Poxy lead-free solder (again) ...

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 19:33:19 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

I doubt it. This is how it's done:
http://www.okinternational.org/lead-batteries/Recycling
It's not pretty and probably unsafe, but workable.

Problem is; some dodgy characters have found after employee health & welfare
costs & environmental precaution, its just cheaper to export the old
batteries to a developing country with slums & street urchins to reclaim the
metal for a days food.

Would you deny the slum dwellers and street urchins their miserable
income by blocking or taxing such exports? It can be done, but it
would create an "unemployment" problem at the bottom end.

Incidentally, India isn't exactly a "developing country":
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/poll/2011/aug/16/india-us-aid-poll>

I'm gratified to see that there are now 14 lead recycling plants in
the USA.
<http://www.americasbatteryrecyclers.com/association.html>
That's up from about 5 plants about 10 years ago. However, digging
through their various web piles, I find that some are either battery
manufacturers, that can profit directly from the reclaimed lead, or
collection points for smelters in Puerto Rico and Mexico.

--
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

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:XYtTr.508172$v24.266933@fx11.am4...

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:GKtTr.387411$GO2.28066@fx05.am4...


"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a86fojF6foU1@mid.individual.net...
Ian Field <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote
tm <No_one_home@white-house.gov> wrote
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote

The ROHS rationale was to protect the health of folks doing
recycling.

That's only part of it. It's supposedly true that rain (and other
solvents)
leech lead from electronic equipment, and it winds up in drinking
water.

Therein lies an example of why we have the RoHS BS.

But lead was mined out of the ground in the first place!

But not much of the drinking water comes from where its mined.

Not that I think it makes any sense at all to ban lead in solder.


Much drinking water in the UK was, and continues to be, supplied via lead
pipes, and not all areas have 'hard' water supplies that coat the inside
of those pipes with a 'protective' limescale layer.

The whole 'lead in the environment' argument makes little sense, apart
from in a few special cases like lead in gasoline and paint. Certainly,
lead in solder posed no threat at all, and removing it has, in my
opinion, been a disastrous retrograde step for the 'green' movement in
general, and the electronics construction and servicing industries in
particular. Using the stuff leads to increased production costs and
energy budgets, and often shorter product lives than would otherwise have
been the case when the mature and reliable technology of leaded solder
was used.

Arfa


Compared to raw lead, lead/tin alloy is relatively stable, making solder
was actually binding a hazardous substance and effectively isolating it
from the environment.

Yes, quite. I think I made the point earlier that, as you say, tin and lead
is a stable compound

Arfa

 

[Ian Field]

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:hijt18pb6mmo8s2ei3uipgl0bh246iuid8@4ax.com...

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 19:33:19 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

I doubt it. This is how it's done:
http://www.okinternational.org/lead-batteries/Recycling
It's not pretty and probably unsafe, but workable.

Problem is; some dodgy characters have found after employee health &
welfare
costs & environmental precaution, its just cheaper to export the old
batteries to a developing country with slums & street urchins to reclaim
the
metal for a days food.

Would you deny the slum dwellers and street urchins their miserable
income by blocking or taxing such exports? It can be done, but it
would create an "unemployment" problem at the bottom end.

It poisons and sometimes maims the kids that are shoveling molten lead in
their bare feet, and it pollutes large areas of ground & possibly
groundwater.

They also had a "nice little earner" decommissioning scrap warships - which
involved shoveling out literally tons of asbestos lagging.

Unless you think the slum dwellers should be euthanized because they're
poor, they'd probably be better off without this hazard dumped on their
doorstep.

Thick as they are, I doubt this is what the Brussells suits had in mind when
they passed the WEEE directive.

 

[Ian Field]

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2WATr.558117$v24.305242@fx11.am4...

"Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:XYtTr.508172$v24.266933@fx11.am4...


"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:GKtTr.387411$GO2.28066@fx05.am4...


"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a86fojF6foU1@mid.individual.net...
Ian Field <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote
tm <No_one_home@white-house.gov> wrote
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote

The ROHS rationale was to protect the health of folks doing
recycling.

That's only part of it. It's supposedly true that rain (and other
solvents)
leech lead from electronic equipment, and it winds up in drinking
water.

Therein lies an example of why we have the RoHS BS.

But lead was mined out of the ground in the first place!

But not much of the drinking water comes from where its mined.

Not that I think it makes any sense at all to ban lead in solder.


Much drinking water in the UK was, and continues to be, supplied via
lead pipes, and not all areas have 'hard' water supplies that coat the
inside of those pipes with a 'protective' limescale layer.

The whole 'lead in the environment' argument makes little sense, apart
from in a few special cases like lead in gasoline and paint. Certainly,
lead in solder posed no threat at all, and removing it has, in my
opinion, been a disastrous retrograde step for the 'green' movement in
general, and the electronics construction and servicing industries in
particular. Using the stuff leads to increased production costs and
energy budgets, and often shorter product lives than would otherwise
have been the case when the mature and reliable technology of leaded
solder was used.

Arfa


Compared to raw lead, lead/tin alloy is relatively stable, making solder
was actually binding a hazardous substance and effectively isolating it
from the environment.


Yes, quite. I think I made the point earlier that, as you say, tin and
lead is a stable compound

Arfa

There's still a few slightly slow people that need it drumming in!

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I think I made the point earlier that, as you say,
tin and lead is a stable compound.

I'm not sure that's correct. Tin and lead can form an alloy in any
proportion. A compound has a specific ratio of elements. An alloy does not.

 

[Rod Speed]

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ian Field <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote
tm <No_one_home@white-house.gov> wrote
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote

The ROHS rationale was to protect the health of folks doing
recycling.

That's only part of it. It's supposedly true that rain (and other
solvents)
leech lead from electronic equipment, and it winds up in drinking
water.

Therein lies an example of why we have the RoHS BS.

But lead was mined out of the ground in the first place!

But not much of the drinking water comes from where its mined.

Not that I think it makes any sense at all to ban lead in solder.

Much drinking water in the UK was, and continues to be, supplied via lead
pipes, and not all areas have 'hard' water supplies that coat the inside
of those pipes with a 'protective' limescale layer.

Yebbut, some have blamed the decline of the
roman empire on their use of lead plumbing pipes.

Maybe that's what happened to the british empire too ?

There has certainly been a move to lead free pewter for a reason.

The whole 'lead in the environment' argument makes little sense, apart
from in a few special cases like lead in gasoline and paint.

No argument there.

Certainly, lead in solder posed no threat at all,

Particularly when it makes more sense to just not dump
it in normal rubbish dumps than it ever does to ban it.

and removing it has, in my opinion, been a disastrous retrograde step for
the 'green' movement in general, and the electronics construction and
servicing industries in particular.

Yeah, particularly when it produces a lower lifed electronic device.

Using the stuff leads to increased production costs and energy budgets,
and often shorter product lives than would otherwise have been the case
when the mature and reliable technology of leaded solder was used.

Yeah, completely and utterly barking mad.

The most that might make some sense is to keep
dead electronics out of normal rubbish dumps instead.

 

[Rod Speed]

William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote

Car batteries which are allegedly recycled in accordance
with the WEEE directive; end up in a big pile in India,
which is set alight and street urchins (usually barefoot)
shovel the molten lead into wheelbarrows as it runs out
the bottom of the pile.

I find this hard to believe.

I don’t having seen how they dispose of full dead ships.

Absolutely fucking bizarre, like something out of hell.

A charged lead-acid battery contains plates of both elemental
lead and some oxidized form of lead. Burning the battery
would presumably release only the former, a waste of the latter.

Presumably they do something more once the fire has gone out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-acid_battery

A discharged battery contains less elemental lead and more oxidized lead.
Burning it will not reduce the oxidized lead to elemental lead.

Auto batteries have been recycled in the US for decades.
The cell construction of a car battery makes recycling relatively
straightforward. Burning the battery is just plain stupid.

But very cheap and easy to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_battery_recycling

Note the remark about the sometimes-high value of lead-acid batteries.

In short, I think this story is phony-baloney.

I don’t after having seen the doco on how they deal with dead ships.

Nothing like how its done in the west.

 

[Rod Speed]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jvm6a9$k2s$1@dont-email.me...

Auto batteries have been recycled in the US for decades.
The cell construction of a car battery makes recycling
relatively straightforward. Burning the battery is just plain
stupid.

Unfortunately the slum dwellers in India never got around
to installing a state-of-the-art metal-reclamation plant.

True. But the point is that there seems to be no point in doing a botched,
inefficient job of reclaiming battery lead.

There is when there is no possibility of having the metal reclamation plant.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Rod Speed wrote:

Yebbut, some have blamed the decline of the
roman empire on their use of lead plumbing pipes.

It was Lead Acetate, used to sweeten wine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%28II%29_acetate

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a88dsjFjjsU1@mid.individual.net...

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ian Field <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote
tm <No_one_home@white-house.gov> wrote
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote

The ROHS rationale was to protect the health of folks doing
recycling.

That's only part of it. It's supposedly true that rain (and other
solvents)
leech lead from electronic equipment, and it winds up in drinking
water.

Therein lies an example of why we have the RoHS BS.

But lead was mined out of the ground in the first place!

But not much of the drinking water comes from where its mined.

Not that I think it makes any sense at all to ban lead in solder.

Much drinking water in the UK was, and continues to be, supplied via lead
pipes, and not all areas have 'hard' water supplies that coat the inside
of those pipes with a 'protective' limescale layer.

Yebbut, some have blamed the decline of the
roman empire on their use of lead plumbing pipes.

I think the theory was more to do with them using lead acetate (sugar of
lead) to sweeten their wine than of lead pipes to deliver water. It's a nice
theory, but that's all it is. Empires decline for many reasons. I think
about the only certainty is that they always do. Lead acetate may have
played some small contributory part in the process, but the decline of the
Roman Empire is pretty well documented, and there were far more significant
reasons for it.

Maybe that's what happened to the british empire too ?

The British Empire declined for various 'modern' reasons, not the least of
which were countries figuring that they could manage their affairs and
positions on the world stage, better than was being done for them by us.
This made them lobby for regaining their independence, and for the most
part, we willingly gave them it back. As I'm sure that anyone with an
interest in world affairs will attest to, the results for some of those
countries, have been less than inspiring.

As to whether lead water pipes caused a problem here, I come from a
generation that grew up in post-war council houses fed with lead pipes, and
I can assure you that the overall intelligence level in kids back then, was
a great deal higher than it is now ...

There has certainly been a move to lead free pewter for a reason.

This is true, but the reason generally cited for this is that 'traditional'
pewter tankards tend to be used for drinking beer, which is quite acidic at
a pH of around 4.5. The story is that over time, this will react with the
lead in the pewter, causing it to be ingested. This is altogether different
from running pH neutral water through pure lead pipes.

The whole 'lead in the environment' argument makes little sense, apart
from in a few special cases like lead in gasoline and paint.

No argument there.

Certainly, lead in solder posed no threat at all,

Particularly when it makes more sense to just not dump
it in normal rubbish dumps than it ever does to ban it.

and removing it has, in my opinion, been a disastrous retrograde step for
the 'green' movement in general, and the electronics construction and
servicing industries in particular.

Yeah, particularly when it produces a lower lifed electronic device.

Using the stuff leads to increased production costs and energy budgets,
and often shorter product lives than would otherwise have been the case
when the mature and reliable technology of leaded solder was used.

Yeah, completely and utterly barking mad.

The most that might make some sense is to keep
dead electronics out of normal rubbish dumps instead.

And so they are now, and have been for some time under the EU WEEE
directive, paid for by the equipment manufacturers. Which, as you say, makes
the whole thing barking mad ...

Arfa

 

[Rod Speed]

Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Yebbut, some have blamed the decline of the
roman empire on their use of lead plumbing pipes.

It was Lead Acetate, used to sweeten wine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%28II%29_acetate

Nope, its been blamed on both.

The evidence isnt that convincing tho.

The main argument against the lead acetate line is that
the kids didn't drink much wine and would have been
a lot more affected by the lead plumbing and the effect of
lead is much more pronounced in kids for various reasons.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I've seen a magazine ad from the 1920s praising lead for its use in
water-distribution plumbing.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 21:47:22 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:hijt18pb6mmo8s2ei3uipgl0bh246iuid8@4ax.com...
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 19:33:19 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

I doubt it. This is how it's done:
http://www.okinternational.org/lead-batteries/Recycling
It's not pretty and probably unsafe, but workable.

Problem is; some dodgy characters have found after employee health &
welfare
costs & environmental precaution, its just cheaper to export the old
batteries to a developing country with slums & street urchins to reclaim
the
metal for a days food.

Would you deny the slum dwellers and street urchins their miserable
income by blocking or taxing such exports? It can be done, but it
would create an "unemployment" problem at the bottom end.

It poisons and sometimes maims the kids that are shoveling molten lead in
their bare feet, and it pollutes large areas of ground & possibly
groundwater.

Ok, so you would let them starve instead. At least the environment
will be safe and someone else can trash their back yard. Given the
choice between the two options, I don't suppose it would be of any
interest to ask the street urchins if they prefer to be poisoned or
starved to death?

They also had a "nice little earner" decommissioning scrap warships - which
involved shoveling out literally tons of asbestos lagging.

Yeah, I saw the horror videos and news reports. Same issue as before.
Lacking any other means of support, if you kill the unsafe scrap
business, the workers starve. I wish I had a solution, but I don't
(and government aid is not a long term solution).

Unless you think the slum dwellers should be euthanized because they're
poor, they'd probably be better off without this hazard dumped on their
doorstep.

Has anyone bothered to ask them?

Thick as they are, I doubt this is what the Brussells suits had in mind when
they passed the WEEE directive.

Brussels methods are a bit excessive. They pick an area of interest,
build a crisis, mount a PR campaign, and before anyone has a chance to
do any research, imposes draconian regulations to solve the problem.
Of course, that creates additional problems for Brussels to solve at a
later date. I have yet to see an environmental regulation that does
not involve some level of collateral damage. However, the consensus
seems to be that this is the price of ecological progress. I
generally agree, but often wonder if there's a better way.


--
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

 

[Rod Speed]

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ian Field <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote
tm <No_one_home@white-house.gov> wrote
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote

The ROHS rationale was to protect the health of folks doing
recycling.

That's only part of it. It's supposedly true that rain (and other
solvents)
leech lead from electronic equipment, and it winds up in drinking
water.

Therein lies an example of why we have the RoHS BS.

But lead was mined out of the ground in the first place!

But not much of the drinking water comes from where its mined.

Not that I think it makes any sense at all to ban lead in solder.

Much drinking water in the UK was, and continues to be, supplied via
lead pipes, and not all areas have 'hard' water supplies that coat the
inside of those pipes with a 'protective' limescale layer.

Yebbut, some have blamed the decline of the
roman empire on their use of lead plumbing pipes.

I think the theory was more to do with them using lead acetate (sugar of
lead) to sweeten their wine than of lead pipes to deliver water.

It was both. And like I said, the pipes claim is more plausible with kids.

It's a nice theory, but that's all it is.

Yes, but it was the reason for the move to lead free pewter.

Empires decline for many reasons.

Yep, and in the case of both the roman and british empires, there
are other much more plausible reasons for the empire's decline.

I think about the only certainty is that they always do.

Well, it would be more accurate to say that none last forever.

Tho china did manage much longer than most.

Lead acetate may have played some small contributory part in the process,
but the decline of the Roman Empire is pretty well documented, and there
were far more significant reasons for it.

And there is no reason why the decline can't have been due
to a combination of all of the more plausible possibilitys too.

Maybe that's what happened to the british empire too ?

The British Empire declined for various 'modern' reasons,

Its far from clear that many of them weren't part of why the
roman empire declined too, tho there was much less of the
move away to a different physical location of the center of
power seen with the decline of the roman empire.

No real equivalent of the barbarians seen in roman
times, tho some might claim that moslems are just
that. Pretty hard to sustain that claim tho.

not the least of which were countries figuring that they could manage
their affairs and positions on the world stage, better than was being done
for them by us.

There was plenty of that with the romans too.

They romans werent bankrupted by two world
wars with a great depression between them tho.

This made them lobby for regaining their independence, and for the most
part, we willingly gave them it back.

That last was mostly once it became clear that trying to stop
them leaving was never going to work, with both empires.

We never did see the british empire just give up on the worst
of the barbarians and just wall them off and make an obscene
gesture in their general direction like the romans did with
those hairy legged barbarians in dresses to your north tho.

As I'm sure that anyone with an interest in world affairs will attest to,
the results for some of those countries, have been less than inspiring.

Yeah, specially in africa. Some of the denizens of the white ones
particularly would claim that they left the old dart for dead tho.

As to whether lead water pipes caused a problem here, I come from a
generation that grew up in post-war council houses fed with lead pipes,

That certainly explains a lot.

and I can assure you that the overall intelligence level in kids back
then, was a great deal higher than it is now ...

That's very arguable indeed.

There has certainly been a move to lead free pewter for a reason.

This is true, but the reason generally cited for this is that
'traditional' pewter tankards tend to be used for drinking beer, which is
quite acidic at a pH of around 4.5. The story is that over time, this will
react with the lead in the pewter, causing it to be ingested. This is
altogether different from running pH neutral water through pure lead
pipes.

There isnt much piped water that is in fact pH neutral.

Tends to be more alkaline than beer tho, particularly in britain.

And we have also seen a move away from the
use of lead in coloring used in cooking vessels
and other stuff like drinking mugs too.

Very sensibly given the perfectly viable alternatives.

The whole 'lead in the environment' argument makes little sense, apart
from in a few special cases like lead in gasoline and paint.

No argument there.

Certainly, lead in solder posed no threat at all,

Particularly when it makes more sense to just not dump
it in normal rubbish dumps than it ever does to ban it.

and removing it has, in my opinion, been a disastrous retrograde step
for the 'green' movement in general, and the electronics construction
and servicing industries in particular.

Yeah, particularly when it produces a lower lifed electronic device.

Using the stuff leads to increased production costs and energy budgets,
and often shorter product lives than would otherwise have been the case
when the mature and reliable technology of leaded solder was used.

Yeah, completely and utterly barking mad.

The most that might make some sense is to keep
dead electronics out of normal rubbish dumps instead.

And so they are now, and have been for some time under the EU WEEE
directive, paid for by the equipment manufacturers. Which, as you say,
makes the whole thing barking mad ...

 

[Rod Speed]

William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote

I've seen a magazine ad from the 1920s praising
lead for its use in water-distribution plumbing.

Yeah, it certainly had some real advantages
over the main alternative at that time, iron.

 

[Rod Speed]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote

Ian Field <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote
Ian Field <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote

I doubt it. This is how it's done:
http://www.okinternational.org/lead-batteries/Recycling
It's not pretty and probably unsafe, but workable.

Problem is; some dodgy characters have found after employee
health & welfare costs & environmental precaution, its just
cheaper to export the old batteries to a developing country
with slums & street urchins to reclaim the metal for a days food.

Would you deny the slum dwellers and street urchins their miserable
income by blocking or taxing such exports? It can be done, but it
would create an "unemployment" problem at the bottom end.

It poisons and sometimes maims the kids that are shoveling molten lead in
their bare feet, and it pollutes large areas of ground & possibly
groundwater.

Ok, so you would let them starve instead.

They haven't starved in India for almost half a century now.

At least the environment will be safe and someone else can
trash their back yard. Given the choice between the two options,
I don't suppose it would be of any interest to ask the street
urchins if they prefer to be poisoned or starved to death?

They haven't starved to death in India for almost half a century now.

They also had a "nice little earner" decommissioning scrap warships
- which involved shoveling out literally tons of asbestos lagging.

Yeah, I saw the horror videos and news reports. Same
issue as before. Lacking any other means of support, if
you kill the unsafe scrap business, the workers starve.

They haven't starved in India for almost half a century now.

We fixed that problem in a different way.

I wish I had a solution, but I don't

The solution happened quite a long time ago now.

(and government aid is not a long term solution).

Yes, but the green revolution was.

Unless you think the slum dwellers should be euthanized
because they're poor, they'd probably be better off
without this hazard dumped on their doorstep.

Has anyone bothered to ask them?

No one ever does, even in the first world.

Thick as they are, I doubt this is what the Brussells
suits had in mind when they passed the WEEE directive.

Brussels methods are a bit excessive. They pick an area of interest,
build a crisis, mount a PR campaign, and before anyone has a chance to
do any research, imposes draconian regulations to solve the problem.

That's just plain wrong on the research.

Of course, that creates additional problems for Brussels to solve
at a later date. I have yet to see an environmental regulation
that does not involve some level of collateral damage.

Because that isn't even possible.

However, the consensus seems to be that this is the price of ecological
progress. I generally agree, but often wonder if there's a better way.

There is certainly a better way than letting some suits decide what needs to
be done.

 

[Ian Field]

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:ncbu189valr29ai1db41kfvlkr175si7hm@4ax.com...

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 21:47:22 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:



"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:hijt18pb6mmo8s2ei3uipgl0bh246iuid8@4ax.com...
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 19:33:19 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

I doubt it. This is how it's done:
http://www.okinternational.org/lead-batteries/Recycling
It's not pretty and probably unsafe, but workable.

Problem is; some dodgy characters have found after employee health &
welfare
costs & environmental precaution, its just cheaper to export the old
batteries to a developing country with slums & street urchins to reclaim
the
metal for a days food.

Would you deny the slum dwellers and street urchins their miserable
income by blocking or taxing such exports? It can be done, but it
would create an "unemployment" problem at the bottom end.

It poisons and sometimes maims the kids that are shoveling molten lead in
their bare feet, and it pollutes large areas of ground & possibly
groundwater.

Ok, so you would let them starve instead. At least the environment
will be safe and someone else can trash their back yard. Given the
choice between the two options, I don't suppose it would be of any
interest to ask the street urchins if they prefer to be poisoned or
starved to death?

I'm sure its a very easy decision for them - so long as you don't let them
in on what horrors they're storing up for the future.

 

[Ian Field]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a88dsjFjjsU1@mid.individual.net...

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ian Field <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote
tm <No_one_home@white-house.gov> wrote
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote

The ROHS rationale was to protect the health of folks doing
recycling.

That's only part of it. It's supposedly true that rain (and other
solvents)
leech lead from electronic equipment, and it winds up in drinking
water.

Therein lies an example of why we have the RoHS BS.

But lead was mined out of the ground in the first place!

But not much of the drinking water comes from where its mined.

Not that I think it makes any sense at all to ban lead in solder.

Much drinking water in the UK was, and continues to be, supplied via lead
pipes, and not all areas have 'hard' water supplies that coat the inside
of those pipes with a 'protective' limescale layer.

Yebbut, some have blamed the decline of the
roman empire on their use of lead plumbing pipes.

Making their dinner plates out of pewter probably didn't help - usually at
least 80% tin it contained lead & antimony amongst other things.

 

[Ian Field]

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bEETr.524987$IP4.500747@fx26.am4...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a88dsjFjjsU1@mid.individual.net...
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ian Field <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote
tm <No_one_home@white-house.gov> wrote
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote

The ROHS rationale was to protect the health of folks doing
recycling.

That's only part of it. It's supposedly true that rain (and other
solvents)
leech lead from electronic equipment, and it winds up in drinking
water.

Therein lies an example of why we have the RoHS BS.

But lead was mined out of the ground in the first place!

But not much of the drinking water comes from where its mined.

Not that I think it makes any sense at all to ban lead in solder.

Much drinking water in the UK was, and continues to be, supplied via
lead pipes, and not all areas have 'hard' water supplies that coat the
inside of those pipes with a 'protective' limescale layer.

Yebbut, some have blamed the decline of the
roman empire on their use of lead plumbing pipes.


I think the theory was more to do with them using lead acetate (sugar of
lead) to sweeten their wine than of lead pipes to deliver water. It's a
nice theory, but that's all it is. Empires decline for many reasons. I
think about the only certainty is that they always do. Lead acetate may
have played some small contributory part in the process, but the decline
of the Roman Empire is pretty well documented, and there were far more
significant reasons for it.



Maybe that's what happened to the british empire too ?

The British Empire declined for various 'modern' reasons, not the least of
which were countries figuring that they could manage their affairs and
positions on the world stage, better than was being done for them by us.
This made them lobby for regaining their independence, and for the most
part, we willingly gave them it back. As I'm sure that anyone with an
interest in world affairs will attest to, the results for some of those
countries, have been less than inspiring.

It wasn't just Britain lost its empire, at the end of WW2 the Japs actually
had to protect their former Dutch POWs from their former servants.

 

[Ian Field]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a88ui8Fr5aU1@mid.individual.net...

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ian Field <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote
tm <No_one_home@white-house.gov> wrote
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote

The ROHS rationale was to protect the health of folks doing
recycling.

That's only part of it. It's supposedly true that rain (and other
solvents)
leech lead from electronic equipment, and it winds up in drinking
water.

Therein lies an example of why we have the RoHS BS.

But lead was mined out of the ground in the first place!

But not much of the drinking water comes from where its mined.

Not that I think it makes any sense at all to ban lead in solder.

Much drinking water in the UK was, and continues to be, supplied via
lead pipes, and not all areas have 'hard' water supplies that coat the
inside of those pipes with a 'protective' limescale layer.

Yebbut, some have blamed the decline of the
roman empire on their use of lead plumbing pipes.

I think the theory was more to do with them using lead acetate (sugar of
lead) to sweeten their wine than of lead pipes to deliver water.

It was both. And like I said, the pipes claim is more plausible with kids.

I seriously doubt the Romans had a minimum age limit for drinking, the
froggies are fairly lax on that even in the present day.