Every so often, I get to work on a project that I find utterly rewarding.

The RoHS article in this month’s issue of PCD&F/Circuits Assembly
<http://circuitsassembly.com/ca/index.php/magazine> was one such project.



Titled “Was RoHS Worth It?
<http://circuitsassembly.com/ca/magazine/26666-was-rohs-worth-it.html>“
(for those who don’t have hyperlinks enabled in their email, the url is
here: http://circuitsassembly.com/ca/magazine/26666-was-rohs-worth-it.html),
it attempts to recap the chaos and angst that preceded the ban of lead in
Europe (and the *de facto* phase outs elsewhere). It a real eye-opener how
even hardened anti-RoHS researchers came around to seeing value from the
experience. There was broad agreement, even among those who felt the fears
over lead were overblown, that much was learned from the process, not the
least of which is that no matter how much we have invested in one
technology, there are likely others that are better.



As Dr. Iver Anderson told me, “You could say RoHS banning electronics
really is a glimpse of the future. Because it won’t be the last time.”

To me, that quote distills in two sentences what I hope to achieve from
embarking on this retrospective: a record that the researchers and
engineers of the future can use as a benchmark for future broad-based
transitions.

I am grateful to Karl Seelig, Jim McElroy, Paul Vianco, Dr. Carol
Handwerker, Tetsuro Nishimura, Kay Nimmo, Iver Anderson, Dave Hillman and
Dr. Richard Coyle for their invaluable help.





Best,



Mike



Mike Buetow

PCD&F/Circuits Assembly

w/m 617-327-4702



The 2016 CIRCUITS ASSEMBLY Directory of EMS Companies

circuitsassembly.com/dems