Lead-free law ruins electronics

[stratman]

The military is usally exempt from these mandates, remember Freon? They still use it. Whisker-less solder, I'm sure they get what they want. Who's going to say no to the military?

 

[OttoMatic]

The military is usally exempt from these mandates, remember Freon? They still use it. Whisker-less solder, I'm sure they get what they want. Who's going to say no to the military?

Absolutely right -- there is a military exception for the leaded solder, and so does the healthcare industry and some other industry I can't remember at the moment. They can get and use the leaded solder. Now, what was their complaint again?

 

[Rickster71]

Absolutely right -- there is a military exception for the leaded solder, and so does the healthcare industry and some other industry I can't remember at the moment. They can get and use the leaded solder. Now, what was their complaint again?

Too bad the military didn't opt out of the lead free fiasco from the beginning.

Can't imagine what it will cost us tax payers, to repair or replace the equipment below:

The U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) at China Lake, Calif., for example, supports about 20 air- and surface-launched weapons, such as the Tomahawk cruise missile, Sidewinder air-to-air missile, and Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).

Of those weapons programs, NAWC officials report that five-that’s 25 percent, mind you-built from 1985 to 1992 have had documented tin-whisker failures.

Reports indicate that six satellites sustained partial or complete loss due to tin whiskers. These involved Galaxy-3, Solidaridad 1, Direct TV3, and HS 601 satellites built between 1998 and 2002. Problems also have been reported with the F-15 jet fighter radar, the Patriot missile, and the Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft.

 

[Thaedium]

And just as much as we can find articles with military guys whining about one side of this issue, I'm sure we can find articles with those on the other side of the argument all up in arms about the contamination angle.

Its not going to be "us military guys" doing the whining. Its going to be the media and the public when sh*t we're shooting at overseas isn't getting hit but the innocent family and children two streets down when the munitions suffer a failure and turn them into raggedly mashed corpsicles.

Frankly, I don't feel threated from 3% led in solder, which is used in miniscule amounts in electronics. I feel threatend when my GPS can have errors that might have me move past certain arks within an area of operation that you shouldn't go unless you want to get lit up like a christmas tree.

If they want to get rid of led in solder, thats fine with me. Just make sure you have a safe and reliable way of doing for solder what led does currently. Otherwise, people will die needlessly because of electronics we've all grown to rely and trust are failing, due to a bunch of bleeding heart tree huggers.



Amusingly, in the military bullets still have plenty of led content. While on course for the special forces we were given the opportunity for blood testing regarding led poisoning because we we're firing off so many rounds. Heck, my group of 10 guys fired approximately 25,000 rounds a day of 5.56 for 3 weeks, some days getting more rounds down range, and some days less. My guess is that I had greater exposure to led in those three weeks then the average joe electronics user will get in a life time.

 

[OttoMatic]

Too bad the military didn't opt out of the lead free fiasco from the beginning.

Are you saying that the military has voluntarily removed use of lead from its electronics? In one of those articles, I read that there was an exception for military electronics, and they can continue to use it. If they're still allowed to use it, I don't see what their complaint is -- that's my point.

And I think it's fine for them to continue to use it, especially while the private sector figures out a way to fix tin whiskers.

Thaedium, I appreciate your post, but it's pretty much the same stuff that's in the other articles that's being used to scare us into not using lead. I agree that there should be a solution, and I believe it will come. Hey, if we can design and build the devices you're talking about, we should be able to get rid of tin whiskers, right? However, for better or for worse, it's being legislated out (by the EU, at least), and perhaps that will drive the industry to find an answer. Does it take legislation to promote engineering? How long would it take to make all 50MPG cars, if everything else were outlawed? Probably just a few years.

Also, I doubt that these guys are just a "bunch of bleeding heart tree huggers". I really believe they're seeing a problem (and I don't think it's related to lead exposure by individual people). I think this stuff is ending up dumped in Africa or Asia and it's that mass accumulation that's causing the problems. Like I said above, this dumping is coming from someone or some company that's trying to maximize their profits, and taking the cheapest route to electonic waste disposal. No matter the rules of e-waste disposal, someone will find a way to circumvent the law (in order to make more money, right?), and the stuff will still end up in a pile. The most sure method of how to stop that is to remove the substance in the first place, and that's what you're seeing here.

Why isn't anyone complaining about the banishment of mercury?

 

[TLS Guy]

Are you saying that the military has voluntarily removed use of lead from its electronics? In one of those articles, I read that there was an exception for military electronics, and they can continue to use it. If they're still allowed to use it, I don't see what their complaint is -- that's my point.

And I think it's fine for them to continue to use it, especially while the private sector figures out a way to fix tin whiskers.

Thaedium, I appreciate your post, but it's pretty much the same stuff that's in the other articles that's being used to scare us into not using lead. I agree that there should be a solution, and I believe it will come. Hey, if we can design and build the devices you're talking about, we should be able to get rid of tin whiskers, right? However, for better or for worse, it's being legislated out (by the EU, at least), and perhaps that will drive the industry to find an answer. Does it take legislation to promote engineering? How long would it take to make all 50MPG cars, if everything else were outlawed? Probably just a few years.

Also, I doubt that these guys are just a "bunch of bleeding heart tree huggers". I really believe they're seeing a problem (and I don't think it's related to lead exposure by individual people). I think this stuff is ending up dumped in Africa or Asia and it's that mass accumulation that's causing the problems. Like I said above, this dumping is coming from someone or some company that's trying to maximize their profits, and taking the cheapest route to electonic waste disposal. No matter the rules of e-waste disposal, someone will find a way to circumvent the law (in order to make more money, right?), and the stuff will still end up in a pile. The most sure method of how to stop that is to remove the substance in the first place, and that's what you're seeing here.

Why isn't anyone complaining about the banishment of mercury?

The EEC regulators are a self satisfying interference industry. The Europeans are doing this to satisfy their consciences. They dump garbage at sea! I understand the Germans are bad offenders.

However it is bad in the UK. Every time I visit I still see the old Boxley steaming down the River Medway on every ebb tide, and back empty on the flood. I watch her right out of my parents kitchen window.

The old Boxley is an old coasting cargo boat. Twice a day she is filled with garbage from the Medway towns. Steams down to some place off the Shrewburyness flats, and dumps the garbage in the North sea.

There is nothing wrong with lead solder. It will be very hard to leave it out. Even upping the silver content does not work well and is driving silver prices sky high. I bet the lead is still in the solder, but the Chinese say it isn't. If it wasn't I think we would already be in a lot more trouble than we are now.

I say that because I had a failed, "so called", brass plumbing fitting installed as part of a big remodel two years ago. Well it turns out it has too much zinc, not enough copper, and is full of lead, so the Chinese factories can machine the parts quicker. The fitting cost less than $3.0 when it should have cost $10 to $12.

If you think the Chinese will really use lead free solder, I have the proverbial bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Now the consumers are driving this. These forums are price points, price points and price points. Well I'm telling you these receivers you talk about are far too cheap to be built responsibly or ethically, and probably by a factor of three or four.

 

[Tarub]

You've got to love big/socialism/radical environmentalism government at work, this unfortunately is coming our way.

Sounds like a job for metallurgists, not politicians.

Lead, politicians, environmentalism, socialism, metallurgists, bullets, military, missiles, etc. I think we have enough ingredients to create fire on this thread. We just need the liberals, conservatives, democrats and republicans to chime in and we will have a big time bonfire.

 

[OttoMatic]

Dumping garbage at sea probably isn't OK either. Keep in mind, though, that that's something of a straw man argument. It's only tangentially related to the disussion in order to indict the EEC as a whole, right? (I'm not really hip to the EEC, the EU, or their regulations at all, so I'm just using your acronyms and the discussion from this thread).

Lead based copper fittings aren't OK either.

I don't necessarily think that the Chinese will use lead free solder. They're still using lead in kids toys, right? That's not OK, is it?

Price point, price point, price point isn't necessarily OK either. Anything to either make or save more money is what you're saying right? The average consumer is so driven by saving a dollar that they don't care what shortcuts were taken in the manufacture of a particular product. I'm sure I'm part of it as well: where, how and with what materials were the shirt, jeans and shoes I'm wearing made? Don't know. So, yeah, I'm ignorant to things, of course. But when presented with a choice, or educated on a topic that I previously didn't care about, I'll try to make the right choice, even if it costs me a little more. I'm not rich, but I guess I do have some flexibility in what I buy.

When things are brought to the forefront, as this lead solder deal is, just take it for what it is: one step to try to improve things. Yeah, it's probably not the end of the world, and there are still things about it that need to be resolved, but shooting it down because of fears of errant missiles (while the military can still use leaded solder, and therefore not have this problem) or because of dumping garbage in the ocean just doesn't make sense to me. They are unrelated discussions.

Overall, I think we agree...

 

[TLS Guy]

Dumping garbage at sea probably isn't OK either. Keep in mind, though, that that's something of a straw man argument. It's only tangentially related to the disussion in order to indict the EEC as a whole, right? (I'm not really hip to the EEC, the EU, or their regulations at all, so I'm just using your acronyms and the discussion from this thread).

Lead based copper fittings aren't OK either.

I don't necessarily think that the Chinese will use lead free solder. They're still using lead in kids toys, right? That's not OK, is it?

Price point, price point, price point isn't necessarily OK either. Anything to either make or save more money is what you're saying right? The average consumer is so driven by saving a dollar that they don't care what shortcuts were taken in the manufacture of a particular product. I'm sure I'm part of it as well: where, how and with what materials were the shirt, jeans and shoes I'm wearing made? Don't know. So, yeah, I'm ignorant to things, of course. But when presented with a choice, or educated on a topic that I previously didn't care about, I'll try to make the right choice, even if it costs me a little more. I'm not rich, but I guess I do have some flexibility in what I buy.

When things are brought to the forefront, as this lead solder deal is, just take it for what it is: one step to try to improve things. Yeah, it's probably not the end of the world, and there are still things about it that need to be resolved, but shooting it down because of fears of errant missiles (while the military can still use leaded solder, and therefore not have this problem) or because of dumping garbage in the ocean just doesn't make sense to me. They are unrelated discussions.

Overall, I think we agree...

I think you have missed my point slightly. The Sea is no place to dump any garbage.

These regulators in the interference industry go for the wrong target. I don't think you can manufacture electronics without toxins. Trying to do so is daft.

We need to do several things. Reduce obsolescence. Build well so equipment lasts. Equipment used to last a lot longer than it does now. I have a lot of equipment 30, 40 and 50 years old. We need to have backwards compatibility built in. We need to design equipment to be upgradeable.

This HDMI debacle is a classic case. That has liberated more toxins than most things I can think of. That was demanded on us by the liberal Hollywood crowd. I maintain that whole situation was, is harmful and unnecessary. If they wanted to go that route, then all equipment should have been upgradeable day one, or they should have been told you can't have it.

We need to find away to dispose of electronics. Recycling is a myth. May be we need to lock it all up in the Nevada mountains, or else make people store it themselves. Not having to chuck so much of it a way I think makes the most sense.

 

[Thaedium]

Yes, I think we can agree on this topic quite amicably. Yes, the military is still exempt from this requirement to be lead free, but as one of the articles suggested, as the mass market for consumerists shifts away from lead free soldering the manufacturers begin to change how they produce it. In otherwords, to create tin with led content requires a specialized facility. This sort of operation creates extra costs and so the product increases in cost as well in order to cover the overhead. Further, this product can't be used in standard electronics going to the average consumer, thus reducing drastically who this product can be used for, and again driving the costs higher still. Now the military, like any goverment agency and most large corporate entities always sources out to the lowest bidder. They will sign multimillion, if not billion dollar contracts with one or two of these manufacturers, thus reducing significantly whats left of the pie for the other manufacturers. They in turn fold thier specialzed facilities as they aren't worth the extra costs to produce a stock that wont sell. Eventually, the military will be forced to start purchasing lead free products, and i'm fairly certain have already done so in a number of cases where the risk isn't as great as say in a missile guidance system.


Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be an alarmist, and I'm not saying we shouldn't go lead free. I am however saying it is irresponsible for any government organizations to mandate changes that don't have credible solutions to the problem it will create in the immediate context. Relying on the mandate to force researchers into developing a solution can go bad in many different ways. All it takes is one company to develope and patent a feasible solution to the problem that ends up costing the consumers bundles more. At least, if you are going to mandate a change, give companies the opportunity to phase out the product over a longer timeline. A year isn't anywhere near enough time to do this responsibly.


Now someone brought up the arguement (and I believe its valid) that while the immediate threat of lead in electronics is negligable, the land fills and the garbage being dumped into the oceans flush with products with lead in them are a far greater threat. This is very true, I wouldn't debate that. Heck, how many people these days avoid eating fish due to lead content? lots... This arguement however shouldn't be used against the use of lead, but should be used for advocating better waste management. Lead is but one of thousands of deadly products that end up in land fills and the ocean. To single it out, and completely ban its use within such a short time frame is irresponsible. We all know that politics is a matter of catering to your constituents and your money lenders. And such drastic steps appeal to the Green in all of us, and more specifically to the millions of individuals who don't really realize the extent of its usefulness and necessity. So the majority of people support this decision blindly, thinking that their government is thinking green and making positive changes. The reality is, they're doing it to get voted back in, and though there are likely some that believe whole heartedly that what they are doing is for the better good, the vast majority of the politicians make their decisions in a cold calculated way in order to ensure supremacy. Meanwhile, really worthwhile issues for environmental factors like landfills and dumping garbage in the ocean aren't brought to the forefront, and are left for someone else down the road to handle.

This is what truly gets me heated, and I think it should get all of us heated. Modern democractic nations need to give their governments a serious raking through the coals for the sake of cleansing. A wake up call if you will. People need to get angry, and they need to stop accepting pitiful half-measures that their elected officials put into play. The whistle should be blown, and heads should roll for unnacceptably weak laws and mandates. Its my opinion, that this is one of those things that falls under the unacceptably weak category, along with many others.

 

[Rickster71]

Thank You, Thaedium, and TLS Guy. Great posts!

The tree huggers have a 'Throw it over the fence' mentality. If they don't see it, the problem is gone.
They think they've save us, by forcing evil corporations to stop the use of lead; even before a viable alternative was found.
I'm afraid they've screwed us all, with their 'feel good' types of legislation.

 

[OttoMatic]

The tree huggers have a 'Throw it over the fence' mentality. If they don't see it, the problem is gone.

??? OK

They think they've save us, by forcing evil corporations to stop the use of lead; even before a viable alternative was found.

Is having a viable alternative some type of prerequisite? I don't pretend to indict all corporations; not by any means. But sure, there are corporations out there that will do all kinds of nasty stuff to make more money (just as there are people of the same ilk). Frequently, laws are made for those (either corporations or individuals) that can't handle being respectable on their own. You know, one bad apple spoils the whole bunch, and stuff like that.

I'm afraid they've screwed us all, with their 'feel good' types of legislation.

Yeah, we're all screwed now...

 

[Rickster71]

??? OK

The tree huggers have a 'Throw it over the fence' mentality. If they don't see it, the problem is gone.
What I meant by this was: They have taken one problem, and with their alleged 'fix' have thrown it over the proverbial fence. Their 'fix' has produced a different set of problems; and the problem now, is someone else's...to really fix.
Now was that really that hard to understand?

The tree hugger has played right into the hand of corporations.
Now when a product fails because of solder problems; the unwitting consumer has to by another.

 

[OttoMatic]

OK, Rickster. Super simplified and full of cynicism. Thanks.

 

[stratman]

Maybe the Europeans want to to get rid of lead in electronics so they can keep dumping in the ocean and not feel guilty about it.

 

[OttoMatic]

Maybe the Europeans want to to get rid of lead in electronics so they can keep dumping in the ocean and not feel guilty about it.

Well, that's what someone else was saying. I sure hope that's not the intention... We (people, contries, etc.) have things we can improve upon. If using lead is a bad thing, and they address that, well then, there's one less thing for them to worry about. If they're dumping garbage in the ocean (I'll take the poster's word for it, I don't know for sure), then that's another thing to address. I think we can all agree that they shouldn't be dumping garbage in the ocean. Now, why do we think they would be doing that in the first place?

 

[Thaedium]

Well, that's what someone else was saying. I sure hope that's not the intention... We (people, contries, etc.) have things we can improve upon. If using lead is a bad thing, and they address that, well then, there's one less thing for them to worry about. If they're dumping garbage in the ocean (I'll take the poster's word for it, I don't know for sure), then that's another thing to address. I think we can all agree that they shouldn't be dumping garbage in the ocean. Now, why do we think they would be doing that in the first place?

Its practically a time honoured tradition in Europe. Those of us in North America take for granted we have immense countries. Heck, Nova Scotia is larger then the UK, and thats one of Canada's smallest provinces. For years North Americans have been digging holes and dumping trash into them. And this creates its own sets of problems from runoff and sepage into the water table which affects local wildlife and the ecosystem.

Now back to Europe. Here we are dealing with tiny countries, and many have immense populations. They can't just set up a landfill at random, the locals would be all over'em and prevent it. So, where does a nation who doesn't have a lot of excess realestate place its garbage? Well there are two ways, but I can assure you the most popular and effective is to just dump it into the ocean. The alternative, is creating arrangements with neighboring countries that have extra room in their landfills and essentially buy some realestate for that trash. The latter method being extremely expensive, and never really a long term solution. Ergo, barges laden with garbage enroute to the Atlantic/Mediterranian etc.

 

[stratman]

March 07, 2008
Advertising Age

"Going green
Sony is working with Waste Management's WM Recycle America on its goal to set up e-waste recycling points within 20 miles of the majority of U.S. consumers. So far they have around 100 drop-off points, and should have at least one in each state by the end of the year, a Sony spokesman said.

Sony first launched its green initiative last August, and the company said it has resulted in 1,000 tons of recycled electronic waste. Beyond the green push, Sony plans to continue with an umbrella effort, which also began last summer, that unites its products by touting their high-definition DNA (thus the campaign's name, "HDNA"). The push was the first to employ Sony's internally named "silver bullet" marketing plan.

Mr. Redsun described it as a six- to eight-week aggressive marketing and advertising blitz that combines a number of product categories and "go[es] big with one idea. Results so far have been impressive."