Good artlicle. A beginning of a movement in the right direction?
Lead Free -- For No Practical Reason!
So said the new release in Friday's issue. "Lead-free Threatens Industry -- for Nothing!" references a report by Harvey Miller, well known packaging and PCB guru, "Lead-Free Electronic Solder: Why?" In his report, Miller thoroughly explains the impact Europe's RoHS (Restriction on Hazardous Substances) will have on materials and system cost, and the long-term detrimental effect RoHS will have on the environment.
Lead Free -- For No Practical Reason!
So said the new release in Friday's issue. "Lead-free Threatens Industry -- for Nothing!" references a report by Harvey Miller, well known packaging and PCB guru, "Lead-Free Electronic Solder: Why?"
In his report, Miller does an excellent job making his case. Unlike the politicos, Harvey presents sound research based on scientific data. "If all E-waste [waste from electronic systems] were dumped in landfills, lead from solder would constitute about 0.45% of that E-waste (documented in the report). If E-waste were 5% (a very high estimate) of all waste, lead from solder would constitute 0.023% of total waste. That level is far less than the 500 parts per million that the EPA considers natural background."
As many of you know by now, the adoption of lead-free alloys is driven by politics and extremely bad science. So why is there corporate support for the change? As Miller points out, "Most electronic manufacturers are silent, fearful of appearing to be anti-environment." I believe that there may be an even stronger reason for corporate silence - the inability of these companies to compete in the global market if they do not adopt lead-free by July 2006.
There's just one point in Miller's report where we disagree - slightly. Harvey believes that the "inevitability" argument, the argument that we have to adopt lead-free because of the European legislative mandate, can be challenged and the mandate changed if we present data showing the high cost of the change to lead-free to the European Union. First, like Miller, I believe the change to lead-free is senseless, will be costly and will cause long-term harm to the environment, but I also believe that we must continue to plan for the adoption of lead-free solder - even if the scientific and cost data is presented to the practical politicians in the European Union. If efforts to table the lead-free requirement within RoHS fail, we'll have even less than the 20 months left to get our process and procedures adopted.
If Harvey needs someone to stand with him to make the argument, he can depend on me and many others I know. But, I strongly suggest, if you've started your lead-free roadmap, continue. If you haven't - get started.
Ron Daniels
Circuitnet
---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------
|
