"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
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
Jeff
I see all the same arguments regarding children's IQ and lead over here, but
the figures don't seem to add up. When I was a kid, all water was delivered
to houses in lead pipes - and yes, I know all the stuff about the insides of
the pipes coating up with calcium - and all soldered joints on copper pipes
were done with a traditional lead solder. All vehicle petrol ( gasoline )
contained lead for its anti-knock properties. This lead content, for the
most part, went straight out of the cars' tailpipes, and either straight
into our bodies through breathing, or into the eco system by way of
settlement and rain washing. This *must* have resulted in *much* higher
concentrations than we now have, since lead has been removed from petrol.
On this basis, our generation should be the peak of decline in lead-induced
IQ poorness. But look around you. Would you honestly believe that to be so ?
I would consider myself to be of probably a bit above average intelligence
for my generation. I went to a Grammar School, where I neither shone, nor
failed - I was an average kid at that type of school. Now, compared to those
who go to the top schools that we have, I'm a bloody genius. So why are kids
now so thick ? Our illustrious leader Blair, who you couldn't trust to give
you info or figures that weren't covered in massage oil anyway, insists that
kids are getting more and more intelligent by the year. Something ridiculous
like 95% of them now pass their final exams with A or A* grades. Presumably,
apart from his wonderful ( ha! ) education system, lack of lead in their
brains is the reason for this - but wait ! They are actually, in general,
THICK now compared to a couple of generations ago, when there was a lot more
lead around. They manage to get these grades because they are not now taught
the knowledge required to pass any exam on the subject, but the knowledge to
pass the specific one that they are going to get ... I used to talk to a lot
of my own kids' friends, and we see plenty on the TV, and I can't believe
just how far down the toilet, intelligence has gone.
But it's nothing to do with lead in the eco system. It's a social issue.
It's all about attitudes, and half-arsed new teaching methods, and having
classroom assistants who are not qualified or sufficiently intelligent
themselves, to be interacting with our kids. I know a latter-day teacher,
who still doesn't know the difference between the words "bought" and
"brought", so there's another generation of kids on the slippery slope.
If taking lead out of petrol, which when it was in, was by far the best way
of getting pure lead into people, has not reversed this trend, then messing
about removing lead that's locked up chemically in glass and solder, sure as
hell isn't going to have any significant effect. As far as poor recycling
methods in third world countries goes, that cannot be used as an excuse for
not doing it, or saying that the process of recycling is dangerous to
humans. It need not be, if it is carried out correctly.
I agree that efforts to control poisons and hormones and all the other nasty
stuff that gets into our lives, are laudable, but it's a matter of degree.
Some pollutants can never be practically removed, nor do they need to be on
dubious eco-grounds. It is a fact of life that we will always have to endure
some, if we want to carry on living the sorts of consumer-based lives that
we do. You can't protect everybody against everything, and I think that lead
in solder ( and CRTs ) is just one such example where the eco-warriors have
gotten their teeth into something that sounds bad, with apparent tangible
negative effects, and run with it to the point of introducing needless
legislation that costs billions to implement worldwide, has negative effects
on reliability, has already been taken care of with ( acceptable ) recycling
legislation, and results in a worldwide increase in energy budget - with all
that's known of the genuine negative eco effects from that - to implement
use of lead-free solder.
If lead in the environment is really still going up, even though it has now
been removed from petrol, the most pressing question should be " where is it
really coming from ? " I'm willing to bet that they would have a hard time
proving it was from either solder or CRTs ...
Arfa