statements I do my
> homework and research the data. My point was that people who make
> non-obvious statements have the burden of proof. I think that that is a
> fairly common expectation in the world of scholarship. This whole business
> of adjusting reality comes from some people being relieved from that
> responsibility (because of the nobility of their cause?) - they are right ex
> officio. Taken to its extreme, it is superstition and demagoguery, which
> seem to persist even in a scientifically sophisticated age.
> Finally, although Mr. Ellis offers two reasons for restricting the use of
> nickel and noble metals in electronics, something essential is still
> missing.
> Mining. He says "the recovery of all metals from ore is environmentally
> hazardous." Mr. Fenner makes the same point. Does it follow that since all
> mining makes a mess, all mining should be banned because obviously we don't
> want a messy world? (Even though tin mines must be messy, too, Mr. de
> Kluizenaar seems willing to continue using tin.) It would serve the
> discussion better to offer some sort of cost-benefit tradeoff assessment,
> and some analysis of how to reduce the environmental impact of mining. I
> doubt that even Ms. Wallstrom and her colleagues will be successful in
> shutting down mines around the world, even if that is what they would like
> to do. (Incidentally, if that is what they would like to do, they should say
> so openly, so people can respond.) It is, on the other hand, quite likely
> that mining operations might be improved. Two hundred years ago, my
> namesake, Humphry Davy, was made a baronet in England as a reward for
> inventing a lamp that miners could use so that their candles would not
> ignite an explosion in coal mines. As bad as mines may be today, I'm sure
> that many of them have improved significantly. In any case, we need to know
> how much less of an environmental impact there would be from reduced mining
> due to the proposed cessation of use of the prohibited metals in electronic
> products, and whether that benefit outweighs the associated costs.
> Health. Mr. Ellis tells us that "higher nickel alloys are on the way out"
> and suggests that even stainless steel may be "frowned upon" (by whom? - he
> doesn't say! It's that passive voice again.) The reason he offers is that we
> are learning more about nickel's toxicology and epidemiology. He also says
> "we owe ourselves the luxury of a scientific assessment of every material we
> use in the electronics industry from all standpoints and the potential
> cradle-to-grave risks of using it." I wouldn't call it a luxury - it's the
> very necessity I have been asserting. But apart from Mr. Grossmann's
> observation that some people are allergic to nickel and Mr. Ellis' question
> "can this be good to health?", we are not offered such an assessment for any
> of the metals. Just what is it that "we are learning about its toxicology
> and epidemiology" that shows that it's a bad idea to use it in electronic
> products? Until we are told we cannot perform the scientific assessment of
> the risk to people - or the environment in general - of using nickel in
> electronic products, and compare it with the costs of learning to do without
> it.
> It is exactly this kind of broad indictment that I am trying to bring
> attention to. It should go without saying (but evidently doesn't) that
> there's a huge difference between cooking in a copper pot and using copper
> for carrying current. (Incidentally, based on Mr. Ellis' expressed distaste
> for copper, my concern that it might some day be added to the list seems to
> have been well founded.) Just because we all agree that lead in paint and
> gasoline is bad doesn't mean that lead in electronic products is bad. We
> have data to show elevated blood lead levels deriving from the first two
> uses. I did my homework and have presented in this forum data showing the
> lack of risk from the last one - which if Mr. Grossmann is correct, everyone
> agrees with.
> At the risk of being too obvious and abrasive (I really don't want to be), I
> am asserting that it is irresponsible for those who believe that people (or
> fish or trees, for that matter) are being harmed from the use of these
> elements specifically in electronic products not to produce the data that
> leads them to that belief. Arguing by specious analogy and offering mere
> generalizations about "what we are learning" isn't enough - for me, and I
> would hope, for most others. My thanks to attorney Chuck Dolci for his
> supporting comments. As he points out, the issue is partly one of the rules
> of evidence and proper reasoning.
> I am reminded of the goal-statement of one environmentalist: he wants to
> "remove hazardous materials from the biosphere". Were he to succeed, the
> world would be a very different place, and I'm not sure it would be very
> pleasant.
>
> Gordon Davy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 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
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
