Lead free solder - exposed in a UK national newspaper

[clifto]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Robert Baer" <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:8ZOdnSvB__wOHGXanZ2dnUVZ_rninZ2d@localnet...

Speaking about feet, remember the "scopes" in shoe stores
that showed a real-time X-ray of one's wiggling feet/toes?

Yes, I'm old enough to remember those.

There's a Discovery or History Channel show with a segment attacking these
fluoroscopes. They not only generated more X-radiation than needed, but
spewed it all over the place.

It wasn't believed back then to be very harmful. Hell, in those days,
Superman used X-ray vision to heat stuff, he didn't have heat vision until
x-rays became politically incorrect.

I'm sure everyone will be pleased to hear that my feet haven't fallen off
from having used those machines.

--
$109,000,000 in income! Capitalism works GREAT for Billary...
...why does she want Marxism for us?

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I said "halide" when I meant to say "halogen". They're not quite the same
thing.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

In an effort to promote these hateful lights, my local supermarket
is "giving them away" for 1 penny each.

I'm right-well pleased with the $2 21W CFLs from Home Despot. Their balance
is close to daylight (as confirmed with digital photographs taken under
their light), and in a glass (or even plastic) fixture, you'd never know
they were fluorescents. *

They're not only cheaper to operate than incandescents (regular or halide),
but they come on _instantly_. Faster, actually, than incandescents, which
you can see "ramp up".

Last year Home Despot gave away 12W CFLs on Black Friday. I stuck mine in
the fixture next to my condo's front door. It's always burning out, because
the owners' association doesn't understand why they should use 130V, rather
than 120V, lamps.

* In my kitchen, living room, and two bedrooms, I've hung beautiful glass
fixtures from IKEA. They're white glass, and have the sort of utterly simple
design that will be considered classic even 1000 years from now. I just hope
they survive that long, because IKEA doesn't make them any more. (Natch.) I
had to scramble to find the four I have. By the way, they replaced four of
those awful "tin-can" spotlights.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NpKdnciyiONuOmXanZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com...

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:wDUJj.43762$kN5.4587@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

Although the EPA noted that metallic lead does corrode,
resulting in toxic soluble compounds, they didn't say
anywhere (at least that I could find) that lead in landfills is
considered a significant problem, and there was no mention
of danger from tossing used electronics in the trash.

Unless, of course, it's a CFL full of nasty mercury compounds ... d;~}

I assume you're being hyperbolic for humorous effect. But there is only a
tiny amount of mercury in a fluorescent tube.

You assume correctly. However, it is a serious point, because there is more
mercury in there than the official maximum limit for disposal in regular
household garbage in Europe (apparently). At my local dump, there is a
special bin for 'regular' fluorescent tubes, but no mention of CFLs, which
I'm sure that many people don't realise, also employ the same basic
technology. Incidentally, in an effort to promote these hateful lights, my
local supermarket is 'giving them away' for 1 penny each. Another one was
giving them free with a certain amount of shopping a few weeks ago. So I
wonder how that equates with the proposals to 'build in' the cost of
disposal of electronic waste, to the retail price ...?

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NpKdnciyiONuOmXanZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com...

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:wDUJj.43762$kN5.4587@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

Although the EPA noted that metallic lead does corrode,
resulting in toxic soluble compounds, they didn't say
anywhere (at least that I could find) that lead in landfills is
considered a significant problem, and there was no mention
of danger from tossing used electronics in the trash.

Unless, of course, it's a CFL full of nasty mercury compounds ... d;~}

I assume you're being hyperbolic for humorous effect. But there is only a
tiny amount of mercury in a fluorescent tube.

You assume correctly. However, it is a serious point, because there is more
mercury in there than the official maximum limit for disposal in regular
household garbage in Europe (apparently). At my local dump, there is a
special bin for 'regular' fluorescent tubes, but no mention of CFLs, which
I'm sure that many people don't realise, also employ the same basic
technology. Incidentally, in an effort to promote these hateful lights, my
local supermarket is 'giving them away' for 1 penny each. Another one was
giving them free with a certain amount of shopping a few weeks ago. So I
wonder how that equates with the proposals to 'build in' the cost of
disposal of electronic waste, to the retail price ...?

Arfa

 

[Rich Webb]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 09:36:13 +0100, "N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote:

[snip...snip...]

The answer, from that government scientific advisor, was along the lines
that a lot of it is for the purpose of incinerating biological hazard
material that is also radioctive.
Then it is a matter of distributing the plume of radioctive outfall , from
the smoke/gases, over as wide an area as possible, of adjascent
communnities.

Brings to mind the old saying: The solution to pollution is dilution.
Thus, we now have oceanic dead zones off the coasts.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

 

[Rich Webb]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 09:36:13 +0100, "N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote:

[snip...snip...]

The answer, from that government scientific advisor, was along the lines
that a lot of it is for the purpose of incinerating biological hazard
material that is also radioctive.
Then it is a matter of distributing the plume of radioctive outfall , from
the smoke/gases, over as wide an area as possible, of adjascent
communnities.

Brings to mind the old saying: The solution to pollution is dilution.
Thus, we now have oceanic dead zones off the coasts.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

 

[krw]

In article <f0bgv352ee7nmp8kcl01a7s6t40if8c896@4ax.com>,
OutintheSnow@billsbackyard.org says...

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 19:52:47 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

X-rays are exhibited whenever an electron strikes a metal surface.

Whenever? Riiggghhtt, Dimbulb.

Yes, you retarded fuckhead.

First off, how fast is an electron moving when it is in free air or a
vacuum?

You said "whenever", Dimbulb. As always, you're AlwaysWrong.

If the return for a "source" of an electron or stream of electrons is
metallic, something those of us in the industry refer to as a target,
when said electron strikes that return point, it WILL emit X-rays.

If "it", no matter what the energy of the electron? Dimmie, you're
a prize!

An X-ray emitter tube for X-ray machines works on that very principle!

A beam of electrons strikes a Palladium return point or target, and
X-ray flux emission off the face of the target is one of the resultant
effects of said electron beam's entry into said return point.

The differences are in power level, and also different mediums exhibit
X_rays better than others.

The fact still remains, however,that ALL metals DO exhibit SOME amount
of X-rays when struck by an electron or electron beam.

ALL? No matter what the energy of the electrons?

So Shut The Fuck Up, KeithTard!

Dimbulb, you need to look in a mirror, if you can find one that
won't shatter!

--
Keith

 

[krw]

In article <f0bgv352ee7nmp8kcl01a7s6t40if8c896@4ax.com>,
OutintheSnow@billsbackyard.org says...

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 19:52:47 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

X-rays are exhibited whenever an electron strikes a metal surface.

Whenever? Riiggghhtt, Dimbulb.

Yes, you retarded fuckhead.

First off, how fast is an electron moving when it is in free air or a
vacuum?

You said "whenever", Dimbulb. As always, you're AlwaysWrong.

If the return for a "source" of an electron or stream of electrons is
metallic, something those of us in the industry refer to as a target,
when said electron strikes that return point, it WILL emit X-rays.

If "it", no matter what the energy of the electron? Dimmie, you're
a prize!

An X-ray emitter tube for X-ray machines works on that very principle!

A beam of electrons strikes a Palladium return point or target, and
X-ray flux emission off the face of the target is one of the resultant
effects of said electron beam's entry into said return point.

The differences are in power level, and also different mediums exhibit
X_rays better than others.

The fact still remains, however,that ALL metals DO exhibit SOME amount
of X-rays when struck by an electron or electron beam.

ALL? No matter what the energy of the electrons?

So Shut The Fuck Up, KeithTard!

Dimbulb, you need to look in a mirror, if you can find one that
won't shatter!

--
Keith

 

[Hattori Hanzo]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 03:37:00 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:wDUJj.43762$kN5.4587@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

Although the EPA noted that metallic lead does corrode,
resulting in toxic soluble compounds, they didn't say
anywhere (at least that I could find) that lead in landfills is
considered a significant problem, and there was no mention
of danger from tossing used electronics in the trash.

Unless, of course, it's a CFL full of nasty mercury compounds ... d;~}

I assume you're being hyperbolic for humorous effect. But there is only a
tiny amount of mercury in a fluorescent tube.

Not only that, but it is pure metallic form Mercury, not some dangerous

compound(s).

A very small amount.... In the big, long tubes. An even smaller
amount in a desktop CFL.

 

[Hattori Hanzo]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 03:37:00 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:wDUJj.43762$kN5.4587@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

Although the EPA noted that metallic lead does corrode,
resulting in toxic soluble compounds, they didn't say
anywhere (at least that I could find) that lead in landfills is
considered a significant problem, and there was no mention
of danger from tossing used electronics in the trash.

Unless, of course, it's a CFL full of nasty mercury compounds ... d;~}

I assume you're being hyperbolic for humorous effect. But there is only a
tiny amount of mercury in a fluorescent tube.

Not only that, but it is pure metallic form Mercury, not some dangerous

compound(s).

A very small amount.... In the big, long tubes. An even smaller
amount in a desktop CFL.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Robert Baer" <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:8ZOdnSvB__wOHGXanZ2dnUVZ_rninZ2d@localnet...

Speaking about feet, remember the "scopes" in shoe stores
that showed a real-time X-ray of one's wiggling feet/toes?

Yes, I'm old enough to remember those.

There's a Discovery or History Channel show with a segment attacking these
fluoroscopes. They not only generated more X-radiation than needed, but
spewed it all over the place.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Robert Baer" <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:8ZOdnSvB__wOHGXanZ2dnUVZ_rninZ2d@localnet...

Speaking about feet, remember the "scopes" in shoe stores
that showed a real-time X-ray of one's wiggling feet/toes?

Yes, I'm old enough to remember those.

There's a Discovery or History Channel show with a segment attacking these
fluoroscopes. They not only generated more X-radiation than needed, but
spewed it all over the place.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:wDUJj.43762$kN5.4587@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

Although the EPA noted that metallic lead does corrode,
resulting in toxic soluble compounds, they didn't say
anywhere (at least that I could find) that lead in landfills is
considered a significant problem, and there was no mention
of danger from tossing used electronics in the trash.

Unless, of course, it's a CFL full of nasty mercury compounds ... d;~}

I assume you're being hyperbolic for humorous effect. But there is only a
tiny amount of mercury in a fluorescent tube.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:wDUJj.43762$kN5.4587@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

Although the EPA noted that metallic lead does corrode,
resulting in toxic soluble compounds, they didn't say
anywhere (at least that I could find) that lead in landfills is
considered a significant problem, and there was no mention
of danger from tossing used electronics in the trash.

Unless, of course, it's a CFL full of nasty mercury compounds ... d;~}

I assume you're being hyperbolic for humorous effect. But there is only a
tiny amount of mercury in a fluorescent tube.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:m36gv3ppj489smbml8alvt28jiq5giu3k4@4ax.com...

On 05 Apr 2008 20:31:02 GMT, Jay Ts <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com
wrote:

nospam wrote:
Jay Ts <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com> wrote:

Allodoxaphobia wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:

At 30th tonnes, the potential environmental impact of the lead in
solder, even if you *did* dump it all in the ground, is minuscule.

And, where do these pin-heads think the lead came from, in the first
place?

It came from deep within the ground, in the form of lead ore, which I
think is much less of a health hazard than metallic lead decomposing in
a landfill and seeping into the water supply.

By this I meant that if it's deeper than groundwater, there's
a nearly zero chance of it getting into the water, or being a
problem in any other way.

Also, I had run into some information about lead toxicity several
years ago that said that naturally-occurring lead compounds are
not as much a problem as artificial (industrial) ones, because
living beings are evolved to handle the "organic" (I think it
was orthophosphate, but am not sure) form of lead, and can more
easily flush it out of the body, preventing bioaccumulation.
I tried just now to find that info again, but couldn't.

Lead is an element, it is composed of lead and can't decompose. It is so
soluble that water pipes and roofs are made out of it......

Lead is an element, it is a toxic element, and it can react chemcially
to make toxic compounds. It can corrode when exposed to water,
and the corrosion by-products are soluble enough that lead found
in drinking water comes mostly from the lead in pipes and solder
used to hold the pipes together.

References:
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/pollairpolead.html
http://www.epa.gov/lead/
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/lead.html
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/t-ioc/lead.html

I went to the EPA site and did a search on "lead" because it
became clear to me from previous discussion here that I really
didn't know enough about lead toxicity to write at my usual
level of knowledge. As I've said, I know more about other,
more toxic, heavy metals, and lead has not been of big concern
to me.

What I read at the EPA's site confirmed that there isn't much
cause for concern with regards to the lead in solder. They
say that although there is cause for concern, lead doesn't
have as great a bioaccumulation factor as other heavy metals.
And they didn't say anything at all about electronic solder
or people who work with it, so it looks like those who said
they got blood tests that showed no problem are justified
to feel they are ok. (If it were me, and maybe it is, I'd
still get the test done that uses a hair sample, just to
make sure.)

Most of the fuss in the past was about lead-based paint and
lead from car exhaust. Both of those have been phased out.
(Although recently there have been problems with lead paint
being used on toys made in China.)

The EPA hardly mentioned solder at all. As far as I could
find, only with regards to water pipe and tin cans (where
it is also no longer used).

Looks like I was right about the lead smelting operations,
though. And wouldn't you know it, most of that is done in
the general region of the planet in which I live (SW USA).
By far, most of the lead in use is for car batteries,
so I don't see any need to give up leaded solder just
for that.

In the Wikipedia article for "solder", it is said that
smoke from solder flux can contain a little lead oxide,
and that the flux smoke itself can be toxic. So I'll be
a little more careful to have good ventilation while
soldering. Pretty simple!

Although the EPA noted that metallic lead does corrode,
resulting in toxic soluble compounds, they didn't say anywhere
(at least that I could find) that lead in landfills is
considered a significant problem, and there was no mention
of danger from tossing used electronics in the trash.

---
In my opinion, this brouhaha about the elimination of lead in solder
has been brought about by Europe's (led by the UK, of course) trying
to bend everyone to their will, once again, (empire dies hard) with
the UK leading the charge by claiming that all lead based solders are
evil.

Idiots die hard.

JF

You clearly know nothing at all of Europe or its politics. If you seriously
believe that the UK is responsible for bringing about ANY Europe-wide
legislation, you are very seriously deluded. All Eurobollocks is driven by
the likes of France and Germany, and our emasculated government just roll
over at every opportunity, and follow like sheep. Do you actually know
anything of the British Empire's history ? It was not about bending people's
political will. It was about having a world united in friendship and trade.
Admittedly, it was about ensuring that the trade was to our global
advantage, but overall, the world was a better and more peaceful place back
in those days. Now, we have 'superpowers' like the US, who want every
country in the world to become another US state, with the same language,
political views, religion, consumer and oil driven economies and so on. And
you accuse US of trying to bend wills ? Sheesh.

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:m36gv3ppj489smbml8alvt28jiq5giu3k4@4ax.com...

On 05 Apr 2008 20:31:02 GMT, Jay Ts <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com
wrote:

nospam wrote:
Jay Ts <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com> wrote:

Allodoxaphobia wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:

At 30th tonnes, the potential environmental impact of the lead in
solder, even if you *did* dump it all in the ground, is minuscule.

And, where do these pin-heads think the lead came from, in the first
place?

It came from deep within the ground, in the form of lead ore, which I
think is much less of a health hazard than metallic lead decomposing in
a landfill and seeping into the water supply.

By this I meant that if it's deeper than groundwater, there's
a nearly zero chance of it getting into the water, or being a
problem in any other way.

Also, I had run into some information about lead toxicity several
years ago that said that naturally-occurring lead compounds are
not as much a problem as artificial (industrial) ones, because
living beings are evolved to handle the "organic" (I think it
was orthophosphate, but am not sure) form of lead, and can more
easily flush it out of the body, preventing bioaccumulation.
I tried just now to find that info again, but couldn't.

Lead is an element, it is composed of lead and can't decompose. It is so
soluble that water pipes and roofs are made out of it......

Lead is an element, it is a toxic element, and it can react chemcially
to make toxic compounds. It can corrode when exposed to water,
and the corrosion by-products are soluble enough that lead found
in drinking water comes mostly from the lead in pipes and solder
used to hold the pipes together.

References:
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/pollairpolead.html
http://www.epa.gov/lead/
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/lead.html
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/t-ioc/lead.html

I went to the EPA site and did a search on "lead" because it
became clear to me from previous discussion here that I really
didn't know enough about lead toxicity to write at my usual
level of knowledge. As I've said, I know more about other,
more toxic, heavy metals, and lead has not been of big concern
to me.

What I read at the EPA's site confirmed that there isn't much
cause for concern with regards to the lead in solder. They
say that although there is cause for concern, lead doesn't
have as great a bioaccumulation factor as other heavy metals.
And they didn't say anything at all about electronic solder
or people who work with it, so it looks like those who said
they got blood tests that showed no problem are justified
to feel they are ok. (If it were me, and maybe it is, I'd
still get the test done that uses a hair sample, just to
make sure.)

Most of the fuss in the past was about lead-based paint and
lead from car exhaust. Both of those have been phased out.
(Although recently there have been problems with lead paint
being used on toys made in China.)

The EPA hardly mentioned solder at all. As far as I could
find, only with regards to water pipe and tin cans (where
it is also no longer used).

Looks like I was right about the lead smelting operations,
though. And wouldn't you know it, most of that is done in
the general region of the planet in which I live (SW USA).
By far, most of the lead in use is for car batteries,
so I don't see any need to give up leaded solder just
for that.

In the Wikipedia article for "solder", it is said that
smoke from solder flux can contain a little lead oxide,
and that the flux smoke itself can be toxic. So I'll be
a little more careful to have good ventilation while
soldering. Pretty simple!

Although the EPA noted that metallic lead does corrode,
resulting in toxic soluble compounds, they didn't say anywhere
(at least that I could find) that lead in landfills is
considered a significant problem, and there was no mention
of danger from tossing used electronics in the trash.

---
In my opinion, this brouhaha about the elimination of lead in solder
has been brought about by Europe's (led by the UK, of course) trying
to bend everyone to their will, once again, (empire dies hard) with
the UK leading the charge by claiming that all lead based solders are
evil.

Idiots die hard.

JF

You clearly know nothing at all of Europe or its politics. If you seriously
believe that the UK is responsible for bringing about ANY Europe-wide
legislation, you are very seriously deluded. All Eurobollocks is driven by
the likes of France and Germany, and our emasculated government just roll
over at every opportunity, and follow like sheep. Do you actually know
anything of the British Empire's history ? It was not about bending people's
political will. It was about having a world united in friendship and trade.
Admittedly, it was about ensuring that the trade was to our global
advantage, but overall, the world was a better and more peaceful place back
in those days. Now, we have 'superpowers' like the US, who want every
country in the world to become another US state, with the same language,
political views, religion, consumer and oil driven economies and so on. And
you accuse US of trying to bend wills ? Sheesh.

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fta1vo$npf$1@registered.motzarella.org...

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:VzUJj.43101$5i5.10704@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...

"Didi" <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote in message
news:9055fb75-0a3e-4c46-810a-96c73afb8847@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:

I don't think that I would say that it has been done out of "sheer
stupidity" - more out of misinformed madness. My feeling is that once
lead
had been determined to be a potential health hazard, as it probably was
when
lead compounds were added to petrol as anti-knock agents, then all uses
of
the material became automatically 'demonised', irrespective of whether
any
threat from them was real, or imagined. The ecobollocks that I have
referred
to elsewhere in this thread, has reached the point of unjustified
hysteria
amongst both the politicos and, worryingly, the scientific establishment,
who should know better.

Governments rely heavily on so-called scientific advisors, but it seems
to
me that many of these are receiving commercial grants from government,
and
will tell them whatever they want to hear. Much of the current
ecohysteria
that is reported in the press, is based on very dubious science, that in
my
day, would have been thrown out of school for poor methodology. I, and
most
others in the electronic service industry, simply do not believe that
lead
in solder represents any threat to health, or the environment at all, and
I
personally have seen no persuasive evidence from any quarter to convince
me
otherwise.

I think that lead based solder is just an unfortunate victim of someone's
over-enthusiastic approach to anything containing lead, and the whole
RoHS
thing has just swept it along with itself, without those who caused it in
the first place, understanding the full implications of just what they've
done. Apart from anything else, just consider how much extra power is
being
used every day world wide, to run all of the production solder baths and
hand soldering tools, 30 or 40 degrees hotter than was needed for
lead-based
solder ... Eco-friendly, or what ...?

Arfa



I recently went to a lecture by Jim Thurston, Medical Engineering and
Physics, King's College Hospital, London; mainly about hormesis and
background to the polonium murder of Litvinenko in London.

But at the end I asked for an explanation of something that has always
evaded me. Why some incinerator plants are licensed to incinerate low
level
radioactive waste , as it gives the impression that you can rid
radioactive
material be incineration, compared to landfill.

The answer, from that government scientific advisor, was along the lines
that a lot of it is for the purpose of incinerating biological hazard
material that is also radioctive.
Then it is a matter of distributing the plume of radioctive outfall , from
the smoke/gases, over as wide an area as possible, of adjascent
communnities.
It is some sort of ststistical exercise. Too much radiation per Kg then it
cannot be allowed to be dumped but if the radioctive component from that
Kg
is distributed over some (unspecified) large area of land surface then
that
is permitted.

--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

So that about says it, doesn't it ? 'Official' government advice from
someone that you would expect better of, based on what you would have to say
was at best, 'dubious science' !! It defies belief, but goes a long way
towards explaining to 'eco-believers' why things such as lead-free solder,
are actually nonsense ...

Arfa

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fta1vo$npf$1@registered.motzarella.org...

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:VzUJj.43101$5i5.10704@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...

"Didi" <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote in message
news:9055fb75-0a3e-4c46-810a-96c73afb8847@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:

I don't think that I would say that it has been done out of "sheer
stupidity" - more out of misinformed madness. My feeling is that once
lead
had been determined to be a potential health hazard, as it probably was
when
lead compounds were added to petrol as anti-knock agents, then all uses
of
the material became automatically 'demonised', irrespective of whether
any
threat from them was real, or imagined. The ecobollocks that I have
referred
to elsewhere in this thread, has reached the point of unjustified
hysteria
amongst both the politicos and, worryingly, the scientific establishment,
who should know better.

Governments rely heavily on so-called scientific advisors, but it seems
to
me that many of these are receiving commercial grants from government,
and
will tell them whatever they want to hear. Much of the current
ecohysteria
that is reported in the press, is based on very dubious science, that in
my
day, would have been thrown out of school for poor methodology. I, and
most
others in the electronic service industry, simply do not believe that
lead
in solder represents any threat to health, or the environment at all, and
I
personally have seen no persuasive evidence from any quarter to convince
me
otherwise.

I think that lead based solder is just an unfortunate victim of someone's
over-enthusiastic approach to anything containing lead, and the whole
RoHS
thing has just swept it along with itself, without those who caused it in
the first place, understanding the full implications of just what they've
done. Apart from anything else, just consider how much extra power is
being
used every day world wide, to run all of the production solder baths and
hand soldering tools, 30 or 40 degrees hotter than was needed for
lead-based
solder ... Eco-friendly, or what ...?

Arfa



I recently went to a lecture by Jim Thurston, Medical Engineering and
Physics, King's College Hospital, London; mainly about hormesis and
background to the polonium murder of Litvinenko in London.

But at the end I asked for an explanation of something that has always
evaded me. Why some incinerator plants are licensed to incinerate low
level
radioactive waste , as it gives the impression that you can rid
radioactive
material be incineration, compared to landfill.

The answer, from that government scientific advisor, was along the lines
that a lot of it is for the purpose of incinerating biological hazard
material that is also radioctive.
Then it is a matter of distributing the plume of radioctive outfall , from
the smoke/gases, over as wide an area as possible, of adjascent
communnities.
It is some sort of ststistical exercise. Too much radiation per Kg then it
cannot be allowed to be dumped but if the radioctive component from that
Kg
is distributed over some (unspecified) large area of land surface then
that
is permitted.

--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

So that about says it, doesn't it ? 'Official' government advice from
someone that you would expect better of, based on what you would have to say
was at best, 'dubious science' !! It defies belief, but goes a long way
towards explaining to 'eco-believers' why things such as lead-free solder,
are actually nonsense ...

Arfa

Arfa

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:farkc5-0fr.ln1@remote.clifto.com...

William Sommerwerck wrote:

My memory (which might very well be wrong) was that one of
the principal sources of X-rays was the HV rectifier. GE got into
trouble over excessive X-radiation from their HV rectifier -- though
the tube was situated such that the kids would have had to stick
their feet under the set (!!!) to receive any significant dosage.

Specifically, it was a GE-made 6BK4 that caused the problem,
so it ended up in all brands of sets via repair.

I vaguely remember that it was all alpha radiation, but don't take
my word as gospel.

Alpha rays are helium nuclei. Not likely, and not particularly dangerous.