Within a whisker of failure

In article , Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 08:16:38 +0100, charles
wrote:

Yet another example of how legislators climb onto the environmental
bandwaggon on the basis of poor science. And who pays? We do. The
sooner this environmental craze passes and we can all get back to
sanity the better.

This problem is well known. That is why products for medical or
military use may continue to use solder which contains lead.

So it's OK for them to bugger up the environment but not us?

Does is really "bugger up the environment"? The reason that they are
allowed to continue to use lead is that they both require their equipment
to be reliable.



What hypocrisy? And what's the environmental cost of people being forced
to throw away otherwise perfectly functioning gear because of one small
problem caused by this?

No-one is required to throw anything away and for repairs to existing
equipment you can still used leaded solder.


It's utter bloody madness.

Yes.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article ,
critcher wrote:

"Albert" wrote in message ...
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

By the way, I have no idea what has been done to that page you sent as a
link, but its totally unreadable as English, sounding like excerpts
jumbled together compared with most web sites.

Perfectly readable to me.



and of course lead is already in the substrat, it's where we get it
from, ie lead mines etc.

There's even a place in southern Scotland called "Leadhills". ;-)

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 10:52:21 +0100, "critcher"
wrote:

and of course lead is already in the substrat, it's where we get it from,
ie lead mines etc.

That's right. We all know nothing natural can be harmful. It's common
sense!
--
http://www.robinfaichney.org/

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 08:16:38 +0100, charles
wrote:



What hypocrisy? And what's the environmental cost of people being forced
to throw away otherwise perfectly functioning gear because of one small
problem caused by this?

No-one is required to throw anything away and for repairs to existing
equipment you can still used leaded solder.


"If they grow far enough to touch another current-carrying location, they'll
cause a short that can wreck the equipment while leaving barely any trace."

"One whisker can carry about 30mA - more than enough to cause havoc in
digital circuits"

I doubt in the above circumstances it would even be worth considering
attempting a repair on a device full of tiny vulnerable components.



It's utter bloody madness.

Yes.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

charles wrote:

Does is really "bugger up the environment"? The reason that they are
allowed to continue to use lead is that they both require their equipment
to be reliable.

Lead in petrol and paint buggers *us* up; that's the reason for anti-lead
legislation. But this article says that lead solder is not a problem
because it doesn't leach.

I'd like to know if anybody's got a reference for the scientific basis
for the promotion of lead-free solder. I wouldn't be surprised if it
didn't exist at all.

--
Dave Farrance

Albert wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

By the way, I have no idea what has been done to that page you sent as a
link, but its totally unreadable as English, sounding like excerpts
jumbled together compared with most web sites.

Perfectly readable to me.



Yes but how well does your computer read it to you. That's what Brian
was referring to.

In article , Charles wrote:
This problem is well known. *That is why products for medical or
military use may continue to use solder which contains lead.

So it's OK for them to bugger up the environment but not us?

Does is really "bugger up the environment"? *The reason that they are
allowed to continue to use lead is that they both require their equipment
to be reliable.

Of course, the military need to have reliable ways of killing people, but
haven't they already got a much quicker way of using lead to do this...?

Rod.

In message , Ian Jackson
wrote
In message , charles
writes
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

"Ivan" wrote in message
...











http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/03/research.engineering?gusrc=rss&feed=science
Yet another example of how legislators climb onto the environmental
bandwaggon on the basis of poor science. And who pays? We do. The sooner
this environmental craze passes and we can all get back to sanity the
better.

This problem is well known. That is why products for medical or military
use may continue to use solder which contains lead.

Yes, we can't have people dying from medical problems or military
action. And we know that the lead will be in responsible hands, and
finally disposed of using an approved procedure.

One potential environmental problem could be replaced by another that
has a bigger impact. The use of lead free solder will result in
electrical/electronic products that are less reliable and have a shorter
life-span

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

In message , Roderick
Stewart writes
In article , Charles wrote:
This problem is well known. *That is why products for medical or
military use may continue to use solder which contains lead.

So it's OK for them to bugger up the environment but not us?

Does is really "bugger up the environment"? *The reason that they are
allowed to continue to use lead is that they both require their equipment
to be reliable.

Of course, the military need to have reliable ways of killing people, but
haven't they already got a much quicker way of using lead to do this...?

Rod.

Exactly. It's a well-known fact that a high concentration of lead in a
very short time can be very fatal very quickly.
--
Ian

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 08:16:38 +0100, charles
wrote:
No-one is required to throw anything away and for repairs to existing
equipment you can still used leaded solder.

No-one repairs things nowadays. It isn't worth it.

Bill