No you wouldn't - only sparkling wine produced from grapes grown in the
region of Champagne in France can be called Champagne.........
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Landman
Sent: 18 March 2010 13:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] The Brainstorm: Should the U.S. employ RoHS-like
standards for impor
Yes, but as a former (and native) Californian, we'd then be able to
call our sparkling wine champaigne. If only we had known...
Bob
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:01 AM, "James, Chris" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If it were not for the Brits in 1759 though you'd all be speaking
> French
> now and part of the EU anyway.
>
> C
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
[log in to unmask]
> Sent: 17 March 2010 14:46
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LF] The Brainstorm: Should the U.S. employ RoHS-like
> standards for impor
>
> That's the spirit, Werner... the spirit of 1776 No legislation
> without
>
> representation (by science) We can dump the lead-free products in
> Boston
>
> Harbor at night... I take that back, the silver in the PB free solder
> will not
> be good for the fish larva...
>
> Cheers,
> Joe
>
>
> In a message dated 3/16/2010 7:13:32 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> Hi Bob,
> While not all of RoHS is bad, your points are well taken.
> So lets concentrate on the real bad part-the Pb ban.
> We should actually turn the argument around. Since it now is clear,
> that
> all the substitutes for SnPb are environmentally more damaging-less
> sustainability, more energy use, worse in land fills, more scrap to
> go
> into land
> fills, lower reliability, tin whiskers, ravaging tin mining, etc.
> etc.,
> the
> USA should ban electronic imports that contain Pb-free solders
> [unless
> their
> use can be explicitly justified] on those grounds. That would put USA
> products on a higher plane than those problematic Pb-free electronic
> products
> with the arguments of more environmentally products that are also
> more
>
> reliable.
> Werner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Landman <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tue, Mar 16, 2010 11:48 am
> Subject: [LF] The Brainstorm: Should the U.S. employ RoHS-like
> standards
> for imported products?
>
>
> This is a response to those opposing the House bill in the Congress
> on
> exemptions for lead in NEMA products. IPC is against the bill as is
> AIA.
>
> Bob Landman
> H&L Instruments, LLC
>
> http://www.nema.org/media/eiextra/20081020b.cfm
>
> Should the U.S. employ RoHS-like standards for imported products?
>
> Regulatory officials in the U.S. would have a hard time justifying
> RoHS-like
> thresholds for imported products only because a standard that applies
> just
> to
> foreign-made products would constitute a serious barrier to trade for
> overseas
> manufacturers. Furthermore, it would imply that products manufactured
> in
> the
> U.S. are held to a lower standard of "safety" than imported products.
> This is
> not the kind of message consumers expect to hear from our government.
>
> On the other hand, it's clear now that the European RoHS thresholds
> are
>
> becoming
> a de facto global standard, influencing markets far beyond the EU. If
> the
> U.S.
> does not address this trend, it could find itself a "dumping ground"
> for
> products that can no longer be sold elsewhere as more and more
> countries
> adopt a
> RoHS approach. From this standpoint, standards on imported products
> could
> serve
> to protect consumers while simultaneously encouraging domestic
> manufacturers to
> develop "greener" products as a means to compete.
>
> So what's the solution? At NEMA, which represents the electrical
> product
> industry in the U.S., we believe that if a product standard can be
> justified on
> the basis of science, safety, and product performance, it should be
> applicable
> to a product regardless of where it is manufactured - imported or
> domestic. We
> also recognize the impact of RoHS-type rules on the worldwide
> regulatory
>
> arena
> and believe manufacturers should stay ahead of the trend, employing
> their
> expertise in product design and development to control events as much
> as
> possible.
>
> For these reasons, NEMA is striving to introduce Federal legislation
> that
> would
> establish hazardous substance thresholds for many electrical products
> sold
> in
> the U.S., effective July 2010. When enacted, this legislation would
> apply
> to all
> participants in the market and would preempt states from enacting
> different
> standards. This will ensure a level, consistent playing field without
> compromising safety or performance.
>
> The U.S. should definitely employ RoHS-like standards for imported
> products. The
> world, and particularly the United States, is now making a valiant
> push
> to
> go
> Green. Eliminating hazardous materials from products in our homes,
> workplace,
> and the landfill is vital to this effort.
>
> The U.S. is still the largest consumer in the world. If we demand
> higher
> standards, it will help raise the bar for manufacturers around the
> world
> who
> depend on our business. If we do nothing, it undermines those who are
> trying to
> make a difference and improve our lives and our planet.
>
> AOS is a Swiss company, and we have experience with RoHS. For us it
> applies to
> electronic products in the European Union (EU) whether made within
> the
> EU
> or
> imported. AOS manufactures in Switzerland and draws from worldwide
> resources.
> Adopting RoHS created a lot of challenges for our company and many
> other
> electronic manufacturers in the European Union.
>
> Modifying components and retooling was not an easy process,
> challenging
>
> our
> quality and process management to avoid unacceptable delays while
> maintaining
> the same product quality and reliability. Changing entailed a great
> deal
> of
> negotiation, planning and additional cost. It is not a trivial thing.
>
> AOS's U.S. office is located in California, a state which passed SB
> 20:
>
> Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003. This act follows many of
> the EU
>
> RoHS
> standards for electronic products being sold in California, but
> across
> a
> much
> narrower scope. It only is a start and the nation should follow suit.
>
> Arguments can be made for or against it. In fact, within DCA the best
> we
> could
> do is reach consensus that it would be relatively straightforward,
> low
> cost, and
> harmless to implement (and not just for imported product, but for
> domestic
> as
> well; if implemented for imported product only it would be readily
> shot
>
> down as
> a trade barrier).
>
> Implementing RoHS in the U.S. would be relatively easy because the
> supply
> chain
> infrastructure is in place for it and most products (in terms of
> volume)
> are
> already RoHS-compliant. Companies (particularly those with products
> in
> high
> volume and consumer markets) build one product for the world, and any
> localization is based on software and maybe a power cord.
>
> However, the fact is that RoHS is a point chemical regulation - it
> addresses
> only a few chemicals in a narrow range of applications.
> Implementing it
>
> here
> would still leave us several steps behind the EU's leadership in
> environmental
> policy - they have a "federal" WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic
> Equipment)
> policy, a product energy policy (EuP - Energy-using Products), and a
> new
> overall
> chemicals policy (REACH - Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and
> Restriction of Chemicals).
>
> The U.S. federal government therefore has a long way to go in order
> to
> just put
> itself in a position to harmonize with environmental regulations and
> policies in
> the EU and other parts of the world, much less eventually regain its
> leadership
> role in environmental policy. Implementing RoHS in the U.S. might put
> us
> on the
> path, but it is far from the endgame.
>
> The health risks and recycling difficulties associated with the
> materials
> covered by RoHS are well known, but the product life-cycle impact
> from
> the
> use
> of alternative manufacturing materials like lead-free solder is just
> starting to
> be understood.
>
> Although some manufactures, like Motorola, have been successfully
> using
>
> lead-free solder since 2001, others have had serious difficulties. In
> 2006,
> Swatch watches experienced a nearly 5 percent failure rate due to the
> development of "tin whiskers" (small thread-like strands that can
> sprout
> from
> lead-free solder and cause short circuits) on circuit boards
> forcing a
> nearly
> $1billion dollar re-call.
>
> Creating reliability and product life-cycle issues will affect
> safety,
> consumer
> satisfaction and ultimately increase the amounts of waste generated.
> This
> is why
> long-lived, mission critical equipment like medical devices and
> monitoring
> and
> control systems are currently exempt from RoHS compliance.
>
> Practically speaking, the fact that California passed the Electronic
> Waste
> Recycling Act in 2003 means we have already adopted these standards -
> very
> few
> foreign companies can afford to sell into the U.S. and not sell in
> California.
>
> As a nation though, we should wait and watch a couple more years of
> data
> from
> RoHS compliance overseas. Once the real effect and the potential
> engineering
> workarounds are better understood we can more rationally assess the
> benefits.
>
> So RoHS-like compliance will come, but let's not be in such a hurry
> to
> make
> recycling easier that we create more garbage in the process.
>
> The answer is "No," unless it is the same as the RoHS-Directive
> (2002/95/EC) in
> letter and intent. Europe's RoHS directive, published in February
> 2003
> and
>
> implemented in July 2006, led to a tsunami of products produced in the
> global
> electronics and electrical market, to be distributed across the USA.
> Destined to
> regulate consumer electronics and electrical products and, more
> importantly,
> exempt industrial, medical, aerospace and national defense systems;
> it
> has
> unfortunately swallowed everything in its wake.
>
> U.S. manufacturers now produce many (but not all) RoHS-compliant
> products
> for
> the global market. Why should we develop our own version, when the
> European
> Community has already influenced the global market in this regard?
>
> Visit any consumer-electronics, office supply store or Wal-Mart, and
> you
> will
> see a number of electronic and electrical products that carry the
> WEEE
> Wheelie
> Bin and some form of a RoHS symbol. Like it or not, legislation in
> the
> USA
> will
> not change the fact that many RoHS-compliant components, assemblies
> and
>
> products
> are already in circulation here.
>
> Some naysayers and alarmists in the industry warn against the
> potential
>
> for
> failure of RoHS-compliant products with their lead-free make-up and
> increased
> tin-whisker risks. There are those who would have us support a motion
> to
> reduce
> the potential risks and allow for a better technical assessment of a
> RoHS-compliant U.S. Their response would be to support a BAN on
> RoHS-compliant
> products entering the U.S.
>
> As a member of the G8 and WTO, however, we cannot introduce a
> potential
>
> trade
> barrier on imported products and simultaneously protect
> U.S.-manufactured
> products. The RoHS-Directive is an emotionally charged topic in
> certain
>
> quarters, but so far no serious problems have become evident in the
> U.S.
> consumer electronics market.
>
> =============================
>
> Bob Landman
> H&L Instruments, LLC
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
> [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> ----------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------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
> ---
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> ---
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
> [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> ---
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> ---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
> ---
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> ---
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
> [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> ---
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------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
> ---
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
