On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 08:53:42 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:
See:
http://www.floridacenter.org/publica...ility_99-5.pdf
The proceedure is to test for leaching using moderately acidic water
(Ph = 5.0) and to literally pulverize the glass to accellerate the
leaching (See Method Phase I). As expected this yielded the worst
case results at about 3 times the US limits.
I didn't realise that it had got as
far as trying to ban lead glass over there.
We have a substantial number of "environmental activists" that
actively persue their agendas in the courts and the legislatures. I'm
somewhat on the fence as to their motives and effectiveness. In most
cases, they genuinely believe that what they're doing is saving the
world or preventing some disaster. The problem is that I see as much
environmental abuse by companies and manufactories, as I see abuse by
environmental activists. It's a miserable way to achieve a workable
compromise, but it's all we have.
The issue over lead testing is a marginal example of abuse on both
sides. The environmentalists want to remove lead from just about
everything on the grounds that it's lowering their own IQ. At the
present time, something like 90 to 95% of all lead acid batteries are
properly recycled. Using that as an indication of success, the
environmental activists expanded the program to other uses for lead.
However, unlike batteries, there's no positive financial incentive to
recycle CRT's or circuit boards. So, they provide a negative
incentive. In California, we pay a tax on CRT's, in advance, to pay
for recycling. What's hillarious is that it also includes LCD panels
with have almost no lead in them. Since this is revenue for the
state, the politicians are all for it. The vendors don't care because
they just pass the cost on to the consumer.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Electronics/
In effect, what the money had done is pre-pay the waste disposal
charges. The county would previously charge $10 per monitor to accept
it at the municipal dump. Now, it's just part of the usual handling
fee (currently $8 per pickup truck load). The monitors are seperated
and handled as hazardous waste.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Electronics/.../Retailer/Fee/
http://www.boe.ca.gov/sptaxprog/ewaste.htm
Some photos of the pile. The older photos show computers, printers,
and hi-fi's, which are no longer recycled along with the CRT's.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/e-waste/index.html
Also, not everyone believes the lead recycling figures:
http://www.things.org/~jym/greenpeac...recycling.html
Also, we tend to export our recycling to 3rd world countries with
limited environmental regulations. These countries method of
recycling the lead tends to be rather disgusting, such as building a
big bon-fire, and collecting the melted solder or lead.
But very weak anyway, certainly nothing like as low a
ph as 5, I wouldn't have thought. Of course, there is genuine acid rain,
It's not the acid rain. It's the water leachate from the landfill
that's fairly acidic. The local landfill uses a clay sealer to reduce
water incursion into the landfill. Despite such efforts, acidic water
found in a nearby creek requires treatment to prevent killing
everything alive.
created by pollution in the atmosphere, but I would have thought that if it
was reaching anywhere near 5, every piece of exposed metal would be rotting
away every 2 years, and that there were serious and more pressing problems
with the legislation regarding reducing and removing atmospheric emmissions
from factories.
It doesn't get anywhere near PH=5 from acid rain. However, the use of
such acidic water is part of the test because in some parts of the
country, it is possible to have such an acidic runnoff due to minerals
in the soil, industrial runoff, or previous pollution. Same with
pulverizing the glass. The EPA tests for the worst case senario. I
don't approve of this, but I suspect that nobody wanted to deal with
regional testing variations.
risk, and I really honestly believe that lead in solder is such a low risk
issue - particularly in view of the fact that additional legislation has
been put in place to deal with that risk
http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/a...001/4-lead.htm
http://www.mcsba.org/ed_news/lead.html
http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/burd...ethodan6-6.htm
http://www.unhp.org/lead.html
I think the efforts are justified. What else could explain the lack
of intelligent thinking currently epidemic in the US government?
that the problems its removal is
causing to the electronics manufacturing and repair industries, far outweigh
any short or long term advantages.
Lead poisoning is apparently cumulative. If we project the current
increased levels found in the environment, we are approaching
concentrations which will be difficult to avoid much less remove from
the environment. Better to get rid of the stuff while we can. I
don't like the methods and rationalizations by the environmental
activists, but the cause is justified.
If end of life electronic equipment is now going to be properly recycled
under control of law, then there is no need to replace a valid, mature, and
above all reliable technology, with one that has disastrous potential ...
Nope. Just CRT's. We'll get to electronics eventually.
Incidentally, I once obtained a large pile of NiCad AA cells from a
volume user. It seems it was cheaper to just give me the batteries
than to deal with the handling and paperwork of proper disposal. I
recently also picked up a large pile of fairly good UPS gel-cell
batteries for the same reason. I *LIKE* such laws.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS