How many times have several of us on these forums have already brought
up this same point? I'm quite sure that if you did a search for "vested
interest", you would find several responses, especially on the LF forum.
Poor Kay Nimmo is the one wearing the flak jacket, as she has been a
major instigator. The IPC is not blameless, either, having promoted
Soldertec on a number of occasions.

It is precisely this point that has inspired my opposition from the
start because most tin is won by destroying tropical rain forest
(Malaysia, Indonesia and Brazil, in particular) and the rate of
destruction is increasing with the increased demand, due to some
considerable extent to RoHS. Of course, the tin guys deny this
vehemently, but the fact remains. This is why I say that a holistic
environmental risk assessment should have been done.

Brian

Ed Popielarski wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I've been pretty quiet on this subject and now I think it's time to have my
> soapbox session. Most likely I'm going to ruffle a few feathers.
>
>
>
> Has anyone noticed the "who, where and why" of this whole thing? It is
> (IMHO) all a financial enhancement to the tin industry, researched (The Tin
> Institute), controlled (The London Metal Exchange or "LME") and benefiting
> the tin producing countries (also owned/operated by ???).
>
>
>
> Political science is the furthest from my expertise, but it seems to me by
> making Pb the "bad guy" and eliminating 37% of it from the electronics
> industry, it's going to increase the consumption of Sn by approximately 50%.
> Without increasing the source of Sn (mines) and increasing the demand (us)
> they (LME) raise the price. Money goes into someone's pocket, no? But it's
> even more clever (or is it cleverer?) than that. keep the spotlight on the
> lead, not the tin. PB free! Yippee!
>
>
>
>  I'd like you to consider as well the source of the Pb. I believe we took it
> from the ground in the first place, no? Don't get me wrong, I like trees as
> much as the next guy and ODC's are a manmade evil, but Pb? It was on this
> planet long before humans were. Perhaps this answers the earlier post about
> batteries and why no one is attacking that (80% ish) significant consumer.
> It's not really about the environment, nor H&S. it's about money. Perhaps
> Brian's dissertation below has identified a way out of this nightmare if we
> all pull together. Comments?
>
>
>
> (Someone please hand me my flack jacket now.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Ed Popielarski
>
> QTA Machine
>
> 27291 Jardines
>
> Mission Viejo, Ca 92692
>
>
>
> Ph: 949-581-6601
>
>
>
> WWW.QTA.NET
>
>
>
> You see, wire <http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26870.html>  telegraph is
> a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head
> is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates
> exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The
> only difference is that there is no cat.
>
>
>
> Albert Einstein <http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Albert_Einstein/>
> (1879 - 1955), when asked to describe radio
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Date:    Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:30:52 +0300
>
> From:    Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Subject: Re: Lead-Free, Why?
>
>
>
> By coincidence, I wrote an Internet Commentary for Soldering and Surface
>
> Mount Technology Vol 17 No. 4 last week. This will be published on 30
>
> September 2005, according to the schedule. This literally slams into the
>
>   implementation of the RoHS and WEEE Directives, using Mr Bumble's
>
> quote as the sub-title: "If the law supposes that ... the law is a ass -
>
> a idiot". Unfortunately, copyright and pre-publication non-disclosure
>
> forbid me from reproducing it here, but you may be interested to read it
>
> when that issue of SSMT slams into your in-tray with a resounding thump.
>
> Pity the deadline to publication interval is 3 months!
>
>
>
> That having been said, my opposition to the RoHS Directive is based
>
> mainly on environmental grounds. Now, as I understand it, European law
>
> states that any Directive that has an impact on the environment or H&S
>
> must have a risk assessment conducted. This never happened with RoHS or
>
> WEEE because "funding was not available". I therefore contend that there
>
> is a possibility that these Directives may be null and void. It would
>
> require a lot of legal eagles to study whether my contention is valid,
>
> followed by a case before the European Court of Justice to have a
>
> judgement whether the European Commission committed an illegal act by
>
> not having a Risk Assessment, which would overturn the Directives.
>
> Obviously this would be a costly action, a wee bit more than my
>
> retirement pension affords me, but somebody here (or the IPC European
>
> Representative) may wish to make a preliminary enquiry into the
>
> potential validity of my contention. If he thinks he has a case and
>
> applies to the ECJ for a judgement, he may be able to obtain an
>
> immediate suspended injunction ("effet suspensif") delaying the entry
>
> into force of the Directives until after the scheduled judgement. A bon
>
> entendeur, salut!
>
>
>
> Brian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------
>

--
______________________________________________
Please note new e-mail address [log in to unmask]

---------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------