TECHNET Archives

March 1999

TechNet@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:
"Stephen R. Gregory" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Fri, 19 Mar 1999 08:56:03 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (64 lines)
In a message dated 3/19/99 1:13:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> I would like to thank the SMART group for the excellent work they are
>  doing in supporting the industry and by providing the first decent
>  technical material on this issue.  Something which has been conspicuous
>  by its absence on the IPCs web site.
>
>  Neil Atkinson
>  Quality Manager
>  Stadium Group plc
>  England

Hi Neil!

Having just returned from IPC's Printed Circuit Expo, let me tell you that if
there WASN'T anything missing from the hot topics of the day, it was the
subject of Lead free solders. There were numerous technical conferences both
free and paid ones that addressed just that issue.

I guess the biggest difference between the situation here in the states and
Europe, is that we're not facing a mandatory ban less than 5 years away.
However, the fact the you guys have that staring you in the face does affect
us greatly due to the global nature of our industry.

While at the conference the feeling I got from everyone was this is something
that's being shoved down our throats whether we like it or not, and that one
would be foolish to ignore the handwriting on the wall. The one thing that
concerns me, is that this all started out with the noble purpose of saving the
planet from the toxics of lead, but there are studies, one of them published
in the Expo's proceedings by Edwin B. Smith and L. Kristine Swanger of K*Tec
Electronics, that the alternatives are JUST as toxic as lead to the
environment...not to mention all the technical issues as mentioned in all the
communications in this very thread.

So I have to ask myself why? Why are we pushing to change to a process that's
just as toxic, full of technical issues, unproven, and more expensive (at
least in energy usage)?

If it were any other issue other than lead I would suspect that when faced
with those points most would consider it foolish to pursue such a path.

I said it once before and I'll say it again, I feel that somebody stands to
make a lot of money from all of us eliminating our usage of lead, what else
can it be?

This is just my opinion...

-Steve Gregory-

-Steve Gregory-

################################################################
TechNet E-Mail Forum provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c
################################################################
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the body:
To subscribe:   SUBSCRIBE TechNet <your full name>
To unsubscribe:   SIGNOFF TechNet 
################################################################
Please visit IPC's web site (http://www.ipc.org) "On-Line Services" section for additional information.
For technical support contact Hugo Scaramuzza at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.312
################################################################


ATOM RSS1 RSS2