Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lead is an element, it is composed of lead and can't decompose. It is soAllodoxaphobia 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.
All this being obviously true, it is inconceivable that the ROHS thing....
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....
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.
...
My memory (which might very well be wrong) was that one of the principalWhen 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 principalWhen 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.
Yep. See the scribbling of the Coolidge Tube at:"Jeff Liebermann"
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.
d
The metal CRT shadow mask is fairly impervious to x-rays. WhatIn case 1, x-rays travelling towards the viewer are absorbed only by the
face glass.
Most travel backwards (reflected) which is why the funnel of the CRTIn 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.
See appendix B at:The face glass is many times thicker than the rest of a CRT's glass - so it
contains most of the of lead.
The shadow mask is made from Invar for mechanical stability. TheThe shadow mask itself is made from very thin alloys sheet ( " invar " or
nickel-iron) so will not absorb x-rays to any great extent.
Yep. See the scribbling of the Coolidge Tube at:"Jeff Liebermann"
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.
d
The metal CRT shadow mask is fairly impervious to x-rays. WhatIn case 1, x-rays travelling towards the viewer are absorbed only by the
face glass.
Most travel backwards (reflected) which is why the funnel of the CRTIn 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.
See appendix B at:The face glass is many times thicker than the rest of a CRT's glass - so it
contains most of the of lead.
The shadow mask is made from Invar for mechanical stability. TheThe shadow mask itself is made from very thin alloys sheet ( " invar " or
nickel-iron) so will not absorb x-rays to any great extent.
Absolutely. When repairing old kit use leaded solder.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
That was kinda the way I understood it too, from my old college days, but"Jeff Liebermann"
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.
** How so ??
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.
In case 1, x-rays travelling towards the viewer are absorbed only by the
face glass.
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.
The face glass is many times thicker than the rest of a CRT's glass - so
it
contains most of the of lead.
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.
..... Phil
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.
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
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:29:13 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
5 pounds of lead is probably a bit on the
enthusiastic side on average. 'Big' tubes may contain this amount, or
even a
little more, but average sized ones, and computer monitors, would
probably
be around half or a little more, than that figure. LCD displays, of
course,
do not require this radiation protection.
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. That's also why
there's much more lead in the neck of the CRT, than in the face.
This has a fairly good table of lead content in CRT's.
http://www.eiae.org/chemicals/files/EIA_CRT_5-01.pdf
From page 3:
"The average CRT for the time period 1995 to 2000,
including televisions and monitors, is an 18.63-inch
CRT with a lead content that varies from 2.14 lbs
to 2.63 lbs."
Note that this was in 2001. It's much less now.
None of the current LCD panel manufacturers use lead in their LCD
panels. Yet, the People's Republic of California insists on treating
LCD panels (pre-pay recycling fee, hazardous waste, special handling,
etc) the same way as CRT's. That's probably because they can't tell
the difference between a CRT and and an LCD. Sigh.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
Nice shiny (sexy looking?) surfaces, easy to solder, have seen no"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.
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.
there's much more lead in the neck of the CRT, than in the face.
Sorry. I meant to say that there's much more lead in the funnel, notThat's also why
there's much more lead in the neck of the CRT, than in the face.
See Appendix B for the lead content table.This has a fairly good table of lead content in CRT's.
http://www.eiae.org/chemicals/files/EIA_CRT_5-01.pdf
Most of the x-rays emitted by CRT's come out the BACK of the tube, not5 pounds of lead is probably a bit on the
enthusiastic side on average. 'Big' tubes may contain this amount, or even a
little more, but average sized ones, and computer monitors, would probably
be around half or a little more, than that figure. LCD displays, of course,
do not require this radiation protection.
Yep. I sorta covered the topic previously:Apparently, in America, they crushed the glass to powder or some such to try
to prove this. I'm sure that someone from that side of the pond, knows the
details.
stratu...@yahoo.com wrote:
You mean the fumes from the flux. You don't believe you're
breathing
solder vapors, do you? In the 40+ years I've been using solder, I
doubt I've used 5 lbs and I do quite a bit of soldering.
GG
I've never turned on my shop spectrometer to determine if it was
the
flux or solder. I just know that the new stuff doesn't smell as
friendly to my human nose.
40+ years, 5 pounds, yadda,yadda...how much 'new' solder have you
used?
I suspect you're just trying to pick a fight. I'm not playing.
See ya.
You brought up problems with a smelting operation that took place 2KJames Beck wrote:
In article <47f58171$0$8439$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
UseWebsiteToReply@example.com says...
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.
Mettalic lead has been shown to have very little impact on the
environment. Especially after it has built up an oxide layer.
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.
Ah, but we aren't talking about running a smelting operation, are we?
Not if you can get all your lead from recycled materials,
and won't have to dig up any more ore and process it.
That is true, but you are still comparing apples to accordions here.
It has to get into the blood supply first.Otherwise, we have to look at the entire process.
That's just good engineering.
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 don't know.
Comparing burying metallic lead VS a smelting operation, that borders on
pinheadiness.
Maybe we go on different definitions. To me, "pinhead" refers
more to people who have very pointed, narrow ways of thinking,
and foolishly fail to choose wisely in regards to the big picture.
When I left my last job, I had a full physical including a
lead test, and even though I had been "exposed" to lead solder almost
daily for 13 years, my blood lead levels were almost not measurable and
that puts me below the national average for people that don't work with
solder at all. Why would that be if lead/tin solder were so dangerous?
Easy one! Blood tests often fail to show up heavy metal toxicity.
You shouldn't expect them to, because the problem with heavy
metals is that they build up in body tissues, not the blood.
That's exactly the problem! They hang around in the body,
building up in and causing problems with vital organs (e.g.,
liver, colon, brain, bones) and *don't* easily dissolve out
in the blood and get flushed out.
How does that lead GET to the tissues of a human?
You brought up problems with a smelting operation that took place 2KJames Beck wrote:
In article <47f58171$0$8439$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
UseWebsiteToReply@example.com says...
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.
Mettalic lead has been shown to have very little impact on the
environment. Especially after it has built up an oxide layer.
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.
Ah, but we aren't talking about running a smelting operation, are we?
Not if you can get all your lead from recycled materials,
and won't have to dig up any more ore and process it.
That is true, but you are still comparing apples to accordions here.
It has to get into the blood supply first.Otherwise, we have to look at the entire process.
That's just good engineering.
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 don't know.
Comparing burying metallic lead VS a smelting operation, that borders on
pinheadiness.
Maybe we go on different definitions. To me, "pinhead" refers
more to people who have very pointed, narrow ways of thinking,
and foolishly fail to choose wisely in regards to the big picture.
When I left my last job, I had a full physical including a
lead test, and even though I had been "exposed" to lead solder almost
daily for 13 years, my blood lead levels were almost not measurable and
that puts me below the national average for people that don't work with
solder at all. Why would that be if lead/tin solder were so dangerous?
Easy one! Blood tests often fail to show up heavy metal toxicity.
You shouldn't expect them to, because the problem with heavy
metals is that they build up in body tissues, not the blood.
That's exactly the problem! They hang around in the body,
building up in and causing problems with vital organs (e.g.,
liver, colon, brain, bones) and *don't* easily dissolve out
in the blood and get flushed out.
How does that lead GET to the tissues of a human?