Bill and other TECHNETTERS,
Please, please stop the comparisons between the CFC situation and the
current mess we have with lead free solders. They are not the same at all.
I give a few reasons below.
I applaud the great job you did with your use of CFCs, however, it
was still not good enough to allow their use to continue. The reason is
that the free chlorine radicals generated in the stratosphere from your CFCs
(and mine) acted as a catalyst and did (and are doing ) a lot more damage
than an equivalent number of lead atoms will. (Yes, this is somewhat
subjective, but I am saying this on the basis that the stratospheric atomic
chlorine is catalytic, while lead gets bound in you and then does you in.)
Also, Mr. Pinatubo was not "spewing out hundreds of tons of free
chlorine" but hundreds of tons of hydrogen chloride and probably some sodium
chloride. Both of these materials are extremely soluble in atmospheric
moisture and do not reach the stratosphere. But let's say some of it did
reach the stratosphere, nine dollars to a donut all the chloride released as
free chloride ions would do next to nothing as this is not the reactive
catalyst that a free chlorine atom with an unpaired electron would be. In
comparison CFCs are essentially insoluble in atmospheric moisture, extremely
stable and these covalent molecules generally only get blasted apart in the
stratosphere by high energy radiation to uncharged, unpaired electron, high
energy entities (free radicals - sort of like Abbie Hoffman, one of the
Chicago Seven if my memory of your country's recent history serves me right.
:) ). Then they are ready to do their thing.
I agree that the guy with the Freon can is working against what we
were trying to do, but your argument is a little like saying that in a riot
we are only going to steal a projection TV for an old folks home while our
neighbour makes off with penny candy for his own consumption. I hope you
follow my analogy. Really, at least to my way of thinking, neither one is
right. I do not buy situation ethics.
The info included above did not originate with me, but can be found
in a variety of sources, including a great article by Dr. F. Sherwood
Rowland entitled "The CFC Controversy: Issues and Answers", ASHRAE Journal,
December 1992, pages 20-26. Dr. Sherwood is a very highly respected
atmospheric chemist and is a former president of your country's American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
Bill, I agree with you 100% with regards to the environmentally
irresponsible juggernaut we are dealing with on this lead thing. I will
continue to scream bloody murder, as we make plans in parallel to implement
it if we have to.
Please take this as a friendly answer, I'm never sure if my upbeat,
jokey mood comes across in print. I am in no way trying to offend or slap
anybody around.
regards,
Bev Christian, PhD
Nortel Networks
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kasprzak, Bill (esd) US [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 12:00 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] "Lead Free","The Great Gas-Out", and other
> musings..
>
> Steve:
>
> I sit here with the same degree of helplessness waiting for this"Lead
> Free"
> thing to kick in as I did when the EPA banned CFC's. I mean, there I was
> with my 20 gallon Baron-Blakeslee degreaser with internal refrigerant to
> keep solvent loss to an absolute minimum. I'll bet that I lost maybe 1 - 2
> gallons /month with this system. Heck, I was even able to reclaim my own
> material in a reclamation unit. With a few more improvements, solvent
> losses
> could have approached Zero. This solvent removed rosin flux residue and
> circuit boards were very clean. Soldering and cleaning circuit boards was
> easy. We in electronics were not single handedly ruining the Ozone layer
> with CFC's by using Vapor Degreasers.
>
> In the meantime, Mt.Pinatubo (God only knows how many other volcanoes were
> erupting at the time) was spewing out hundreds of tons of free chlorine
> atoms thus ruining the ozone layer. Geez, I coulda dumped my degreaser in
> the parking lot every day for 10 years and not do the damage that ol'
> Pinatubo did in one hour. I forgot to mention that at the same time, there
> was another guy in the parking lot adding another can of Freon to his
> leaking auto air conditioning system. Why get the darn thing fixed when
> the
> Freon costs 99 cents a can.
>
> Your point is well taken. We can all agree that lead is harmful. But our
> application of lead is a responsible one. It's hard to imagine that one of
> my one pound solder bars is being chewed by some kid somewhere. Exposure
> and
> ingestion of the lead in electronics requires a great deal of imagination.
> I
> will certainly be able to follow any regulations that may be necessary to
> keep scrap electronics from hitting landfills. But don't ban the stuff
> across the board.
>
> But as the old saying goes"One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel".
> Because other industries, as you indicated, use lead in a haphazard
> manner, we'll solve the problem by not letting anyone use it. It doesn't
> matter that we in electronics use lead responsibly. It doesn't matter that
> other alloys for soldering are more dangerous than the lead alloys it
> replaced. It doesn't matter that the electrical connection in the airplane
> with 300+ people on board is less reliable than before. It doesn't matter.
> It's because we need to have "feel good" legislation so that elected
> officials can get enough votes for re-election because they "feel your
> pain".
>
> So instead of asking how we might be able to better control a problem,
> we'll
> solve it by banning it altogether.
>
> I remember the picnic I went through when CFC's were banned. This will be
> another one. I'll bet that PVC is next on the list.
>
> Bill Kasprzak
> Moog Inc.
>
> ################################################################
> 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
> ################################################################
>
################################################################
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
################################################################
|
