Kay Nimmo has suggested researching "some of the actual reasons behind the
EU activities to ban hazardous substances", and offers a link to a web page
(Ospar) as an example of a source of useful information.
The example she offers does not measure up to her billing. It provides a
long list of "candidate substances" and identifies some selection criteria
by which they got to be on it, namely materials that (evidently in someone's
opinion):
        (i) due to their highly hazardous properties, are a general threat
to the aquatic environment;
        (ii) show strong indications of risks for the marine environment;
        (iii) have been found widespread in one or more compartments of the
maritime area, or may endanger human health via consumption of food from the
marine environment;
        (iv) reach, or are likely to reach, the marine environment from a
diversity of sources through various pathways.
But what she said would be found there is missing: the reasoning - the
documentation that connects any listed material and the assertion of risk.
How are we to know that they got it right? In normal scholarship, one
publishes the studies that have been conducted so that the work can be
critiqued. Such scholarship is missing here, and in many other
environmentalist sites that I've seen. It seems that we are expected to have
faith in the organization. Maybe they are all too busy to provide the
missing information. (I commented some time back about a site that claimed
that rosin is a significant threat to the environment. No matter that it is
derived from trees.)
At the risk of over-repetition, environmental activists keep talking about
"risks". But in the particular case of lead, speculating about risks is
specious, since we know that lead was deliberately introduced into the
environment for decades, and is still there. Instead of considering risks of
what might happen, all we need to do is to find the consequences of what has
already happened. The reality is that the amount of new lead getting into
the environment has been reduced (drastically) since the removal of lead
from gasoline, and so has the amount of lead getting into people. If for
example lead is believed to be "a general threat to the aquatic
environment", it would be appropriate to discuss how lead from gasoline,
fishing sinkers, and shotgun pellets affected the aquatic environment in the
past, whether things are getting better or worse, and the extent to which
banning lead in computers and keeping CRTs out of landfills is going to
help.
The site also espouses "the precautionary principle" (not defined on the
page - I hope that this isn't just a fancy phrase for being superstitious),
and the "principle of substitution, i.e. the substitution of hazardous
substances by less hazardous substances or preferably non-hazardous
substances where such alternatives are available", without reference to any
sort of cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps these people mean well, but if they
want influence others by force of reason and logic (as opposed to such other
options as propaganda, political action, and coercion), they will need to
improve their page substantially.
Kay implied that she knows of sources that explain the reasoning behind the
bans, and don't just assert. Perhaps she would be willing to share them with
the forum. (I've been seeking this info for a long time, and have pretty
much concluded that it doesn't exist.) We all know that lead that gets into
people (or aquatic life) is bad. That may be interesting, but it's
irrelevant. The critical challenge is to show (not just assert) that taking
a particular course of action (such as prohibiting the sale of certain kinds
of products that contain lead or recycling electronic products) would bring
about a noticeable reduction in blood lead levels, and that it would be
worth what it would cost. If it fails to meet these requirements, then it's
time to pick a new project. Somehow we need to get that message across to
the activists. If she agrees, maybe Kay has some suggestions of how it might
be accomplished.

Gordon Davy
Baltimore, MD
[log in to unmask]
410-993-7399

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------