Lead free solder - exposed in a UK national newspaper

[exray]

Jay Ts wrote:

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.

Welcome to California.

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.

I've used 'alternative' solder. I could live with it if need be. It
handles differently but geez, I think the fumes would kill me faster
than eating a pound of lead solder everyday at tea. I've never heard
the proponents addressing the wicked fumes of the 'better' solder.

-Bill (63/37)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Eeyore]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

As I've said before... It isn't a matter of whether electronic equipment has
lead in it, but what happens to that equipment when it's disposed of. It's
the latter that should be considered.

AIUI, lead in metallic form is pretty stable and doesn't 'leach' into
groundwater the way some would have us believe.

Graham

 

On Apr 3, 6:00 pm, exray <radioex...@geemail.com> wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
snip
I've used 'alternative' solder.  I could live with it if need be.
 It
handles differently but geez, I think the fumes would kill me
faster
than eating a pound of lead solder everyday at tea.  I've never
heard
the proponents addressing the wicked fumes of the 'better' solder.

-Bill (63/37)

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

 

[exray]

stratus46@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.

-ex

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Jay Ts]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

As I've said before... It isn't a matter of whether electronic equipment
has lead in it, but what happens to that equipment when it's disposed
of. It's the latter that should be considered.

There's the other end of the process too: mining, smelting,
and the rest of the manufacturing process that might be producing
pollution. All that is outside my realm of knowledge. Maybe they
do it in an "environmentally-friendly" manner these days? I really
have no idea.

I think ideally, we'd find something better to use, but although
it's gotten a lot of bad press, there are much worse things than
lead. Such as other heavy metals, notably cadmium and mercury.

Another source of lead is CRTs, many of which are still in use.
They contain about 5 pounds of lead each for radiation protection,
quite a bit more than is contained in the solder in the PC boards.

And the replacements, flat screen monitors, have mercury in
the fluorescent backlights.

I've had trouble with mercury poisoning in the past, but even
though I'd been exposed to a lot of lead as a child, I've never
discerned any problem from it. (It's tricky though, low- to
moderate-level heavy metal poisoning can easily go unnoticed,
while causing significant health problems.)

This does not mean that solder-containing lead is "good",
just that it's appropriate to keep things in perspective.

Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jay Tossers"

Another source of lead is CRTs, many of which are still in use.
They contain about 5 pounds of lead each for radiation protection,
quite a bit more than is contained in the solder in the PC boards.

** Silly comparison.

Glass does not break down in the environment.

So how would any of that lead get out ??



....... Phil

 

[N_Cook]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47F5671A.B8081A4C@hotmail.com...

N_Cook wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
N_Cook wrote:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/03/research.engineering

Within a whisker of failure

About time too.

Never mind the reduced reliability (see the ERA study) caused by
lead-free
solder when equipment is exposed to vibration.


Before I waste time downloading an irrelevant pdf

would this be what you be referring to :

Review of Directive 2002/95/EC (RoHS) Categories 8 and 9 - Final

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/era_study_final_report.pdf

Results of vibration testing lead-free solder from different researchers
....

Not sure if that's the one I had to be honest but looks interesting.

Graham

One small bit from that study

"Solder joint failure due to vibration becomes more significant as the
frequency of vibration approaches the resonant frequency of the component or
structure.
Studies by Chuang et al 29 and
Song et al 30 have sought to identify microstructural features that
influence the performance of conventional Sn-Pb solders and candidate
replacement lead-fre solders. The typical microstructure of conventional
Sn-Pb solders containing coarse pro-eutectic grains reduces the ability of
these materials to absorb energy during crack formation and hence reduces
the vibration resistance of joints made using these solders. "

I thoutht distributed irregularities in structures, suppressed crack
propogation.
Would seem NOT to be borne out for the case for premature failures of solder
joints for unsupported dropper resistors in mucic combos - ie amplifiers
contained within the same case as large speaker/s.
Failure in 2 or 3 years of routine use wheras more like 20 years for failure
in similar but older PbSn manufacture.


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

 

[Arfa Daily]

"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

 

[Arfa Daily]

"exray" <radioexray@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47f59170$0$26120$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...

stratus46@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.

-ex

I don't think that he's trying to pick a fight at all ... Depending on
whether or not he's talking 'professional' use, that might be a bit of an
underestimate, but not huge. I hand solder just about every day of my
working life. I use predominantly 0.7mm solder wire, which I buy in 500g
reels. I reckon that each reel lasts me probably 3 years, so in 35 years of
professional use, I have used perhaps 6kg or 13 pounds.

The reason that lead-free solder does not smell as nice, is that it is no
longer a basic natural rosin flux that is contained within the solder.
Because of the new stuff's vastly inferior wetting qualities with most
metals used in electronics, it has to contain a far more aggressive flux to
stand any chance of forming a metallic bond. That aggressive-ness is
achieved by making the flux slightly acidic, so the fumes, if you are
breathing them, are actually gently rotting the linings of your nose and
lungs. There was always a declared H & S issue about industrial asthma with
rosin flux fumes in quantity, but I suspect that this stuff is potentially a
far greater health hazard than rosin fumes ever were. So, if you're having
to use a lot of lead-free in your day to day work, I would suggest that now
is the time to install some fume management, even if it is just an old
computer fan blowing the smoke across to someone else ...

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HOfJj.5873$yd2.3213@trndny04...

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ruednS26lvW_GGjanZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
As I've said before... It isn't a matter of whether electronic equipment
has
lead in it, but what happens to that equipment when it's disposed of.
It's
the latter that should be considered.




And lead isn't the only toxic substance used in electronic equipment and
the process used to manufacture it.

Is a lead-free item that fails and ends up in the landfill after 2 years
better than a lead-containing device that lasts a decade?

And is then properly recycled ?

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:65lnbrF2g8k3jU1@mid.individual.net...

"Jay Tossers"

Another source of lead is CRTs, many of which are still in use.
They contain about 5 pounds of lead each for radiation protection,
quite a bit more than is contained in the solder in the PC boards.



** Silly comparison.

Glass does not break down in the environment.

So how would any of that lead get out ??



...... Phil


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. The lead which is contained in the faceplate glass to minimise x
radiation to acceptable levels, is actually not metallic lead, but lead
oxide, and is very firmly locked into the molecular structure of the glass,
so wouldn't readily leach anyway. 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.

Arfa

 

[Robert Baer]

TheM wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:47F4B8A8.ADD69B04@hotmail.com...


N_Cook wrote:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/03/research.engineering

Within a whisker of failure

About time too.

Never mind the reduced reliability (see the ERA study) caused by lead-free
solder when equipment is exposed to vibration.

Graham


Its good for the way economy works nowadays. Buy, buy, buy the crap
that dies or obsoletes every 2-3 years.

Mark


Absolutely; we are in the replace crap with crap "economy".

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:54:15 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

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.

Ummm.... I didn't realize that Wikipedia is the only Wiki on the
internet. I guess it's the only one you read. Ummm... you can read?
In the future, assuming you have one, please be more specific.

I cited two articles:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube>
Where does it say that electrons excite phosphors to emit x-rays?
The 2nd article mentions:
"The screen is covered with a phosphorescent coating (often
transition metals or rare earth elements), which emits visible
light when excited by high-energy electrons."
which is quite the opposite of what you are rudely suggesting.
Pounding on phosphors with electrons emits light, not x-rays.

I do have one simple question.....

** You do have one simple brain.
Simply fucked.
Piss off, nut case.
..... Phil

Nope. You're so much fun to irritate. However, your insults are
starting to become repetitious. Could I trouble you to find some new
material? I get easily bored. Besides, I find it more interesting to
be insulting without the use of profanity.

While you're fabricating another worthless response, you might
consider that the same mechanism that inspires metals to emit x-rays
is what causes phosphors to emit light when pounded on by electrons.
When the electrons in the inner orbits are knocked out (ionized) by
the bombarding the electrons, the outer electrons fall into these
inner orbits to replace them. The distance traveled between the outer
and inner orbits is the wavelength of the radiation produced. The
difference between the binding energies of the inner and outer shell
electrons is the energy of the radiation produced. These are also
some of the basic principles behind x-ray spectroscopy.



--
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

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jeff Liebermann Rabid Fucking NUTTER "

I cited two articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube
Where does it say that electrons excite phosphors to emit x-rays?

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube#Ionizing_radiation

The first line says it.

" CRTs can emit a small amount of X-ray radiation as a result of the
electron beam's bombardment of the shadow mask/aperture grille and
phosphors. "

Also, monochrome CRTs ( which have no shadow mask ) emit x-rays as a result
of phosphor bombardment. Becomes significant with accelerating voltages
above 20KV, just as with colour TVs.

Game over - pal.


Listen up - YOU are nothing but another PITA

STEAMING GREAT BULLSHIT ARTIST !!!

SO GO DROP DEAD !!




........ Phil

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:00:14 -0500, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

Also the 1B3 rectifier tube. They never did really solve the problem.
Instead, they buried the Hi-V rectifier in a double lead plated steel
cage for shielding. A double shielding was necessary to provide
non-overlapping ventilation holes, where there was no direct path
between the x-ray source and the outside. They also added circuitry
that shut down the Hi-V if the voltage regulation failed (which would
cause the voltage to increase dramatically and produce even more
x-rays. The problem was eventually solved with semiconductor Hi-V
rectifiers.

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

Nope. No helium nuclei were produced. They have little penetration
and wouldn't go through a sheet of toilet paper. Bombarding metals
with electrons produces dangerous x-rays, which go through all but the
most dense materials.

--
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 Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:06:05 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann Rabid Fucking NUTTER "


I cited two articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube
Where does it say that electrons excite phosphors to emit x-rays?

Amazing. You can read.

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube#Ionizing_radiation

The first line says it.

" CRTs can emit a small amount of X-ray radiation as a result of the
electron beam's bombardment of the shadow mask/aperture grille and
phosphors. "

Well, then Wikipedia is somewhat wrong. Phosphors emit light
wavelengths, not x-rays. However the phosphors are doped with various
other materials, which possibly do contribute some X-rays. I did some
quick Googling and couldn't find any references to phosphors directly
emitting x-rays. There was plenty on how they emitted light, but no
mention of x-rays. If phosphors did belch x-rays, then the CRT
picture would be serisously smeared as the emitted x-rays excite
adjacent phosphor dots or lines.

Also, monochrome CRTs ( which have no shadow mask ) emit x-rays as a result
of phosphor bombardment. Becomes significant with accelerating voltages
above 20KV, just as with colour TVs.

Well, there you got me, maybe. Most references say that x-rays are
not a problem with mono CRT's because of the lack of the shadow mask
and lower accelleration voltages. I found several Zenith patents and
references for 20-30KV mono CRT tubes (mostly used for medical
imaging) that never mentioned x-rays or showed any indication that
x-rays were a problem. All said that the lead in the glass was
sufficient to limit x-ray leakage to within FDA safety limits. (0.5
milliroentgens per hour at a distance of 5 cm). Perhaps that's
because the x-rays produced by the dopants in the phosphor are rather
small? Dunno. I'll see if I can find something but not tonite.

Game over - pal.

Yep. It's a game to you. Is that why you find it necessary to add
insults to almost every line? Also, ease up on the double spacing.
The world supply of white space is limited.

Listen up - YOU are nothing but another PITA
STEAMING GREAT BULLSHIT ARTIST !!!
SO GO DROP DEAD !!

But who will play games with you if I do that?
Incidentally, your caps lock key appears to be stuck.

....... 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

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jeff Liebermann Rabid Fucking NUTTER "

I cited two articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube
Where does it say that electrons excite phosphors to emit x-rays?

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube#Ionizing_radiation

The first line says it.

" CRTs can emit a small amount of X-ray radiation as a result of the
electron beam's bombardment of the shadow mask/aperture grille and
phosphors. "

Also, monochrome CRTs ( which have no shadow mask ) emit x-rays as a result
of phosphor bombardment. Becomes significant with accelerating voltages
above 20KV, just as with colour TVs.

Game over - pal.


Listen up - YOU are nothing but another PITA

STEAMING GREAT BULLSHIT ARTIST !!!

SO GO DROP DEAD !!




........ Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jeff Liebermann Rabid Fucking NUTTER "

I cited two articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube
Where does it say that electrons excite phosphors to emit x-rays?

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube#Ionizing_radiation

The first line says it.

" CRTs can emit a small amount of X-ray radiation as a result of the
electron beam's bombardment of the shadow mask/aperture grille and
phosphors. "

Also, monochrome CRTs ( which have no shadow mask ) emit x-rays as a result
of phosphor bombardment. Becomes significant with accelerating voltages
above 20KV, just as with colour TVs.

Game over - pal.


Listen up - YOU are nothing but another PITA

STEAMING GREAT BULLSHIT ARTIST !!!

SO GO DROP DEAD !!




........ Phil

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:608jv3h7p6vac1nalotcip5npbhtqcfo15@4ax.com...

While you're fabricating another worthless response, you might
consider that the same mechanism that inspires metals to emit x-rays
is what causes phosphors to emit light when pounded on by electrons.
When the electrons in the inner orbits are knocked out (ionized) by
the bombarding the electrons, the outer electrons fall into these
inner orbits to replace them. The distance traveled between the outer
and inner orbits is the wavelength of the radiation produced.

Uh huh. Yeah.

Please review your quantum physics.

The difference between the binding energies of the inner and outer
shell electrons is the energy of the radiation produced.

That's much closer to correct.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:608jv3h7p6vac1nalotcip5npbhtqcfo15@4ax.com...

While you're fabricating another worthless response, you might
consider that the same mechanism that inspires metals to emit x-rays
is what causes phosphors to emit light when pounded on by electrons.
When the electrons in the inner orbits are knocked out (ionized) by
the bombarding the electrons, the outer electrons fall into these
inner orbits to replace them. The distance traveled between the outer
and inner orbits is the wavelength of the radiation produced.

Uh huh. Yeah.

Please review your quantum physics.

The difference between the binding energies of the inner and outer
shell electrons is the energy of the radiation produced.

That's much closer to correct.