Dear All:
Earlier today, I posted the note below on this forum. Jack Crawford
chose to respond to me offline. In the belief that what Jack said should
be available to every member of this forum, I am including his response
after my original posting. Finally, following Jack's post to me, I offer
some additional comments and observations that I hope will not offend
too many participants in this forum.
I wrote:
The good fight against bad science (i.e. taking lead out of solder)
being fought by Joe, Brian (get well soon) Ellis, Harvey Miller and
increasing numbers of other participants in this forum gives me renewed
hope that the legislation will never be enacted. May I be so bold as
(once again) to point out that most of you are members of IPC. And,
while Joe is right about individual letters, nothing makes policy so
much as a strong industry lobby. If IPC can't (or won't) convince
Washington to make anti-leadfree a major plank in our international
policy platform, it may be time to question continuing enrolment in this
industry organization.
A minimum of four years remain before the EU legislation comes into
effect. I, for one, would like to know whether IPC's directorate plans
to make our scientific/economic case known in and on by Washington. Do
any other members of this forum share my interest?
Jack Crawford wrote:
> Jim, I believe someone has given you some incorrect information.
>
> Harvey Miller has not been an IPC member for many years.
>
> Joe Fjelstad worked for IPC at one time, has worked for companies
that were IPC members, but has not been a member for some time.
>
> Neither you nor your company are IPC members.
>
> We will continue to support our members needs and requests; we
encourage your participation instead of just using a forum the real
members are paying for to question whether they should be members.More
info available at http://www.ipc.org/html/fsabout.htm
>
> Cordially,
> Jack
>
Now for my concluding observations and comments:
Jack is quite right with respect to my status within IPC. Neither I nor
my company are IPC members. The reason for our refusal to join is
simple: if IPC continues to "represent" the wants and needs of its
membership in such a passive manner, there soon will not be an
electronics manufacturing industry left in the Americas. Vigorous
opposition to the leadfree forces strikes me as a classic example of
what a tuned-in industry association would undertake without a moment's
hesitation. Personally, I find it sad that so many (though by no means
all) of the most articulate and informed voices in the leadfree debate
do not perceive enough value in the IPC itself to join the ranks.
Incidentally, Jack, I deliberately employed the term "participants"
rather than "IPC members" in my original posting. And I am saddened
that, yet again, you have ducked the real issue -- why isn't IPC fully
(or even tepidly) engaged in educating legislators about the scientific
realities of the leadfree "green" scam?
Thanks for reading.
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
