Regarding the question about other substances banned by RoHS (which this e-mail references and also I think another e-mail that I read this morning on this forum), I think part of the ban on cadmium was not researched very well before the RoHS legislation was published.

  Of particular concern to me is cadmium in relay contacts. While this is now an exempted use, it was only granted an exemption fairly recently. Cadmium in relay contacts helps harden the contacts and makes them last longer in high-current / high inrush-current / significant power factor relay applications. When I was looking at Cd-free replacements for relays with cadmium contacts, I saw that in all cases relays with Cd-free contacts had lower endurance & current ratings than relays in the same case with the same coil that used cadmium contacts.

  I don't know of any studies showing a quantitative analysis of decrease in product life and/or costs of having to move all relays to the next size up to get the same overall product rating, but I assume some type of information like that was presented to the EU committees such that the use of cadmium in relay contacts was granted an exemption. (Side note - if anyone does know of any studies, I would really appreciate it if they could forward the information to me.)

  While the EU has now granted the exemption, I don't know what will happen with the various RoHS spinoffs (such as China-RoHS, Korea-RoHS, U.S. state versions, etc.).

  -Camille Good
  Portland, Oregon


Michael Kirschner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
  On Sat, 20 May 2006 10:17:06 +0300, Brian Ellis wrote:

>I haven't time for a detailed reply, but it's clear that Mr Franklin's
>knowledge of toxicology, epidemiology, chemistry, earth sciences and
>engineering are sadly lacking. All he has done is propagate errors of
>others, usually out of context.
>
[deletia]
>Gordon, Harvey, Joe, Werner, John and many others (I'm too modest to
>name them all :-) ) have been arguing the **scientific** wisdom of RoHS
>from well before the time that the Directive split off from the proposed
>WEEE one and, I believe, none of us have any vested interest other than
>the well-being of our industry. I had published my feelings on the web
>long before Mr Franklin had started his study. You can see what I wrote
>at http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv/files/sustainability.htm#RoHS (this
>was originally published on the now-defunct protonique.com site).
>
What Brian, "Gordon, Harvey, Joe, Werner, John and many others" have been
arguing is against the impact of RoHS on lead in solders. You all have NOT
been arguing at all, as far as I can tell, about the REST of the directive.

There is no doubt that mercury, hex chrome, PBBs, PBDEs, and cadmium are
toxic and hazardous - some in use, some in manufacture, some in disposal. We
should elminiate them. Period. That's the vast majority of substances
restricted in RoHS - 5/6 to be precise ;o).

Lead is hazardous if ingested ... we at least know that. Don't sit there and
chew on that plastic coated wire (people do; they don't tend to chew on
PWAs...) or you could get lead poisoning...right? Is there a risk that it
can leach from landfills in to ground water where it presents a hazard? Is
it hazardous during use? Is it hazardous during manufacture? Is the mining
and refining process particularly hazardous? No the EU did not make clear
it's case for restricting any of these substances in products. The industry
should've done a better job arguing it 8-10 years ago. Now it's too
late...the law's in place. Get the scientific evidence together to detail
it's benign or controllable nature in each of these stages of its lifecycle
and then present it to the Commission.

But don't rail against RoHS; rail against the restriction of lead in solder.
Be clear; be precise.

Mike

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.