Mike Fenner has suggested that I may have over-reacted in my previous
postings concerning the risk from using nickel and noble metals. I hope so,
but in the present environment, it's hard to tell. I first heard of the move
to lead-free solder from the late Roger Wild of IBM about fifteen years ago.
At the time, I under-reacted. I dismissed it as frivolous and without
technical merit. Roger was more prescient than I in getting an early start -
just in case something were to come of it. What I failed to anticipate was
how others would construe the "get-the-lead-out" movement, and how people
would associate lead in electronics with lead in paint and gasoline. I was
genuinely shocked to learn of the draft WEEE directive and the level and
breadth of support it had. I was shocked to see that a company would claim
on its web site that it was altruistically removing lead from its electronic
products to protect the water supply (when the real reason was to increase
market share). I was shocked to see that the IPC did not take stronger steps
to resist, even though the position statement acknowledged that there is no
technical merit to removing lead from electronic products.
It was then that I started thinking, "if powerful people can force the
removal of lead from electronic products with no good reason, what is to
keep them from forcing the removal of anything else they don't like?" I
posed that question on this forum over a year ago. And sure enough, just as
I feared,  we are now starting to see calls for removal of other metals,
based on guilt by association and appeals to emotion. (I wonder whether some
day this forum will have to be renamed to the "metalfree" electronics
forum!) I don't want to make the same mistake of downplaying the threat that
I made before just because it doesn't make sense. Reason is no longer a
necessity. It has been replaced by political correctness, and those who
object to irrationality are not noble or courageous, they are
environmentally challenged for not knowing the facts, and "unpragmatic" for
not meekly acquiescing to the new reality in which the "frogs" (to use Brian
Ellis' term) have already won.
To find out whether I am over-reacting, let me invite forum participants to
state which metals they think will continue to be permitted in electronic
products for the indefinite future, which will probably have to be phased
out, the basis for their predictions, whether they think that attempts to
forestall such phaseouts would be pragmatic, and whether they agree that the
phase-outs will be a good thing. In spite of the messiness of mining,
without much more compelling arguments than have so far been offered I for
one regard any such abandonment as the wrong response to the stimulus. It is
to offer a technical solution to a political (or economic) problem. Who is
"over-reacting"?
(Mr. Fenner says he reads my post as a plea for the status quo. That is
partly true - at least, I don't want things to get worse than they are, and
I don't trust everyone who offers to "improve" things. I have observed that
the second law of thermodynamics often applies to cultures as well as phyics
and chemistry. Left to itself, a culture will deteriorate, and people
struggling to make things better, not understanding the law of unintended
consequences, as pointed out by Werner Engelmaier in his welcome comments,
may well make them worse.)
Mr. Ellis has explained that his posting was a reaction to my having implied
nickel is harmless, that he tries to be reasonable (I am glad for his - and
Mr. Fenner's - support for retaining lead in electronics), and that we need
to look at the whole problem and not just a part of it. My reaction is
simply to repeat what I've said before, that before banning the use of a
metal in electronic products, what has to be shown is exactly what the
problem is and how the proposed solution is going to ameliorate it. Reports
of human allergy to nickel and anecdotes about mines are interesting, but we
need to know whether anyone is suffering because of the use of nickel in
electronic products, and that no less-stringent remedy is available. Unless
we are to stop building electronic products, one or more metals is going to
have to serve as the finish on component terminations, and for the
forseeable future much of those metals is going to have to come out of the
ground. It is the responsibility of the person who wants us to stop using
nickel and noble metals to look at the whole problem and convince us (not
just claim) that the world would be a better place if we were to mine less
nickel and more tin.
Mr. Fenner also commented that "if Doctoral theses were a min requirement
for postings to this forum then debate would be somewhat stunted." That
seems like an over-reaction to me. All I have requested is that if a person
offers an opinion in an effort to convince the readers, he also offer
relevant facts, solid reasoning, and a willingness to have them critiqued.
The stakes here are immense - it's important that we get it right, even if
that means disagreeing in public. I see this (and I hope others do, too) as
a conflict, not among people, but of ideas expressed by people. The
appropriate attitude is concern without anger, and I haven't detected any
anger.
Mr. Fenner has stated that I am wrong to assume that because of his posting
he thinks tin is the best alternative to tin/lead, and I can see that I did
over-react in lumping his comments with the others. Instead of offering an
opinion without supporting facts, he offered facts without an opinion, and
that's fine. All he did was to point out the mess that platinum mining
makes. I incorrectly inferred that he thought that as a result, platinum and
related metals should not be used in electronic products. I am sorry for
expressing that assumption and happy that he does not want to convince us of
that.
Finally, he appealed for a "return to a pragmatic discussion and exchange of
views". I do not agree that my comments are not pragmatic, because it is not
pragmatic but wasteful to work on a solution that may at any time be
"frowned at" by Ms. Wallstrom
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/wallstrom/cv_en.htm) or Greenpeace
(Who elected them? How did they get the ability to be always right?) or some
other opinion maker, and prohibited as unacceptable. It is pragmatic to work
on those things that have a high probability of success (assuming one is
able to judge that probability correctly). (Sometimes the situation demands
working on something just because you believe it is the right thing to do,
regardless of the prospects of success - I'm sure on that matter Greenpeace
agrees with me.)
I would think that there must be many forum participants who have been
working on finishes other than tin who are very upset to be told that
they've been backing the wrong solution to the leadfree problem. They have
read the discussion, and now they have an important decision to make.

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