latest Euro ROHS fun

bob urz <sound@inetnebr.com> wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:


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 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/
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
I think that was his point.

Jerry
 
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
I'm surprised they didn't study the effect of lead on the researchers.
"In our sample, most of the damage to intellectual functioning
occurs
at blood-lead concentrations that are below 10 mcg/dl," said
Canfield. The amount of impairment was also much greater than the
researchers had expected. "Given the relatively low exposure levels,
we were surprised to find that the IQ scores of children with
blood-lead levels of 10 mcg/dl were about seven points lower than
for children with lead levels of 1 mcg/dl," Canfield said.

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.
Click to expand...
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
 
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:12:12 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

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.
Click to expand...
Yep. That was exactly what I was mumbling.

I'll leave it to your imagination as to which of the 4 or so
"standard" IQ tests was used. Also, a 7 point (average or median?)
decrease doesn't mean much without also knowing the distribution.

Way back in college, I was part of an IQ study, or so I thought. We
were given the then standard Binet test in the morning. Another group
was given the same test in the late afternoon. About a week later, we
were informed that there was some kind of mistake and that all the
results were lost. The two groups took similar tests again, but this
time reversing the time of day that the tests were administered. This
was repeated at several other colleges.

The results were that almost everyone scored higher in the morning
than in the afternoon. The order of testing didn't matter. I don't
recall the exact numbers, but it was something like 5 to 10 points
higher. I've read about similar intelligence tests to estimate the
effects of stress, diet, assorted supplements, astrology, and peer
pressure. With a little practice, IQ scores can also be improved:
<http://www.lumosity.com/k/improve-your-iq>

Moral: There are plenty of other things, besides lead, that
significantly affect a persons IQ, that are also rather difficult to
control.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
 
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.
Click to expand...
It was the opposite. The lowered scores were supposedly due /solely/ to the
higher lead levels, and had no other cause.
 
Moral: There are plenty of other things, besides lead,
that significantly affect a person's IQ, that are also
rather difficult to control [for].
Click to expand...
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.
 
On 11/22/2009 4:13 PM William Sommerwerck spake thus:

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


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet
 
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:13:10 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

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.
Click to expand...
Yep. However, I've noticed that my scores tend to deteriorate as I
get older. Probably started when I switched to decaf. Also, there
was a drop when I started using reading glasses:
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060504082306.htm>
"The poorer performance by older adults may be characterized by a loss
of efficiency in visual search," stated the researcher." If it takes
a few milliseconds more for someone older to read the symbology,
multiplied by a few hundred questions, it becomes a significant
factor.

I can get away saying that, because I consistently score in the 99th
percentile.
Click to expand...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_IQ_society>

I about typical for a college graduate. That means I'm not as smart
as I pretend to be.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
 
bob urz wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
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.

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?
Click to expand...

The EPA ground the glass to a very fine dust, then dumped it into
acid, rather than do an honest test. On top of that, they claimed to
only recover a small percentage of the lead. "The claim of 27 pounds of
lead in every TV" made by a local TV station was funny. I emailed them
and asked where it was, since most of my TVs weighed less than 20
pounds. Of course they didn't reply because they were caught in a lie.
By the EPA figures, CRTs were about 50% lead.


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
 
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"?
Click to expand...
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.
 
I've noticed that my scores tend to deteriorate as I get older.
Click to expand...
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.
 
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:55:09 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

The EPA ground the glass to a very fine dust, then dumped it into
acid, rather than do an honest test.
Click to expand...
Yep. However, even that's not good enough for the EPA. The new
solution involves grinding it down to a fine powder, and encapsulating
the mess in high tech concrete:
<http://ewasteguide.info/biblio/encapsulation>
I don't suppose any of the researchers considered that once the CRT is
ground down to a fine powder, just heating the stuff will separate out
the lead and glass, thus offering recycling opportunities.

On top of that, they claimed to
only recover a small percentage of the lead. "The claim of 27 pounds of
lead in every TV" made by a local TV station was funny. I emailed them
and asked where it was, since most of my TVs weighed less than 20
pounds. Of course they didn't reply because they were caught in a lie.
Click to expand...
I've seen one claim of 50 lbs of lead per TV. The real numbers for
TV's is somewhere between 1.5 lbs for 14" screens, to 12 lbs for 50"
screens. These numbers are from a 1999 study, so I expect current
numbers to be considerably lower.

Note that one can purchase lead free CRT monitors:
<http://www.philipschannel.com/monitors/pdf/107B60.pdf>
but one still has to pay the deposit in Calif. These use barium
instead of lead, which is currently deemed safe.

By the EPA figures, CRTs were about 50% lead.
Click to expand...
Chuckle... For just the CRT tube, it's actually about 8% of the weight
of the tube. The EPA used the same 1999 study that I've been using,
so the numbers are a bit dated. See:
<http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/comp-dic/lca-sum/ques8.pdf>
Lead is a significant material in current CRTs, accounting
for up to eight percent of the overall composition of the
CRT by weight.
That's down from the 20% or so from the 1999 study. Current figures
are even lower than the 8%.

I just noticed this interesting quote from the EPA FAQ:
Lead is not as prevalent in LCDs, being found only
on printed wiring boards.
So, why are we paying deposits on LCD's that contain no more lead than
the average Hi-Fi or computah? Is it the mercury in the backlighting
tubes? Maybe, but I suspect it's just to help pay for the CRT
disposal.



--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
 
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:55:09 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

The EPA ground the glass to a very fine dust, then dumped it into
acid, rather than do an honest test.

Yep. However, even that's not good enough for the EPA. The new
solution involves grinding it down to a fine powder, and encapsulating
the mess in high tech concrete:
http://ewasteguide.info/biblio/encapsulation
I don't suppose any of the researchers considered that once the CRT is
ground down to a fine powder, just heating the stuff will separate out
the lead and glass, thus offering recycling opportunities.

On top of that, they claimed to
only recover a small percentage of the lead. "The claim of 27 pounds of
lead in every TV" made by a local TV station was funny. I emailed them
and asked where it was, since most of my TVs weighed less than 20
pounds. Of course they didn't reply because they were caught in a lie.

I've seen one claim of 50 lbs of lead per TV. The real numbers for
TV's is somewhere between 1.5 lbs for 14" screens, to 12 lbs for 50"
screens. These numbers are from a 1999 study, so I expect current
numbers to be considerably lower.

Note that one can purchase lead free CRT monitors:
http://www.philipschannel.com/monitors/pdf/107B60.pdf
but one still has to pay the deposit in Calif. These use barium
instead of lead, which is currently deemed safe.

By the EPA figures, CRTs were about 50% lead.

Chuckle... For just the CRT tube, it's actually about 8% of the weight
of the tube. The EPA used the same 1999 study that I've been using,
so the numbers are a bit dated. See:
http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/comp-dic/lca-sum/ques8.pdf
Lead is a significant material in current CRTs, accounting
for up to eight percent of the overall composition of the
CRT by weight.
That's down from the 20% or so from the 1999 study. Current figures
are even lower than the 8%.
Click to expand...

The 50% came from the screwy numbers reported by that TV station.


I just noticed this interesting quote from the EPA FAQ:
Lead is not as prevalent in LCDs, being found only
on printed wiring boards.
So, why are we paying deposits on LCD's that contain no more lead than
the average Hi-Fi or computah? Is it the mercury in the backlighting
tubes? Maybe, but I suspect it's just to help pay for the CRT
disposal.
Click to expand...

That's why the phone company had a surtax to pay for the 1898
Spanish-American war that lasted over 100 years. It's a way to hide the
government's greed.

--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
 
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
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.

It was the opposite. The lowered scores were supposedly due /solely/ to the
higher lead levels, and had no other cause.
Click to expand...
I meant *Jeff's* point, not that of the original researcher.

Jerry
 
On 22/11/2009 3:31 AM, bob urz wrote:
http://www.edn.com/blog/570000257/post/1540050754.html?nid=3351&rid=764914
Click to expand...
Oh great. Lucky us.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top