LEADFREE Archives

February 2006

Leadfree@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)
Date:
Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:31:53 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (62 lines)
The Precautionary Principle is just fine, Gordon, as it includes the
proviso "for which there is insufficient scientific evidence". It is the
politicians' agenda that is at fault, not the Principle, whose wording,
as laid down at the Rio Conference and approved by all major heads of
state, including GWB's Daddy, is very clear.

Brian

Davy, Gordon wrote:
> Kay Nimmo has commented that "several Member States and other
> organistaions are strongly against this exemption for deca-BDE under
> RoHS and e.g. the European Parliament is taking the Commission to court,
> challenging the basis for that exemption, and aiming to achieve
> withdrawal of it." She also stated that deca-BDE "was not exempt until
> the published decision last year that specified that." What she did not
> say is that the decision was the only rational response to data
> resulting from the most extensive environmental and health testing of
> any substance in history. The testing lasted more than ten years.
>
> She also did not say why the various Member States are strongly against
> the exemption, but I will offer my explanation. The representatives of
> these Member States had already decided that deca-BDE is harmful, and
> they now refuse to accept the clear scientific evidence that they had
> been prejudiced against it.
>
> This example shows a serious shortcoming of the Precautionary Principle,
> to which these representatives all subscribe. It is impossible to
> convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. Yet these same people
> will welcome products containing non-brominated substitutes for
> deca-BDE, none of which has received nearly the scrutiny that the object
> of their hatred has. Does anyone really believe that the motive for
> these sore losers in their continued opposition to deca-BDE is their
> concern for the environment rather than that it is contrary to the
> tenets of their religion, which they want government to force down the
> throats of everyone?
>
>
>
> Gordon Davy
>
> Baltimore, MD
>
> 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
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2