latest Euro ROHS fun

[bob urz]

http://www.edn.com/blog/570000257/post/1540050754.html?nid=3351&rid=764914

bob

 

[N_Cook]

http://www.edn.com/blog/570000257/post/1540050754.html?nid=3351&rid=764914

bob

Does

"This would bring into scope all electrical products used in building and
transport (unless covered by other legislation such as the ELV directive),
all "fixed installations" and electrical parts in aircraft, trains, ships,
and commercial vehicles."

mean planes will be falling out of the sky with greater frequancy than at
present ?

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I am a believer in aggressive government regulation. Really. But...

I also believe there is no such thing as a hazardous substance -- it is how
materials are used and disposed of that makes them hazardous -- or not.

Lead is a poison, and a nasty one. We know that. The question is really what
happes to the lead in the solder when the item is disposed. I'm still not
convinced that it easily finds its way into the water supply.

 

[David Nebenzahl]

I am a believer in aggressive government regulation. Really. But...

I also believe there is no such thing as a hazardous substance -- it
is how materials are used and disposed of that makes them hazardous
-- or not.

Lead is a poison, and a nasty one. We know that. The question is
really what happes to the lead in the solder when the item is
disposed. I'm still not convinced that it easily finds its way into
the water supply.

It does. Like most every other element, lead reacts with other stuff in
the environment to form salts, acids, etc., so while elemental lead
itself may not be a huge environmental problem, these compounds can very
easily contaminate water and soil.

It's really bad for kids. And I definitely don't want to be ingesting
that stuff. So the RoHS rationale is very understandable.

The problem, of course, is the unintended consequences on the
electronics side (like planes falling out of the sky?).

 

[N_Cook]

I am a believer in aggressive government regulation. Really. But...

I also believe there is no such thing as a hazardous substance -- it is how
materials are used and disposed of that makes them hazardous -- or not.

Lead is a poison, and a nasty one. We know that. The question is really what
happes to the lead in the solder when the item is disposed. I'm still not
convinced that it easily finds its way into the water supply.

As far as I can see RoHS is designed to increase the amount of stuff ending
up in landfill, ok not containing lead perhaps.
Institute a system that on average makes things fail a factor of 3 to 10
times quicker than before (dependent on vibration and temperature regimes in
use). Knowing that there is next to no-one who will repair this stuff and
also keep the makers happy knowing that their resupply rate is faster - they
sell more.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

While we're sealing nuclear wastes in glass for long term storage:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/12/971210063125.htm
apparently that's not good enough for sequestering lead from CRTs.

But that's not quite the same thing. It's assumed that broken CRTs will
exposed to rain in landfills. Nuclear wastes aren't supposed to be exposed
to rain or a flow of water.

Paying for disposal or recycling when you buy something new, or turning in
the old item when you buy its replacement is probably the best approach.

PS: Someone who can't tell the difference between a CRT and an LCD display
ain't very bright.

 

[bob urz]

But that's not quite the same thing. It's assumed that broken CRTs will
exposed to rain in landfills. Nuclear wastes aren't supposed to be exposed
to rain or a flow of water.

The thing i find interesting about that is that i read somewhere one way
of stabilizing spent nuclear waste is encapsulating it in glass.
Is a CRT not essentially encapsulated in glass? If the lead is in the
glass and the glass does not break down, how is any quantity of it going
to leach out?

Paying for disposal or recycling when you buy something new, or turning in
the old item when you buy its replacement is probably the best approach.

This is the part that is so simple yet so hard. With mandatory recycling
of used electronics and such, only a small percentage would ever hit the
landfill and the rest would be properly separated and recycled or
disposed of. Screw the ROHS on the front end, take care of it on the
back end.

I truly think these environmentalist wack ohs are just like mid level
bureaucrats. They live to make up rules to justify there existence.
The state of California is a good example. There trying to pass crazy
energy regulations on large flat TV's. Nothing wrong with using less
energy, but these idiots won't be happy until every 50" TV consumes 1/2
watt of power and call the industry a liar if they cannot make one.
These are the same brain surgeons that want you to buy electric cars and
plug them into your garage every night. And how many 50" TV's would it
take to use the same energy as charging your electric car?
Yet there is plenty of energy for that.

If California is so short of energy, they should utilize what plentiful
sources they have now. If they put all the illegal aliens in the state
on large scale hamster wheels hooked to generators, they would have tons
of extra power.

In twenty years or so, we will truly be in a throw away society. There
will be no one left to fix anything. The only thing trades are teaching
anymore are computers. Repairs shops will be excavated in the future
like dinosaurs for artifacts. They will all be extinct.

bob

 

[William Sommerwerck]

The thing i find interesting about that is that i read somewhere one way

of stabilizing spent nuclear waste is encapsulating it in glass.
Is a CRT not essentially encapsulated in glass? If the lead is in the
glass and the glass does not break down, how is any quantity of it going
to leach out?

As I said in another, recent post, radioactive wastes are not dumped into
landfills, where they are washed by rain.

This is the part that is so simple yet so hard. With mandatory recycling
of used electronics and such, only a small percentage would ever hit the
landfill and the rest would be properly separated and recycled or
disposed of. Screw the ROHS on the front end, take care of it on the
back end.

I'm inclined to agree. Of course, you can never remove 100% of the solder
from the board, short of stripping off the copper traces and melting them
down. Which is not a bad idea -- if you can find enough poverty-stricken
people to do it for next to nothing.

I truly think these environmentalist wack ohs are just like mid level
bureaucrats. They live to make up rules to justify there existence.
The state of California is a good example. There trying to pass crazy
energy regulations on large flat TV's. Nothing wrong with using less
energy, but these idiots won't be happy until every 50" TV consumes 1/2
watt of power and call the industry a liar if they cannot make one.

I don't think all environmentalists are whackos -- humans are doing a very
good job of destroying this planet. However, the proposed energy
requirements for large-screen TVs, though well-intended, make little sense
in light of the fact that the consumer-electronics industry wants to produce
lower-consumption sets, simply because they'll be more reliable and cost
less. This is one of those very rare cases where big business does the right
thing on its own.

These are the same brain surgeons that want you to buy electric cars and
plug them into your garage every night. And how many 50" TV's would it
take to use the same energy as charging your electric car?
Yet there is plenty of energy for that.

You're not thinking this through. Where does the energy to power the car --
or an electric power plant -- come form?

 

[bob urz]

You're not thinking this through. Where does the energy to power the car --
or an electric power plant -- come from?

Well valid question. Supposedly, there is a shortage of power in
California. So adding a million electric cars is going to do what?
Require building new power plants. I think they more or less tapped
out hydro capacity. So that leaves nuclear and coal as the only
feasible alternatives. It would take 20 years to get a new nuke
plant built (if ever). So that leaves coal. With all the new
environmental regs on coal plants, that leaves tons of toxic fly ash
to be disposed of. Where is that all going to go? There was a big
release of fly ash in Tennessee that is still an environmental
nightmare. Its an environmental shell game of shifting blame and who
has to pay on any given day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/07/09/bill-may-ban-wind-turbines/


The Bio fuels industry is in shambles in some parts of the country due
to dropping oil prices. many plants were abandoned or sit half
completed. Wind power and solar are feel good alternatives, but
realistically are supplemental sources of power. It won't be long until
the "no cell phone tower in my back yard" group moves on to wind mills.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:cLin2x92YrwJ:cmegroup.barchart.com/
ethanol/archive/1232044724CME-Weekly-Ethanol-12-Jan-2009.pdf+ethanal+plant
+shut+down+nebraska&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Our local public owned utility in Nebraska is asking for a 5% or so
increase in rates next year. The reason? they did not sell enough power
last year. So, you ask the public to conserve, they do, then they charge
you more. Go figure.

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/69798352.html

All of the materials moving through the US cost more to ship now due to
the new class 8 truck emission laws. While i don't think some
improvement was out of line, i think it has gone beyond that. Even
farm tractors and train locomotives are liable now too.
Between he cost of the new low sulpher diesel and the lower mileage
of the newer class 8 trucks, it was a double hit to the increase in
costs of transporting goods



bob

 

[William Sommerwerck]

However, grinding down the CRT and exposing the remains to an

acid is not my idea of suitable testing. Yet, that's what it took to
get any numbers for lead leaching into the environment from CRT's.
How many landfills grind their waste to powder and then acid etch them?

Few. The worst that would happen is that the bulb would be thoroughly
broken -- but not ground to powder.

The other issue is what happens over a period of time. My gut feeling is
that only a little lead, from the surface of the glass, would efer leach
out.

Really? I find it a great excuse not to properly dispose of anything.
After all, there's no financial incentive. The only good thing about
this system is that it subsidizes recycling centers for handling
unprofitable wastes, such as CRTs. The only reason it exists is that
the alternatives are worse. Penalizing anyone owning something deemed
hazardous will result in CRTs getting dumped by the road side. That's
exactly what happened here during the short period when the local
"transfer station" was charging outrageous amounts (i.e. what it
really costs to handle the stuff) for disposing of CRT's.
Incidentally, the high cost was due to the classification of CRT's as
hazardous waste because of the lead content and therefore requiring
special handling. That lasted about 6 months and was replaced by the
pay in advance system you seem to favor.

I don't know. We can't continue to dump huge amounts of electronic waste
without making a reasonable effort to at least extract the useful and
dangerous components of it.

When I bought my plasma TV, I paid Magnolia an extra $50 to pick up my 32"
Toshiba IDTV. I don't know what they did with it.

Best Buy will take almost anything for (supposed recycling) for $10, then
give you the $10 back as a store credit.

Gold is now around $1000 an ounce. That's $35 a gram. Is that enough to
justify simply extracting the gold?

Now, expand the above lead handling to a wider assortment of "toxic"
substances. Do you smoke in front of your computah? Too bad because
Apple claims the residue is toxic and will not honor the warranty.
<http://consumerist.com/5408885/smoking-near-apple-computers-creates-biohaza
rd-voids-warranty>
Yeah, I know this is the "slipper slope" argument, but without sane
guidelines as to what constitutes hazardous, the list will grow
without bounds which seems to be what the EU now wants.

Again, I don't know. I'm a Liberal who believes in extreme government
regulation -- but these sorts of things go beyond what I consider "common
sense".

As for smoking voiding your warranty -- that's going a little far.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Were the two groups of children controlled for family background? Those with
the higher lead might have been from lower-income communities with poorer
parenting.

 

[Jerry Peters]

Well valid question. Supposedly, there is a shortage of power in
California. So adding a million electric cars is going to do what?
Require building new power plants. I think they more or less tapped
out hydro capacity. So that leaves nuclear and coal as the only
feasible alternatives. It would take 20 years to get a new nuke
plant built (if ever). So that leaves coal. With all the new
environmental regs on coal plants, that leaves tons of toxic fly ash
to be disposed of. Where is that all going to go? There was a big
release of fly ash in Tennessee that is still an environmental
nightmare. Its an environmental shell game of shifting blame and who
has to pay on any given day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/07/09/bill-may-ban-wind-turbines/

Wind mills & solar power, you know, the greenies "renewable energy".
Of course the sun doesn't shine at night, when presumably most people
would be recharging their electric cars, and wind power is unreliable.
It all *sounds* good, especially if you're a lawyer or a journalist
whose scientific knowledge is at the elementary school level.

The Bio fuels industry is in shambles in some parts of the country due
to dropping oil prices. many plants were abandoned or sit half
completed. Wind power and solar are feel good alternatives, but
realistically are supplemental sources of power. It won't be long until
the "no cell phone tower in my back yard" group moves on to wind mills.

They already have, here in PA various communities are now regulating
windmills. Then there was the proposal to build windmills in the ocean
off Cape Cod; the Kennedys and their rich friends killed it because
the windmills would ruin the view.

Jerry

 

[Jerry Peters]

Were the two groups of children controlled for family background? Those with
the higher lead might have been from lower-income communities with poorer
parenting.

I think that was his point.

Jerry

 

[Jerry Peters]

I'm surprised they didn't study the effect of lead on the researchers.

Chuckle. That sounds like a repeat of a similar study done in the
1960's. I'll see if I can find the references (later). What they did
was compare the IQ scores of children that lived near a lead recycling
plant in Colorado(?) with those in a more pristine atmosphere. The
former were in a designated poverty area, while the latter were in a
more affluent location. The IQ test results were predictable. The
same data also showed an increased incidence of various diseases in
the former. Hopefully, this report is a bit more sane.

Incidentally, one of my friends is a biomedical researcher. She does
the numbers for many such research projects. I don't know if it's
really true, but many such studies cannot be funded unless the result
is known in advance. They can't afford to embarrass those that are
paying the bills.

Sounds like most opinion polls. The *first* thing I want to know about
the latest & greatest poll results is *who paid* for the poll. This
information is usually enough to explain the results.

Jerry

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Were the two groups of children controlled for family background?

I think that was his point.

It was the opposite. The lowered scores were supposedly due /solely/ to the
higher lead levels, and had no other cause.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Moral: There are plenty of other things, besides lead,

that significantly affect a person's IQ, that are also
rather difficult to control [for].

Most importantly... An IQ test measures one thing -- the ability to take an
IQ test.

I can get away saying that, because I consistently score in the 99th
percentile.

 

[David Nebenzahl]

Moral: There are plenty of other things, besides lead,
that significantly affect a person's IQ, that are also
rather difficult to control [for].

Most importantly... An IQ test measures one thing -- the ability to take an
IQ test.

I can get away saying that, because I consistently score in the 99th
percentile.

So instead of saying "Oh, you're so smart!" we should say "What a great
IQ test-taker you are"?

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Most importantly... An IQ test measures one thing -- the

So instead of saying "Oh, you're so smart!" we should say
"What a great IQ test-taker you are"?

That's about right.

The original IQ test was designed to see whether a child was ready for
school -- whether he or she knew certain words, could tie their shoelaces,
etc.

I'm smart, but I'm also a good test-taker. If you lack test-taking skills,
you'll score lower than you should.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I've noticed that my scores tend to deteriorate as I get older.

I think this is probably because it's harder to focus and concentrate. Also,
time seems to pass more quickly, so you seem to have less time for each
question.

 

[Jerry Peters]

It was the opposite. The lowered scores were supposedly due /solely/ to the
higher lead levels, and had no other cause.

I meant *Jeff's* point, not that of the original researcher.

Jerry