Lead free solder - exposed in a UK national newspaper

[Robert Baer]

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

Tried a very small amount of lead free solder, didn't like how it
behaved and then set it aside to keep using leaded solder until I
can't get it anymore. The antique stuff I work on has leaded solder so
it seems proper to repair it with the same type solder



Indeed, some experts recommend this, saying that mixing leaded and lead-free
in the same joint, reduces the potential integrity of that joint

Arfa


I would not know about integtrity, but the MP of the mix is a *lot*

lower than lead-free (solder).

 

[Robert Baer]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Robert Baer" <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:vIidndjK9McujWranZ2dnUVZ_qbinZ2d@localnet...

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Jay Ts" <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com> wrote in message
news:47f58171$0$8439$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...


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.

In Europe, there are places where the Romans smelted lead 2000
years ago, and 8" or so below the topsoil, the dirt is still so
toxic that health officials (in Britain at least) don't allow
people to dig there, even wearing protective gear.

BTW, I'm not a pinhead, just someone who cares about my health,
that of others and a quality environment for us to all live in.

I tried lead-free solder, and gave up on it, at least for prototyping.
I was feeling a little bad about returning to traditional solder,
until the OP posted the article. Thanks - I feel vindicated. I hope
that someday there is a better alternative to lead-based solder,
but evidently it hasn't happened yet.

Jay Ts



Basically, there isn't a lead-free alternative that works the same, or
even close, but you're missing the point(s). Firstly, there isn't *quite*
such a huge amount or disposal problem as they would have you believe.
Second, the lead in solder is pretty firmly 'locked into' the alloy, such
that it doesn't readily come out of the solder into water. Yes, I know
that acid rain can have some effect on that equation, but that's nothing
like as bad as it once was. Finally, all electronic equipment in Europe
at least, is now subject to the WEEE directive, which dictates the way it
is treated at end of life, covering recycling and disposal of the remains
that can't be recycled. There is no reason at all that leaded solder
could not be recovered and recycled, in the same way as lead free solder.
80% of the world's metallic lead production goes to automotive battery
manufacture. Lead recovery and reuse from that product at end of life,
has been mandated and successfully carried out, for years.

I think that this is the reason that most people who have to use
lead-free, get so wound up about it. As far as I am concerned, the
legislation that mandates its use, is ill-considered, not thought
through, unnnecessary in the light of the legitimate WEEE directive, and
effectively replaces a mature and reliable technology, with one that has
the potential to be directly dangerous to human life, if it ever finds
its way into avionics, medical, and military applications, which so far,
have managed to secure exemptions.

Like any sensible person, I don't want to deliberately pollute the planet
for those who come after me, but in recent years, many badly informed
decicisions on this sort of thing, have been made by departments 'jumping
on the banwagon' to justify their own existence. The whole thing isn't
helped by celebrities and ex famous politicians serving their own public
eye needs through 'green' issues. It has actually reached the point where
I am now sick to death of hearing the words "green" and "eco" and "carbon
footprint" and "geenhouse gas" and "cimate change" and "global warming"
every single time I turn on the radio or TV. So here's a new word.

Ecobollocks. Covers what a lot of this bull actually is ...

Arfa

Try tin/silver, *no* copper.
Nice shiny (sexy looking?) surfaces, easy to solder, have seen no
problems in 2 years where circuits get a lot of temperature cycling.



My usual supplier was doing small samples of just about every type that he
carried. I'll have a look and see if he still is. What's the melting
temperature of that mix, and what's the price like ?

Arfa


MP of Sn96.5 Ag3.5 is 430F/221C.

 

[Robert Baer]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Robert Baer" <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:vIidndjK9McujWranZ2dnUVZ_qbinZ2d@localnet...

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Jay Ts" <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com> wrote in message
news:47f58171$0$8439$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...


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.

In Europe, there are places where the Romans smelted lead 2000
years ago, and 8" or so below the topsoil, the dirt is still so
toxic that health officials (in Britain at least) don't allow
people to dig there, even wearing protective gear.

BTW, I'm not a pinhead, just someone who cares about my health,
that of others and a quality environment for us to all live in.

I tried lead-free solder, and gave up on it, at least for prototyping.
I was feeling a little bad about returning to traditional solder,
until the OP posted the article. Thanks - I feel vindicated. I hope
that someday there is a better alternative to lead-based solder,
but evidently it hasn't happened yet.

Jay Ts



Basically, there isn't a lead-free alternative that works the same, or
even close, but you're missing the point(s). Firstly, there isn't *quite*
such a huge amount or disposal problem as they would have you believe.
Second, the lead in solder is pretty firmly 'locked into' the alloy, such
that it doesn't readily come out of the solder into water. Yes, I know
that acid rain can have some effect on that equation, but that's nothing
like as bad as it once was. Finally, all electronic equipment in Europe
at least, is now subject to the WEEE directive, which dictates the way it
is treated at end of life, covering recycling and disposal of the remains
that can't be recycled. There is no reason at all that leaded solder
could not be recovered and recycled, in the same way as lead free solder.
80% of the world's metallic lead production goes to automotive battery
manufacture. Lead recovery and reuse from that product at end of life,
has been mandated and successfully carried out, for years.

I think that this is the reason that most people who have to use
lead-free, get so wound up about it. As far as I am concerned, the
legislation that mandates its use, is ill-considered, not thought
through, unnnecessary in the light of the legitimate WEEE directive, and
effectively replaces a mature and reliable technology, with one that has
the potential to be directly dangerous to human life, if it ever finds
its way into avionics, medical, and military applications, which so far,
have managed to secure exemptions.

Like any sensible person, I don't want to deliberately pollute the planet
for those who come after me, but in recent years, many badly informed
decicisions on this sort of thing, have been made by departments 'jumping
on the banwagon' to justify their own existence. The whole thing isn't
helped by celebrities and ex famous politicians serving their own public
eye needs through 'green' issues. It has actually reached the point where
I am now sick to death of hearing the words "green" and "eco" and "carbon
footprint" and "geenhouse gas" and "cimate change" and "global warming"
every single time I turn on the radio or TV. So here's a new word.

Ecobollocks. Covers what a lot of this bull actually is ...

Arfa

Try tin/silver, *no* copper.
Nice shiny (sexy looking?) surfaces, easy to solder, have seen no
problems in 2 years where circuits get a lot of temperature cycling.



My usual supplier was doing small samples of just about every type that he
carried. I'll have a look and see if he still is. What's the melting
temperature of that mix, and what's the price like ?

Arfa


MP of Sn96.5 Ag3.5 is 430F/221C.

 

[Robert Baer]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

When I was young (and stupid), I took some sealed Polaroid ASA 3000
speed "film" sheets, attached some coins to the surface, and plastered
them all over a late 1960's vintage color TV, where I was working.
After running the TV all day, I developed the pictures, and found a
noticeable lightening around the coins. (Polaroid "film" is positive
exposure, not negative). The shadow wasn't very distinct. The "film"
on the front screen was barely exposed, while the "film" near the Hi-V
cable was more noticeable. The "film" had to be attached to the CRT
to get any kind of exposure. Those on the cabinet showed no shadows.
About the only change that this prompted in my lifestyle was to not
leave my loaded film camera on top of the TV set.


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.


Speaking about feet, remember the "scopes" in some shoe stores that

would show a real-time X-ray of one's wiggling feet/toes?

 

[Robert Baer]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

When I was young (and stupid), I took some sealed Polaroid ASA 3000
speed "film" sheets, attached some coins to the surface, and plastered
them all over a late 1960's vintage color TV, where I was working.
After running the TV all day, I developed the pictures, and found a
noticeable lightening around the coins. (Polaroid "film" is positive
exposure, not negative). The shadow wasn't very distinct. The "film"
on the front screen was barely exposed, while the "film" near the Hi-V
cable was more noticeable. The "film" had to be attached to the CRT
to get any kind of exposure. Those on the cabinet showed no shadows.
About the only change that this prompted in my lifestyle was to not
leave my loaded film camera on top of the TV set.


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.


Speaking about feet, remember the "scopes" in some shoe stores that

would show a real-time X-ray of one's wiggling feet/toes?

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 12:04:56 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

The metal CRT shadow mask is fairly impervious to x-rays.

** Nonsense - the x-ray attenuation factor of thin Fe-Ni alloy is small.

The x-rays are produced by the electron beam hitting the metal. One
characteristic of metals is that they have loosely bound outer
electrons. That's why metals conduct electricity. Hit the metal atom
hard enough, and one of the electrons in the inner shell gets knocked
out. The outer electron falls inward to replace the displaced
electron, emitting x-rays in the process.

What
electrons go through the holes in the shadow mask to light up the
phosphor dots, do not produce x-rays.

** Wiki disagrees.
You got a cite for that ?

Got a reference page from whatever Wiki you were reading that says
phosphors emit x-rays when pounded on by electrons?

I don't do any extra work for anyone spewing vague denunciations
without substantiation. If you claim your "Wiki" reference is more
accurate than mine, kindly supply the URL and applicable quotes.

This article has a fairly simple explanation of x-ray production from
a Scientific American article:
<http://www.noah.org/science/x-ray/stong/>
I have the original article somewhere in my pile of books.

See appendix B at:
http://www.eiae.org/chemicals/files/EIA_CRT_5-01.pdf

** You must be desperate to use survey crapology as evidence.

True. I picked the first reference that someone of your limited
intelligence can understand. Got anything better or more recent?

** Irrelevant to the point - fool.

I do have one simple question. Why do you feel it necessary to add
insults to your comments? It doesn't add anything of value and
certainly doesn't improve your credibility.

When I was young (and stupid),
** When ???

Late 1960's. I was working in a hi-fi and TV repair shop. A few
weeks after I plasted the CRT with Polaroid film, one of the techs
nearly died when he grabbed the anode lead of a similar TV. Digging
around the guts of an old TV without first discharging the tube is a
really bad idea.

It ain't changed.

For you, nothing ever does.

..... Phil

--
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]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 12:04:56 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

The metal CRT shadow mask is fairly impervious to x-rays.

** Nonsense - the x-ray attenuation factor of thin Fe-Ni alloy is small.

The x-rays are produced by the electron beam hitting the metal. One
characteristic of metals is that they have loosely bound outer
electrons. That's why metals conduct electricity. Hit the metal atom
hard enough, and one of the electrons in the inner shell gets knocked
out. The outer electron falls inward to replace the displaced
electron, emitting x-rays in the process.

What
electrons go through the holes in the shadow mask to light up the
phosphor dots, do not produce x-rays.

** Wiki disagrees.
You got a cite for that ?

Got a reference page from whatever Wiki you were reading that says
phosphors emit x-rays when pounded on by electrons?

I don't do any extra work for anyone spewing vague denunciations
without substantiation. If you claim your "Wiki" reference is more
accurate than mine, kindly supply the URL and applicable quotes.

This article has a fairly simple explanation of x-ray production from
a Scientific American article:
<http://www.noah.org/science/x-ray/stong/>
I have the original article somewhere in my pile of books.

See appendix B at:
http://www.eiae.org/chemicals/files/EIA_CRT_5-01.pdf

** You must be desperate to use survey crapology as evidence.

True. I picked the first reference that someone of your limited
intelligence can understand. Got anything better or more recent?

** Irrelevant to the point - fool.

I do have one simple question. Why do you feel it necessary to add
insults to your comments? It doesn't add anything of value and
certainly doesn't improve your credibility.

When I was young (and stupid),
** When ???

Late 1960's. I was working in a hi-fi and TV repair shop. A few
weeks after I plasted the CRT with Polaroid film, one of the techs
nearly died when he grabbed the anode lead of a similar TV. Digging
around the guts of an old TV without first discharging the tube is a
really bad idea.

It ain't changed.

For you, nothing ever does.

..... Phil

--
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

 

[krw]

In article <1agfv395sd746bnavrm6a7bsv5j8angrsi@4ax.com>,
OutintheSnow@billsbackyard.org says...

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:47:53 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

When I was young (and stupid), I took some sealed Polaroid ASA 3000
speed "film" sheets, attached some coins to the surface, and plastered
them all over a late 1960's vintage color TV, where I was working.
After running the TV all day, I developed the pictures, and found a
noticeable lightening around the coins. (Polaroid "film" is positive
exposure, not negative). The shadow wasn't very distinct. The "film"
on the front screen was barely exposed, while the "film" near the Hi-V
cable was more noticeable. The "film" had to be attached to the CRT
to get any kind of exposure. Those on the cabinet showed no shadows.
About the only change that this prompted in my lifestyle was to not
leave my loaded film camera on top of the TV set.

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.

The principal source of X-ray emissions on a CRT is from the electrons
hitting the slot mask immediately behind the phosphor screen face, as
well as electron impacts on the phosphors themselves..

"Principal"? Two wrongs in one word.

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

Whenever? Riiggghhtt, Dimbulb.

With things like a welding arc, it is barely measurable and considered
negligible. A TV screen, however, is thousands of "arcs" at one time. It
is still fairly negligible, however.

No, HV power supplies, even those intended for use as an anode supply,
do not emit X-rays.

AlwaysWring strikes again!


--
Keith

 

[krw]

In article <1agfv395sd746bnavrm6a7bsv5j8angrsi@4ax.com>,
OutintheSnow@billsbackyard.org says...

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:47:53 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

When I was young (and stupid), I took some sealed Polaroid ASA 3000
speed "film" sheets, attached some coins to the surface, and plastered
them all over a late 1960's vintage color TV, where I was working.
After running the TV all day, I developed the pictures, and found a
noticeable lightening around the coins. (Polaroid "film" is positive
exposure, not negative). The shadow wasn't very distinct. The "film"
on the front screen was barely exposed, while the "film" near the Hi-V
cable was more noticeable. The "film" had to be attached to the CRT
to get any kind of exposure. Those on the cabinet showed no shadows.
About the only change that this prompted in my lifestyle was to not
leave my loaded film camera on top of the TV set.

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.

The principal source of X-ray emissions on a CRT is from the electrons
hitting the slot mask immediately behind the phosphor screen face, as
well as electron impacts on the phosphors themselves..

"Principal"? Two wrongs in one word.

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

Whenever? Riiggghhtt, Dimbulb.

With things like a welding arc, it is barely measurable and considered
negligible. A TV screen, however, is thousands of "arcs" at one time. It
is still fairly negligible, however.

No, HV power supplies, even those intended for use as an anode supply,
do not emit X-rays.

AlwaysWring strikes again!


--
Keith

 

[Arfa Daily]

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

Arfa Daily wrote:
....
Basically, there isn't a lead-free alternative that works the same, or
even
close, but you're missing the point(s). Firstly, there isn't *quite* such
a
huge amount or disposal problem as they would have you believe. Second,
the
lead in solder is pretty firmly 'locked into' the alloy, such that it
doesn't readily come out of the solder into water. Yes, I know that acid
rain can have some effect on that equation, but that's nothing like as
bad
as it once was. Finally, all electronic equipment in Europe at least, is
now
subject to the WEEE directive, which dictates the way it is treated at
end
of life, covering recycling and disposal of the remains that can't be
recycled. There is no reason at all that leaded solder could not be
recovered and recycled, in the same way as lead free solder. 80% of the
world's metallic lead production goes to automotive battery manufacture.
Lead recovery and reuse from that product at end of life, has been
mandated
and successfully carried out, for years.
...

All this being obviously true, it is inconceivable that the ROHS thing
has been done out of sheer stupidity - noone is that stupid, even
though
those in high offices routinely want to look that in order to be left
alone.
I can think of no plausible explanation for this ROHS madness
other than a well planned and executed sabotage action agaist the
countries which have (and rely on) an electronics industry. At a
scale that large, even the most expensive to bribe officials cost
peanuts.

Dimiter

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

 

[Arfa Daily]

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

Arfa Daily wrote:
....
Basically, there isn't a lead-free alternative that works the same, or
even
close, but you're missing the point(s). Firstly, there isn't *quite* such
a
huge amount or disposal problem as they would have you believe. Second,
the
lead in solder is pretty firmly 'locked into' the alloy, such that it
doesn't readily come out of the solder into water. Yes, I know that acid
rain can have some effect on that equation, but that's nothing like as
bad
as it once was. Finally, all electronic equipment in Europe at least, is
now
subject to the WEEE directive, which dictates the way it is treated at
end
of life, covering recycling and disposal of the remains that can't be
recycled. There is no reason at all that leaded solder could not be
recovered and recycled, in the same way as lead free solder. 80% of the
world's metallic lead production goes to automotive battery manufacture.
Lead recovery and reuse from that product at end of life, has been
mandated
and successfully carried out, for years.
...

All this being obviously true, it is inconceivable that the ROHS thing
has been done out of sheer stupidity - noone is that stupid, even
though
those in high offices routinely want to look that in order to be left
alone.
I can think of no plausible explanation for this ROHS madness
other than a well planned and executed sabotage action agaist the
countries which have (and rely on) an electronics industry. At a
scale that large, even the most expensive to bribe officials cost
peanuts.

Dimiter

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

 

[Arfa Daily]

<snip>

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.

Jay Ts
--

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

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

<snip>

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.

Jay Ts
--

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

Arfa

 

[John Fields]

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

 

[Hattori Hanzo]

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?

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.

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.

So Shut The Fuck Up, KeithTard!

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jeff Liebermann"
"Phil Allison"

Most of the x-rays emitted by CRT's come out the BACK of the tube, not
the front. The shadow mask blocks most of them.

X-rays are generated at the point where maximum electron deceleration
occurs - ie as the moment they

1. Hit the colour phosphors.

2. Are intercepted and absorbed by the shadow mask while on the way
there.

( delete drivel)

In case 1, x-rays travelling towards the viewer are absorbed only by the
face glass.

The metal CRT shadow mask is fairly impervious to x-rays.

** Nonsense - the x-ray attenuation factor of thin Fe-Ni alloy is small.

What
electrons go through the holes in the shadow mask to light up the
phosphor dots, do not produce x-rays.

** Wiki disagrees.

You got a cite for that ?

In case 2, x-rays are generated on the reverse side of the shadow mask
and then travel both forward and backwards. Those travelling forwards
are absorbed by the face glass.

Most travel backwards (reflected) which is why the funnel of the CRT
has much more lead in it than the screen.

** Maybe so, but the face glass is way thicker.

The face glass is many times thicker than the rest of a CRT's glass - so
it
contains most of the of lead.

See appendix B at:
http://www.eiae.org/chemicals/files/EIA_CRT_5-01.pdf

** You must be desperate to use survey crapology as evidence.

The shadow mask itself is made from very thin alloys sheet ( " invar " or
nickel-iron) so will not absorb x-rays to any great extent.

The shadow mask is made from Invar for mechanical stability.

** Irrelevant to the point - fool.

When I was young (and stupid),

** When ???

It ain't changed.



...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jeff Liebermann Rabid Nut Case "
"Phil Allison"

The metal CRT shadow mask is fairly impervious to x-rays.

** Nonsense - the x-ray attenuation factor of thin Fe-Ni alloy is
small.

The x-rays are produced by the electron beam hitting the metal. One
characteristic of metals is that they have loosely bound outer
electrons........... ad nauseam.

** Just like YOU have loosely bound thoughts.

Loose a a goose.

What
electrons go through the holes in the shadow mask to light up the
phosphor dots, do not produce x-rays.

** Wiki disagrees.
You got a cite for that ?

Got a reference page from whatever Wiki you were reading that says
phosphors emit x-rays when pounded on by electrons?

** Same Wiki page you cited - fuckwit.

I don't do any extra work for anyone spewing vague denunciations
without substantiation.

** The onus of proof is on you to provide evidence - fuckwit.

Shame you have no idea what that is.

** Irrelevant to the point - fool.

I do have one simple question.....

** You do have one simple brain.

Simply fucked.

Piss off, nut case.



...... Phil

 

[Baron]

Arfa Daily wrote:

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

Arfa

I got some of those ! 11 watt rated.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[Baron]

Arfa Daily wrote:

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

Arfa

I got some of those ! 11 watt rated.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[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?