My thanks to Gerhard Haubner for posting information about the
opposition of the German Federal Environmental Agency UBA to the
decision by the RoHS-WEEE Technical Adaptation Committee to not identify
the brominated flame retardant deca-BDE as a prohibited substance in the
RoHS directive. According to that information, the UBA argues that
deca-BDE should be prohibited based on its alleged properties of
persistence and of release of dioxin and furan upon combustion. Since
the agency says that there are substitutes available it apparently is
not arguing that no flame retardant should be used. 

The topic might seem better suited to a forum other than Leadfree.
However, I think that subscribers have agreed that this forum should
address all aspects of the RoHS and WEEE directives. I would like to use
the action and threats of the UBA to draw attention to the behavior of a
certain kind of person in promoting environmental causes, and to
contemplate their motives. It is this kind of person who is responsible
for those directives, which are causing so much anxiety and effort by
subscribers and expenditures by their employers. This kind of person may
even now be planning how to impose even more onerous restrictions. 

The electronics industry collectively was ineffective in opposing the
RoHS and WEEE directives. It has been only modestly successful in
modifying them. I know that when I first learned of the WEEE directive
six and a half years ago, people (including forum subscribers) told me
that the train had already left the station and that it was a foregone
conclusion that it would become enacted. It turns out that they were
right, although it might have been a self-fulfilling prophecy. It would
be good for the electronics industry to be better prepared for the next
surprise and to be less resigned to the inevitability of its becoming
law. The TAC vote against the UBA position gives hope that this kind of
person may not necessarily prevail.

I call the people I'm talking about misleaders. They may call you a
"stakeholder", and pose as reasonable persons in calling for you to join
with them in discussions on how to deal with the problem they have
identified. This is misleading. While one can choose among various
methods of complying with their demands (e.g., taxes vs. fees to
subsidize recycling), one can not negotiate on the demands themselves.
The terms "insatiable" and "implacable" come to mind. When dealing with
the non-negotiable demands of a person who only takes and won't give,
one can only choose between the risks of giving in and of ending the
discussion. 

We can be glad that the TAC by its vote did end the discussion despite
the objections of the UBA. As stated in Gerhard's posting, the UBA's
arguments failed to sway a majority of the TAC. (An "unqualified"
majority voted against them.) I know nothing about the UBA beyond what
he posted. Perhaps this agency does many good things for German
citizens. But it appears to have been seized by irresponsible
environmental activists. They are not just sore losers.  They are not
(as some have suggested) just bureaucrats who don't care how
inconvenient or expensive their decisions may be for you. These are
people so zealous for imposing their beliefs on everyone else that even
though they lost the vote they are now threatening to delay adoption of
the decision to allow the use of deca-BDE. They are dogmatists who know
- despite the evidence - that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
It has been said that such people are often wrong, but never in doubt.
They will do all that they can to ensure that their views prevail. It is
this zeal that makes people like this such formidable adversaries. What
causes some people to think and act this way? Does anyone believe that
their prime motivation is a genuine concern that people will suffer if
they don't act? 

UBA actions and motives

Let's take a look at what the UBA representatives are doing. They seem
not to have more than allegations. Apparently they don't understand that
they lost the vote because their allegations didn't convince the
majority of the people making up the TAC. The data and arguments of the
pro-deca side evidently prevailed in convincing a majority of people on
the TAC. Since the UBA people continue to believe that they are right,
they need to be challenged to present better data and better arguments -
if they have them - not more effective obstructionism. 

Combustion. For example, they state a concern about release of dioxins
and furans upon combustion. This is scare talk about a hypothetical
situation. They need data and arguments showing that 

1) Significant amounts of dioxins and furans are being released upon
combustion of municipal solid waste somewhere in the EU, 

2) Eliminating the use of deca-BDE in electronic products will result in
a significant reduction in the amounts of dioxins and furans released
upon combustion of MSW, and 

3) The use of the substitutes they favor are actually substitutes -
i.e., they will not release as much dioxins and furans upon combustion,
will work as well, and will not cause other unintended consequences. 

I think that they will fail on all three counts. 

Deca-BDE will only give off dioxins and furans when combustion is not
conducted properly. So will lots of other substances present in much
greater amount in municipal solid waste than is ewaste. Even where the
WEEE directive has not been implemented, ewaste constitutes only about
one percent of MSW. Prohibiting the use of deca-BDE in electronic
products out of concern for combustion products is a totally
inappropriate response to the stimulus. It is neither necessary nor
sufficient. The appropriate response is to hold the operators of MSW
incinerators accountable for ensuring proper combustion. 

Persistence. The UBA also expresses a concern about persistence. They
seem not to understand that modern analytical chemistry is able to
measure the concentration of substances in the body at levels orders of
magnitude lower than the levels that have a physiological effect. Since
deca-BDE has been in use for a long time, it is irrational and
misleading for them to speculate about whether it might some day build
up to a level that causes clinical results. Instead, they simply need to
show that these results already exist. This they have not done, nor can
they. 

Why is it that the UBA - which as an environmental agency should
understand all this - seemingly doesn't? Perhaps they are more
interested in winning than in the truth. Or perhaps their dogma has
blinded them. This latter possibility would accord with what Paul the
Apostle stated as a severe consequence for people who suppress what they
know to be the truth - their thinking becomes futile (Romans 1:18-21).

Substitutes. As environmental activists seem always to do, the UBA
alludes to the existence of substitutes for substances they want to ban
without naming them or telling us how they know that they are
substitutes. It has been said that the amount of study given to deca-BDE
for its environmental suitability is greater than that given to any
other substance. The reason why so much study was needed is that the
activists had already made up their minds to oppose it.  If that amount
of study is insufficient to convince people who evidently don't want to
be convinced, how can they be so sure that the substitutes they favor -
for which less is known - won't make things worse? 

It is particularly striking to read of UBA's concern about "sending a
wrong signal to industry" (i.e., letting the enemy think that they can
win) and that the "voluntary" investment of manufacturers in substitutes
would become worthless if deca-BDE continues to be allowed. This may be
a first. When was the last time you can recall an environmental activist
organization expressing concern for the economic consequences of the
policies and practices it wants to impose on us for our good? Could it
be that it is their credibility that is at stake, having been the agents
that prompted (pressured? coerced?) the manufacturers to abandon
deca-BDE in favor of a UBA-approved substitute? 

Some manufacturers have invested in bringing to market halogen-free
board laminates. The IPC has dismissed this activity as marketing, not
science. It should go without saying that if a company is not seeing a
return on investment, that is one possible outcome of taking a business
risk. We don't owe it to them to buy their products out of gratitude for
their efforts.

Precautionary principle. What about what the UBA should have said and
didn't? Environmental activists trot out their precautionary principle
when it is to their benefit and ignore it otherwise. I don't think the
omission of any reference to their principle in the information that
Gerhard posted was inadvertent. The precautionary principle applies to
industrial use of prospective new substances. Since deca-BDE is not new
but has long been in use, application of their principle in this case
would demand that any candidate substitute be studied very carefully
before it is adopted. The precautionary principle does not state who has
to be convinced, but common sense would indicate that it should not be
the proponents of the substitute, due to the likelihood of bias.

Noble or dangerous? Gratitude followed by distrust

Certainly we do owe environmental organizations our gratitude for having
made issues of genuine problems, such as lead in gasoline and paint, and
for that matter, use of penta- and octa-BDE as brominated flame
retardants. We can thank them for their efforts in bringing about
solutions to the problems. But these organizations have to some extent
become victims of their own success. Gasoline and paint no longer have
lead in them, and the bad PBDEs have been taken off the market. Rather
than declaring victory and moving on to other genuine problems (e.g.,
the remaining real causes of lead poisoning), some of the activists are
now are making issues of non-problems. We now read of environmental
activists whose expressed goal is to "rid the biosphere of toxic
materials". Doesn't that sound lofty and noble? Of course, they are the
ones who intend to be the arbiters of what constitutes "rid" and
"biosphere" and "toxic". 

With that as their goal, these activists are assured of issues they can
struggle to achieve forever, except that eventually, as their supporters
come to understand it, they will lose what remains of their credibility
and effectiveness. In the mean time, who thinks that such activists will
never target TBBPA? Who thinks that bowing to the non-negotiable demands
of such activists will make things better in the long run? Lead is
toxic. Do they intend to demand removing the lead that is deposited
along roadways all over the world resulting from a half-century of
burning leaded gasoline? Manufacturers of semiconductor devices depend
on such toxic materials as silane and arsine. Can they survive without
them? Is tobacco toxic? Ethanol? I am sure that not all environmental
groups subscribe to such a sweeping goal. On the other hand, how many
times have you seen any environmental group criticizing irresponsible
environmental activism? I suspect that it occurs less often than
industrial groups voluntarily terminate polluting practices.

I will leave it to others to speculate about why, since they don't need
evidence, the activists decided to make deca-BDE an issue instead of
something else (e.g., warning people about arsenic in cell phones or
cadmium in food and tobacco). Maybe they are saving these for later. We
can be sure that activists will discover (i.e., create) new issues. 

Given their implacability, I think that these people are not noble but
dangerous. Not only do they mislead people with unsupportable claims
(such as those of the UBA), they have already intimidated corporations
and even industry associations into silence, so as to avoid being
labeled "anti-environment." There have been cases in which activists
held demonstrations outside a CEO's house and invited the media -
"useful idiots" or sympathizers who can be counted on to report whatever
the activists tell them. The consequences of having the
"anti-environment" label applied to their company are just too horrible
for most leaders to contemplate. It's cheaper and easier to capitulate -
at least in the short run. Incidentally, I suspect that one reason the
activist leaders prefer anonymity is that they want to reduce the risk
of retribution for their behavior. 

I wonder how activist dogma gets to be dogma. Just who was it that
decided that deca-BDE is unacceptable, and that the alleged substitutes
are better? When did this happen, and by what process did this person
arrive at these conclusions? By what process did this person get the
concurrence of so many other environmental activists so they could have
a united front? Do they have indoctrination sessions in which doctrines
are dished out as dogma by their high priests? Why did the data that
convinced others not convince the activists? Are they superstitious? Do
they just relish struggling for a cause regardless of its merits? Does
it give them a sense of power to be able to take away the freedom of
other people to do what they want to do, and see the pained reaction? 

Perhaps they really do know that their dogma has been discredited, but
they persist because they are concerned about the humiliation and loss
of support that would result were they to recant. We know that activists
have a continuing need for issues and scare tactics to keep the money
flowing in. They don't need to win every battle, but they can't afford
to admit that they were wrong. 

I doubt that any member of the UBA subscribes to this forum, but perhaps
Gerhard or some other subscriber knows how to get the attention of this
agency. Is there no one in Germany who can reign in the people in the
UBA? Shouldn't they be told that the time has come to drop their
opposition to the use of deca-BDE and to direct their attention to
something of greater benefit to the people who are paying their
salaries? I think that at least it would be a public service to
challenge the UBA's actions and motives. I'm sure that any response
would be read with great interest - if they have answers to the
questions I have posed or better facts and arguments than they presented
to the TAC. 

Environmental activists present themselves as altruistic "watchdogs" who
draw attention to the greed and irresponsible behavior of evil
industrialists who obviously don't care about the consequences of their
decisions. I think that it is past time for people to start watching the
activists and calling them to account for their greed and irresponsible
behavior. 

 

Gordon Davy

Baltimore, MD 

[log in to unmask]

410-993-7399 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a 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/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------