Bev,
This point just emphasise why electronic industry is target of "lead free
cruisade".
Car industry and avionic industry are far too strong to fight them.I do not
believe,that all "green activist" are strong enough to impose changes in
aircraft enginees technology to operate on lead free fuel.
Apart of it : I am just wondering about results of monitoring car
batteries.On theoretical base each car battery should be shipped for
recycling,this includes replaced batteries and batteries from cars out of
usage ( both used car and wracked cars junk-yards) , it means the "net
balance" of batteries manufacturing should be equal just to net grows in
number of cars on the roads.This is the reality???I do not believe.
As PCB manufacturer I can state, that because of "internal reasons" PCB
industry is on the way of reducing lead "content" more than 15 years
regardless of environmental problems.The real trigger for this was demand
for more dense circuitry : it started with SMOBC technology (Solder Mask
Over bare Copper) - just 15 years ago all circuitry on PCB was tin-lead
electroplated and reflowed , than solder mask was applied on reflowed
tin-lead on conductors.As circuitry began to be more and more dense ( less
line/spaces distance),this technology was replaced by SMOBC .Then with SMD
came with request for flat pads and this resulted non-HASL finishing.At
least from point of view of bare PCB I might state,that the PCB industry is
almost ready for "lead free" and the point of interest moved to assembly
area ( soldering pastes).
I wrote in my private e-mail to Gordon Dave,that I am suspecting,that
database lead contribution from electronic industry is completly outdated.On
the begining of 90 SMOBC technology was minority.
Finally, I believe,that electronic industry it the target of "lead free"
cruisade just because we are easy target and not because we are the main
contributor to lead contamination.
Edward
Edward Szpruch
Eltek , Manager of Process Engineering
P.O.Box 159 ; 49101 Petah Tikva Israel
Tel ++972 3 9395050 , Fax ++972 3 9309581
e-mail [log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bev Christian [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: г аевеси 08 2001 14:23
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LF] This just in - sensationalism and hard numbers on
> lead
>
> Gordon,
> I wish you would step back a little, just a tad. Gordon, you and I know
> each other well and from private conversations we know we are pretty much
> in
> agreement on the lead issue, but...
>
> 1) You're probably correct that the "study" mentioned below appears to be
> a
> bit of grandstanding by someone looking for their
> 15 minutes of fame (or another grant), however
> 2) The CDC has stated that there is no known "safe" limit for lead in
> children.
> 3) Subtle effects that may be caused by less than 10ug/dl in children may
> be
> very difficult to parse out from other
> environmental and genetic effects.
> 4) This is not the only report to indicate that there may be real effects.
> I would say the jury is still out and you cannot
> say categorically that there are no adverse effects that we should try
> to
> eliminate - if and when we really know they are
> real and we have some idea of the real size of the risk.
> 5) All your references in this e-mail came out a publication that is
> dedicated to the preservation of the lead industry. I
> doubt they welcomed the demise of tetraethyl lead (TEL). Check their
> history.
> 6) In 1998 the United Stated still imported 14.4 MILLION pounds of TEL
> (re-exported 7.1M lbs of that) and used 7.3M lbs of
> that. As far as I can calculate, at most 2.6M lbs went into aviation
> fuel (for prop planes), but I cannot exactly figure
> out where the other 4.7 million pounds went (farm machinery, race cars,
> but I can't imagine 4.7M lbs worth!)! Is there
> any evidence that the LIA tried to help keep that 14.4 million pounds
> out
> of the United States? Since we have known for
> at least several decades that TEL in gas is bad for our health and for
> engines as well, why are they, LIA, not screaming
> from the rooftops that their members should have stopped exporting it
> yesterday?
> 7) Why did/do members of their organization continue to sell it to the
> aviation industry? To make at buck. The market
> cannot always be trusted to do the right thing.
>
> regards,
> Bev Christian
> Research in Motion
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Davy, Gordon [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: August 7, 2001 2:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [LF] This just in - sensationalism and hard numbers on lead
>
>
> Here are three articles appearing in the July 2001 News Leader of the Lead
> Industries Association (http://www.leadinfo.com), written by Jeff Miller,
> the Executive Director. I received it just today. They fit right in with
> what we've been discussing. The first is about press sensationalism and
> money grubbers; the other two are success stories, complete with hard
> numbers.
> Don't expect to see these data reported by the activists. They will no
> doubt
> continue with their vague allegations about potential risks and their
> appeals to altruism ("product stewardship" seems to be the latest buzz
> phrase). Conclusion: if it weren't for people looking to make something
> out
> of nothing to advance their agenda and keep themselves in business, lead
> today would be a non-issue.
> (I mentioned before that one activist stated as his agenda "ridding the
> biosphere of all hazardous materials." He's set for life - he'll never go
> out of business. Just imagine trying to appease him - he'll take all you
> offer and press on for the next most hazardous material on his list.)
> One only wonders if people like this will ever be held accountable -
> publicly disgraced - for their irresponsible behavior. What they are doing
> is not illegal - deliberate misrepresentation is still protected speech as
> long as it isn't libel - but it continues to cause the wasting of untold
> millions of dollars because so many people, including news reporters,
> still
> are unaware that they are being deceived. We have a right to be upset!
>
> Gordon Davy
> Baltimore, MD
> [log in to unmask]
> 410-993-7399
> Opinion - Science Reporting by the Press
> Recently, the press has reported on a new study suggesting adverse health
> effects for children with blood lead concentrations below 10 micrograms
> per
> deciliter. Newspaper, television and radio have all joined in broadcasting
> the so-called "findings" of this new study. The study was presented to the
> public at the recent annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies.
> However, if you contact the office of the principal researcher, you will
> find that a copy of the study is not available, You will also find that
> there is no abstract available. Further research shows that the study has
> never been peer reviewed and has not been published in any journal. (Does
> this sound familiar!) All that you can obtain is a copy of a slick press
> release.
> Yet, the media, anti-lead advocates and ambulance chasing plaintiff
> attorneys have seized upon these results as "gospel" and are pressing to
> create a nationwide epidemic that does not exist.
> Our society has made great strides over the past half century in lowering
> lead exposure to all people, including young children. Most recent
> government studies indicate that the average blood lead 1evel in young
> children is now close to 2 micrograms per deciliter. Science and health
> groups have concluded that for the vast majority of American children,
> lead
> poisoning is a condition of the past. Government officials have claimed
> lead
> exposure reduction as a success story.
> Ironically, however, unless the "problem" is resurrected, government grant
> money to researchers will evaporate. Thus we are faced with continuing
> pressure to bring lead poisoning into the national spotlight, to make it a
> problem worth millions of dollars of further research and study.
> Unfortunately, the media has been led down a road where it becomes the
> vehicle for this effort.
> The CDC's Agenda on Childhood Lead Poisoning
> Gary Noonan, Acting Chief of the Centers for Disease Control and
> Prevention
> (CDC), Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch, addressed LIA members at the 73rd
> Annual Meeting, reiterating that the reduction of blood lead levels in the
> nation's children is a success story. In 1976-1980, 88.2% of children
> (ages
> 1 through 5) had blood lead levels above 10 micrograms per deciliter
> (?g/dl). By 1991-1994, that percentage had dropped to 4.4, a decline of
> 95%.
> Data show that blood lead averages for these children were 15 ?g/dl in
> 1976-80 and are now about 2 ?g/dl.
> Noonan reported that the CDC has no plans to lower the 10 ?g/dl level of
> concern. CDC, apparently, is unconvinced about the value of lowering the
> level below 10 ?g/dl. "It's full of a lot of problems and I don't know
> what
> we would do differently, if we lowered the number below 10."
> Moving forward, CDC's plans include: 1) to improve the screening and
> identification of children; 2) to identify, control and remediate lead
> hazards; and 3) to harness the power of the information systems and
> improve
> childhood lead poisoning prevention information, using the latest
> technology.
> New York Health Department Reports Dramatic Decline in Childhood Lead
> Poisoning
> In May 2001, the New York State Health Department released a new report:
> "Protecting our Children from Lead: The Success of New York's Efforts to
> Prevent Childhood Lead Poisoning", which indicates a significant decline
> in
> lead poisoning among children in New York State. The report, considered
> the
> most comprehensive on this subject in the State's history, indicates a 45%
> decline from 1996 to 1999 in newly identified children (ages 6 months to
> less than six years) with blood lead levels of 10 ?g/dl or greater. The
> proportion of all children who had a confirmed blood lead level greater
> than
> 10 ?g/dl dropped from less than 3% in 1996 to 1.9% in 1999.
> According to New York State Health Commissioner Antonia C. Novello, M.D.,
> M.P.H, "we have witnessed a dramatic decline in the number of lead
> poisoning
> cases among New York's children". Dr. Robert Bonvino, President of the
> Medical Society of the State of New York, reinforced Novello's comments,
> stating: "The Medical Society is highly encouraged by the findings of the
> report released by the New York State Department of Health. The findings
> of
> the report are very promising."
> The report indicated that the incidence rate for children up to age six
> years with blood-lead levels of 20 ?g/dl or greater had declined 46%. It.
> further noted that nearly every county in New York State had a decrease in
> the prevalence rate (the proportion of all children tested in a given year
> who had ever had a confirmed elevated blood level).
> The report also indicated that the number of dwellings investigated and
> found to have lead hazards dropped approximately 49%. This decline is all
> the more noteworthy since New York State has the highest number of housing
> units built prior to 1950, according to the report.
> "This report highlights our successes in reducing childhood lead poisoning
> prevalence over the past four years...", according to Dr. Novello.
> The New York City Department of Health reported a similar, dramatic
> decline
> in the incidence of childhood lead poisoning over the period 1996-1999.
> The
> number of new cases of children ages six months to six years with elevated
> blood leads of 10 ?g/dl or higher declined 51%. The number of young
> children
> with blood lead levels 20 ?g/dl or higher dropped by 44%.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> -----
> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> -----
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
