Gordon

Let's face it, the recovery of all metals from ore is environmentally
hazardous. Gold is a case in point. How many tonnes of waste is produced
(crushed rock) to extract 1 tonne of gold? And that is a metal which is
not in the form of ore and requires only separation. How many people
have been killed or handicapped in Brazil because separation is done by
means of mercury amalgams? How much environmental harm has been done
because of cyanide in gold-plating baths? In this country, where I'm
living, the copper ore which is exploited is in the form of chalcosite
or copper sulfide Cu2S. What do you think happens to the sulfur? In
Malaysia, vast areas of primary rain forest are eliminated, for ever, to
extract alluvial deposits of tin ore.

Nickel is known as a hazardous and toxic metal. The new Euro coins use a
nickel-free alloy for this reason.

The fact that a given metal is used or not used for doing a given job is
not material to whether it is a hazard or not. Lead pipes have been used
for conveying water into homes until fairly recently. The cynics amongst
us will not be surprised by saying that it explains much about me if I
tell you that the house I was brought up in, which is the same age as
myself, had lead plumbing. In fact, the word 'plumbing' is derived from
the Latin for lead. Food cans were seam-soldered with a tin-lead alloy
until recently. Ceramic glazes for tableware contained lead up to just a
few decades ago. Lead crystal glassware is still sold. Not to mention
the various alloying ingredients of pewterware. Lead has a bad press
because of all this, yet we survived through the "lead age", which, in
fact, lasted over 2000 years and is coming to a halt only now. We are
only just approaching the end of the "nickel age", as we learn more
about the toxicology and epidemiology of the metal. I don't know yet
what the impact will be on alloys with a relatively low nickel content
(<20%), such as 18/8 and 18/8/2 stainless steels but the higher nickel
alloys are certainly on the way out, as will be "unnecessary" uses, such
as coins, where less toxic alloys are possible. Bare nickel plating will
also be frowned upon, but whether nickel will be acceptable if
overplated remains a moot point. The use of silver or silver plating for
tableware is also doubtful. It oxidises and sulfidises very readily,
thus requiring polishing. This often leaves residues in the form of a
mixture of polishing slurries, their solvents and metal compounds in
crevices, such as in decorations, inscriptions or the tines of a fork.
Can this be good for the health? And where are the copper pots of yester
year? Relegated to attractive decoration for the kitchen. Gold jewellery
is not pure gold, but gold alloyed with other potentially harmful metals
for cutaneous absorption of their salts, What I am saying is that the
harmless metal of yesterday is proving to be the hazard of today and the
process is continuing as toxicologists (and environmentalists) learn
more in their very young and modern science. Oh, by the way, when I was
young, the only light-fast green pigments suitable for use on wallpaper
were known as Scheele's green and were chemically a copper
hydroarsenite.

I agree that I think that it is possible to be more royalist than the
king and this has been adequately shown in the lead-free solder debate,
where technocrats and economically interested parties have emotionally
reacted on the word "lead" rather than on a scientific assessment of
whether or not there is a hazard in using lead in solder, from the
cradle to the grave. Notwithstanding, I think 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. Just to foment the debate further,
bromine is the current bête noire of environmentalists, so we are now
looking at substitutes for tetrabromobisphenol A as a means of
flameproofing FR-4 laminates. Some of the substitutes proposed for this
are probably far more environmentally undesirable, yet they are
acceptable because they do not contain a dreaded halogen (even though
halogens are necessarily used in the production of most epoxy resins,
the epoxy group being supplied in the form of epichlorohydrin, which is
quite a nasty substance).

As you say, the decisions are largely political and are based largely on
the emotional and unscientific half-truths of ill-informed technocrats
whose masters are only interested in how many votes they can get by
appearing as knights in shining armour, protecting the populace from all
the nasties that man can produce. They have no care as to the realities
of the situation, as long as they can continue using their gas-guzzling
cars without hindrance. The recent failure of the talks in The Hague on
climate change is a glaring example: no US politician would be
re-elected if he supported cutting down on CO2 emissions. The last one
to do so was "Dubya's" poppa and look what happened to him just 8 years
ago. The world can go to hell, rather than attack the sacrosanct
automobile, the 21st century's god.

Brian

"Davy, Gordon" wrote:
>
> In a recent posting Erik de Kluizenaar discussed the attractiveness of pure
> plated tin as a component termination finish and offered his thoughts on the
> effects of various additives in preventing the one big concern, whiskers. He
> commented that billions of products have been Sn100 plated over the past
> twenty years by his company and others, without any reports of whiskers. He
> stated his belief that the risk of using "modern Sn100 finish" is therefore
> "low." On the other hand, he stated that the finish is not "mature" and
> asked for forum participants to share what they know about the problem. He
> also is seeking a good whisker test, which in spite of this record of
> success would seem to be highly desirable to confirm that a given "modern"
> plating process is also "mature" and safe enough to use in a
> high-reliability application.
> The lack of such a test has been commented on in most discussions of the
> whisker problem, and I have nothing to offer other than to repeat the
> reference which others have made to NASA's web site that serves as a
> compendium of what is known, http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/. But I am
> interested in contrasting Mr. de Kluizenaar's discussion of metallurgy
> (which is original, I think, and offers the prospect of some confirming
> experiments) with the statement he made twice in the first paragraph that
> nickel and noble metals are "extremely environmentally hostile", and that
> "lead-free, tin-based solderable component finishes are seen as the
> environmentally friendly alternative for tin-lead."
> These statements are not in the domain of metallurgy but of environmental
> science. Perhaps he would be willing to share with us what (or who) caused
> him to arrive at his belief about nickel and noble metals, especially since
> it seems so counter-intuitive. (People carry coins made of nickel in their
> hands and pockets to no one's harm that I know of. People wear jewelry made
> of gold and platinum and eat using silverware. Palladium is used in
> catalytic converters to reduce air pollution. Just what is it in the
> environment that is being harmed by the use of these metals in electronics?
> People? Fish? Do we have any statistics? Is it getting worse? Does the risk
> to the environment exceed the risk of product failure from using tin
> plating?)
> The use of the passive-voice "are seen" avoids the need to tell us who sees.
> In the absence of any further information, I would conclude that those who
> think that nickel, silver, platinum, palladium, and gold in electronics are
> bad for the environment are the same ones who have decided that lead in
> electronics is bad for the environment, but who have failed to provide the
> data to support their decision. I have expressed my concern before that the
> people who want to take away lead from electronic products won't stop there,
> and these statements heighten that concern. So far, they appear willing to
> accept tin, but how much longer before they add copper to the
> "environmentally hostile" list? If most people - especially technical people
> - don't demand supporting data before giving their assent and engaging in
> research to figure out how to comply, what is to stop it? Common sense? Or
> perhaps the unfeasibility of getting by without it - should that be the
> determinant? It wasn't long ago that technical people were saying that they
> couldn't get by without lead.
> We don't know their names, but somehow these opinion makers seem to have a
> great deal of power to decide what is politically correct, to convince some
> and impose these beliefs on others, supposedly for the good of us all and
> our progeny, and to brand those of us who oppose them as hostile, not to
> their ideas and tactics, but to the environment. This means of achieving a
> desired end is not new, of course. It continues to be used because it is so
> effective.
> Companies other than Mr. de Kluizenaar's have been spending a lot of money
> recently investigating a whole range of finishes trying to appease people
> who have decided that we need to learn to do without lead in electronics,
> and now it would appear based on his statements that these companies should
> have searched out and checked with these powerful people first to get
> approval of these projects. In any case, now that the unacceptability of
> these finishes is "known", is it not only logical that these companies
> should abandon their efforts and focus on making tin work? What a waste!
> A few leadfree forum participants have expressed dismay that political
> expressions such as this are cluttering up their inbox. (I'm guessing that
> these people would categorize an unsubstantiated claim about an
> environmental risk as "technical" and the analysis of the claim as
> "political.") These people do not want their attention diverted from the
> business at hand, which is to find a technical solution that will satisfy
> the new "reality" - never mind whether there is any technical justification
> for their efforts. However, if nameless people can adjust reality at will,
> and can declare as unacceptable the solution that others have just invested
> time and money in, those participants need to be warned that they may need
> to switch promptly to working on a solution that remains acceptable, at
> least for a while longer.
> The alternative is for people who do not share the desire for such a
> political environment to take the risk and challenge the elite who would
> deprive us of our freedoms so as to achieve their version of a brave new
> environmentally sound world with them in control.
>
> 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------