Mike,

Thanks for the thoughtful and informative comments. I've chosen a new
subject title for my posting. I haven't read the REACH legislation (and
at 673 pages I have no intention to - RoHS took too long with five).
Here's my response to four things you said and some follow-up questions
for you and other forum participants:

*   "...with REACH it is not up to the EU government to prove that harm
is occurring; it is up to industry to prove that harm will NOT occur." 

That approach is what is used to regulate new pharmaceuticals, and we
know that takes a long time, is very expensive, and hence involves
strong temptations for intrigue. I think I've heard a figure of over ten
years and a hundred million dollars each. I know I've heard claims that
the regulated can get pretty chummy with the regulators.

With REACH, what does it take to prove that harm will not occur? Prove
to whom? What amount of harm? By what amount of substance? With what
probability? 

Proponents seem to imply that proving the case is a straightforward
scientific matter that can be handled by impartial scientists. But for
some adversaries any attempt to prove that harm will not occur would be
futile, since they have an agenda and do not want to deal with the
matter scientifically. Consider the determined opposition that deca-BDE
continues to receive from its enemies after having been evaluated over a
span of more than a decade and met all criteria. 

Just imagine the glee by those who since the death of communism as an
political force have been looking for some other means by which they can
seize control over the world (a common theme, I believe, of Saturday
morning cartoons). Now they have at least two - REACH and global
warming. Visualize them rubbing their hands in anticipation and wearing
an ear-to-ear evil grin. What deceptive and malevolent scheme will they
concoct next? How much worse will things have to get for the ordinary
citizens of Gotham City to realize that they have been deceived and are
being taken over by the very people who claim with such
attractive-sounding rhetoric to be acting in their best interests? Will
it be too late to stop them when they do? Or is this a "global trend"
that will continue unhindered into an ever-bleaker future? What kind of
superhero can expose their nefarious plots and rescue the world?

Am I being overly dramatic by saying that we are witnessing development
of an immense new opportunity for corruption, a new totalitarianism, and
the resurgence of superstition that could lead to a new Dark Age? That
seems far more ominous than global warming as described by its most
alarmist foes. 

*     "...the manufacturers and users [must] prove [a substance] can be
handled and used safely."

Handled and used safely by whom? Surely an industrial chemical like
bisphenol A or sulfuric acid or silane is not to be regulated by the
same criteria as a consumer product like baby toys? How about gasoline?
Car fires occur frequently. Would electric cars with lead-acid batteries
be safer?

How is disposal dealt with?

Is there any grandfathering for substances with an established track
record? If not, why not? 

If this goes forward in its current philosophy, would an industrial firm
have the motivation or resources to bring any new substances to market?
Isn't that what the irresponsible environmental activists are after -
discouraging innovation to the detriment of the economy? Is this a good
time or a bad time to choose as a career field synthetic organic
chemistry, polymer science, or chemical engineering? How about law and
politics?

*    "...our fine industry associations [have] agendas that often seem
to conflict with what is in industry's best interests..." 

What mechanism exists for calling the leadership of an industry
association to account for a conflicting agenda? Can you imagine
political parties developing with opposing slates of candidates for
positions on the board of directors, and secret ballots instead of the
prevailing practice of a voice vote for an unchallenged slate of
nominations?

*    "To try and stuff [RoHS] back in the bag seems to, at this stage,
be a futile waste of energy..." 

Whether it's futile I think depends on how far out into the future one
cares to look. The record of industry opposition to environmental
legislation has been marked by fear (public relations nightmare),
parochialism among companies that are used to competing against each
other in the marketplace and not used to cooperating to battle a common
foe (unenlightened self-interest - let's you and him fight), and
pragmatic rather than strategic thinking (regarding each issue as
unrelated, failing to seize the high moral ground despite dealing with
an immoral adversary). 

Not all that calls itself "proactive" is, and attempts to negotiate with
ruthless, deceptive, and irresponsible activists whose operating
philosophy is "what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable" calls
for something better than trusting them as "stakeholders." That has
proved futile.

Gordon Davy 


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