"Don Bruder" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
"Arfa Daily" wrote:

Unfortunately, if you are professionally involved in the repair of
electronic equipment in Europe, continuing to use leaded solder, unless
the
equipment was placed on the market prior to June 2006 or is manufactured
in
leaded solder now due to an exemption, is no longer a legal option. I am
required under threat of law, to use only solder and components, which
preserve the RoHS approval of the equipment in question. I don't suppose
realistically, that any 'solder police' are going to come knocking on my
door to enforce this, but with some of the jobsworths that there are in
local government departments now, it's just not worth the risk of a
whopping
fine and even the potential for prison, for disobeying the directive.

Arfa

Y'know, normally I'm not of a political bent, but this one just screams
for it...

Didn't you fools in Europe learn *ANYTHING* from the examples of the
USA, USSR, and similar "one government over all" schemes? Take a hint:
Big Central Government equals Big Central Screwing to all persons
unfortunate enough to be subject to its whims.

sigh

Look, mommy! See how much better life is under the nuturing wing of the
EU?

(So says an American victim...)


We 'fools' learnt plenty Don. Which is why most people in the UK don't
consider themselves part of Europe, and never will. If you know anything at
all about the UK, you will know that we are a free democracy. Free, that is,
to be controlled by a government that has now been in too long, and thinks
that it is a dictatorship. You may have seen on your news - because from
what I've seen on your TV when I've been there, just occasionally, the TV
companies do look up on a map wherabouts the UK is, and carry the odd
interest piece - that our wonderful leader Brown (are you aware it's not
Blair any more ?) has just signed up to a new European Treaty that we had
already rejected, along with a couple of other countries. They said it was
different, but all they had actually done, was rename it. Despite promising
the country a referendum on the original treaty, Brown then reneged on that,
contending that it was not the same treaty that they had promised to ask us
whether we wanted ...

You just cannot fight that sort of thing, so whilst we learnt, and
understand all about it, we have little option now but to be swept along in
Euro-hysteria, and comply with all the nonsense self justifying crap that
comes across to us from Brussels :-\

So speaks a British victim ...

Arfa

On Apr 3, 7:13*pm, exray wrote:
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.

Heavens no. I don't fight. I just try to state facts to the best of my
knowledge with as little embellishment as I can. I don't know about
your soldering tools but we now use only Metcal soldering stations at
work besides my personal one at home. Point is a Metcal has a very
well defined temperature not likely to vaporize solder - though what
tool would?

Tried a very small amount of lead free solder, didn't like how it
behaved and then set it aside to keep using leaded solder until I
can't get it anymore. The antique stuff I work on has leaded solder so
it seems proper to repair it with the same type solder

Oddly, using lead free solder on copper pipe was kind of fun in that
the solder had a very well defined melt point that seemed to almost
instantly flow. IIRC it was 95% tin, 5% antimony.

GG

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:29:13 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

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.

Yep. I sorta covered the topic previously:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/msg/e60cf96df9bfb75b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/msg/16de8814c32844b5

Is this Ban Really Necessary?
A Critical Investigation of the CRT Ban
http://www.wrppn.org/hub/hub36/Is_this_ban_necessary_CRT_.pdf

The actual EPA procedure is not really specific to CRT's.
http://www.epa.gov/sw-846/pdfs/1311.pdf

Here's a summary of the CRT testing procedure and some results:
http://www.hinkleycenter.com/publications/lead_leachability_99-5.pdf
(See Methodology starting on page 7).

"Once divided, each section was reduced in size as required by EPA
SW846 method 1311, the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure.
The TCLP is the test prescribed by the U.S. EPA to determine whether a
solid waste is hazardous by the toxicity characteristic. Each division
of a tube was tested separately (i.e. the neck, funnel, and faceplate
were analyzed individually). A sample of glass, from 200 to 500 grams,
was placed in a stainless steel bowl. The glass was covered by a cloth
for protection from airborne glass, and manually crushed with a
standard hammer. Intermittently, the glass was separated through a
9.5-mm sieve and the remaining large fraction returned to the bowl for
further crushing. The remainder of the glass (that not crushed) was
saved. For the face and funnel fractions, the remaining material mass
was often large (relative to the amount crushed the test). The rest of
method 1311 was completed and the leachate was digested and analyzed
for lead using SW846 methods 3010A and 7420."

In other words, pulverize the glass and then test for lead leaching
into various pH caustics.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:29:13 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

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.

Most of the x-rays emitted by CRT's come out the BACK of the tube, not
the front. The shadow mask blocks most of them. That's also why
there's much more lead in the neck of the CRT, than in the face.

This has a fairly good table of lead content in CRT's.
http://www.eiae.org/chemicals/files/EIA_CRT_5-01.pdf
From page 3:
"The average CRT for the time period 1995 to 2000,
including televisions and monitors, is an 18.63-inch
CRT with a lead content that varies from 2.14 lbs
to 2.63 lbs."
Note that this was in 2001. It's much less now.

None of the current LCD panel manufacturers use lead in their LCD
panels. Yet, the People's Republic of California insists on treating
LCD panels (pre-pay recycling fee, hazardous waste, special handling,
etc) the same way as CRT's. That's probably because they can't tell
the difference between a CRT and and an LCD. Sigh.



--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:29:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

That's also why
there's much more lead in the neck of the CRT, than in the face.

Sorry. I meant to say that there's much more lead in the funnel, not
the neck.

This has a fairly good table of lead content in CRT's.
http://www.eiae.org/chemicals/files/EIA_CRT_5-01.pdf

See Appendix B for the lead content table.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

"Jeff Liebermann"

Most of the x-rays emitted by CRT's come out the BACK of the tube, not
the front. The shadow mask blocks most of them.


** How so ??

X-rays are generated at the point where maximum electron deceleration
occurs - ie as the moment they

1. Hit the colour phosphors.

2. Are intercepted and absorbed by the shadow mask while on the way
there.

In case 1, x-rays travelling towards the viewer are absorbed only by the
face glass.

In case 2, x-rays are generated on the reverse side of the shadow mask
and then travel both forward and backwards. Those travelling forwards
are absorbed by the face glass.

The face glass is many times thicker than the rest of a CRT's glass - so it
contains most of the of lead.

The shadow mask itself is made from very thin alloys sheet ( " invar " or
nickel-iron) so will not absorb x-rays to any great extent.



...... Phil






That's also why
there's much more lead in the neck of the CRT, than in the face.

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Jay Ts" wrote in message
g.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.

Eco********. Covers what a lot of this bull actually is ...

Arfa


Try tin/silver, *no* copper.
Nice shiny (sexy looking?) surfaces, easy to solder, have seen no
problems in 2 years where circuits get a lot of temperature cycling.

Jeff Liebermann wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:29:13 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

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.

Most of the x-rays emitted by CRT's come out the BACK of the tube, not
the front. The shadow mask blocks most of them. That's also why
there's much more lead in the neck of the CRT, than in the face.

This has a fairly good table of lead content in CRT's.
http://www.eiae.org/chemicals/files/EIA_CRT_5-01.pdf
From page 3:
"The average CRT for the time period 1995 to 2000,
including televisions and monitors, is an 18.63-inch
CRT with a lead content that varies from 2.14 lbs
to 2.63 lbs."
Note that this was in 2001. It's much less now.

None of the current LCD panel manufacturers use lead in their LCD
panels. Yet, the People's Republic of California insists on treating
LCD panels (pre-pay recycling fee, hazardous waste, special handling,
etc) the same way as CRT's. That's probably because they can't tell
the difference between a CRT and and an LCD. Sigh.



--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS



How toxic is LCD liquid crystal though ?

snip

Tried a very small amount of lead free solder, didn't like how it
behaved and then set it aside to keep using leaded solder until I
can't get it anymore. The antique stuff I work on has leaded solder so
it seems proper to repair it with the same type solder


Indeed, some experts recommend this, saying that mixing leaded and lead-free
in the same joint, reduces the potential integrity of that joint

Arfa

"Robert Baer" wrote in message
news:vIidndjK9McujWranZ2dnUVZ_qbinZ2d@localnet...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Jay Ts" wrote in message
g.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.

Eco********. Covers what a lot of this bull actually is ...

Arfa
Try tin/silver, *no* copper.
Nice shiny (sexy looking?) surfaces, easy to solder, have seen no
problems in 2 years where circuits get a lot of temperature cycling.


My usual supplier was doing small samples of just about every type that he
carried. I'll have a look and see if he still is. What's the melting
temperature of that mix, and what's the price like ?

Arfa

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Liebermann"

Most of the x-rays emitted by CRT's come out the BACK of the tube, not
the front. The shadow mask blocks most of them.


** How so ??

X-rays are generated at the point where maximum electron deceleration
occurs - ie as the moment they

1. Hit the colour phosphors.

2. Are intercepted and absorbed by the shadow mask while on the way
there.

In case 1, x-rays travelling towards the viewer are absorbed only by the
face glass.

In case 2, x-rays are generated on the reverse side of the shadow mask
and then travel both forward and backwards. Those travelling forwards
are absorbed by the face glass.

The face glass is many times thicker than the rest of a CRT's glass - so
it
contains most of the of lead.

The shadow mask itself is made from very thin alloys sheet ( " invar " or
nickel-iron) so will not absorb x-rays to any great extent.



..... Phil



That was kinda the way I understood it too, from my old college days, but
that was a long time ago ...

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

Tried a very small amount of lead free solder, didn't like how it
behaved and then set it aside to keep using leaded solder until I
can't get it anymore. The antique stuff I work on has leaded solder so
it seems proper to repair it with the same type solder

Indeed, some experts recommend this, saying that mixing leaded and lead-free
in the same joint, reduces the potential integrity of that joint

Absolutely. When repairing old kit use leaded solder.

Graham

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 17:09:39 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann"

Most of the x-rays emitted by CRT's come out the BACK of the tube, not
the front. The shadow mask blocks most of them.

X-rays are generated at the point where maximum electron deceleration
occurs - ie as the moment they

1. Hit the colour phosphors.

2. Are intercepted and absorbed by the shadow mask while on the way
there.
d
Yep. See the scribbling of the Coolidge Tube at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube#Coolidge_tube
Note the x-rays are produced when they hit the metal anode targe (A)
and are *REFLECTED* to wherever they need to be going. The same thing
happens in a CRT. The accelerated electrons from the filament hit the
shadow mask and produce x-rays which are reflected back towards the
filament.

Also see comments on x-rays (ionizing radiation) at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube#Ionizing_radiation

In case 1, x-rays travelling towards the viewer are absorbed only by the
face glass.

The metal CRT shadow mask is fairly impervious to x-rays. What
electrons go through the holes in the shadow mask to light up the
phosphor dots, do not produce x-rays.

In case 2, x-rays are generated on the reverse side of the shadow mask
and then travel both forward and backwards. Those travelling forwards
are absorbed by the face glass.

Most travel backwards (reflected) which is why the funnel of the CRT
has much more lead in it than the screen.

The face glass is many times thicker than the rest of a CRT's glass - so it
contains most of the of lead.

See appendix B at:
http://www.eiae.org/chemicals/files/EIA_CRT_5-01.pdf
For a 19" CRT, the amount of lead is:
neck 0.027 lbs
funnel 2.1 lbs
panel 0.5 lbs
frit 0.079 lbs

The shadow mask itself is made from very thin alloys sheet ( " invar " or
nickel-iron) so will not absorb x-rays to any great extent.

The shadow mask is made from Invar for mechanical stability. The
alignment of the electron beam to the phosphor dots (or lines) is
critical to maintain proper convergence. The tube gets warm and
having the aperature screen drift would be a bad idea.

When I was young (and stupid), I took some sealed Polaroid ASA 3000
speed "film" sheets, attached some coins to the surface, and plastered
them all over a late 1960's vintage color TV, where I was working.
After running the TV all day, I developed the pictures, and found a
noticeable lightening around the coins. (Polaroid "film" is positive
exposure, not negative). The shadow wasn't very distinct. The "film"
on the front screen was barely exposed, while the "film" near the Hi-V
cable was more noticeable. The "film" had to be attached to the CRT
to get any kind of exposure. Those on the cabinet showed no shadows.
About the only change that this prompted in my lifestyle was to not
leave my loaded film camera on top of the TV set.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

When I was young (and stupid), I took some sealed Polaroid ASA 3000
speed "film" sheets, attached some coins to the surface, and plastered
them all over a late 1960's vintage color TV, where I was working.
After running the TV all day, I developed the pictures, and found a
noticeable lightening around the coins. (Polaroid "film" is positive
exposure, not negative). The shadow wasn't very distinct. The "film"
on the front screen was barely exposed, while the "film" near the Hi-V
cable was more noticeable. The "film" had to be attached to the CRT
to get any kind of exposure. Those on the cabinet showed no shadows.
About the only change that this prompted in my lifestyle was to not
leave my loaded film camera on top of the TV set.

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.

Arfa Daily wrote:
....
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.
...

All this being obviously true, it is inconceivable that the ROHS thing
has been done out of sheer stupidity - noone is that stupid, even
though
those in high offices routinely want to look that in order to be left
alone.
I can think of no plausible explanation for this ROHS madness
other than a well planned and executed sabotage action agaist the
countries which have (and rely on) an electronics industry. At a
scale that large, even the most expensive to bribe officials cost
peanuts.

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tg...7600228621276/

Original message: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...b?dmode=source

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.

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

--
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080331/D8VOMVT02.html
Chelsea Clinton Criticizes Bush in N.C.

Talk about "dog bites man"...

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.


Close. Most HV rectifiers were inside steel boxes, with the flyback
transformer. The HV shunt regulator was exposed on some chassis, and
were the worst source. GE made replacements with a thick, lead
impregnated synthetic rubber coating to modify TVs built with those
chassis series. Then changes were made to the entire HV system to
eliminate the HV shunt regulator on later designs.


--
aioe.org is home to cowards and terrorists

Add this line to your news proxy nfilter.dat file
* drop Path:*aioe.org!not-for-mail to drop all aioe.org traffic.

http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

nospam wrote:
Jay Ts wrote:

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.

By this I meant that if it's deeper than groundwater, there's
a nearly zero chance of it getting into the water, or being a
problem in any other way.

Also, I had run into some information about lead toxicity several
years ago that said that naturally-occurring lead compounds are
not as much a problem as artificial (industrial) ones, because
living beings are evolved to handle the "organic" (I think it
was orthophosphate, but am not sure) form of lead, and can more
easily flush it out of the body, preventing bioaccumulation.
I tried just now to find that info again, but couldn't.

Lead is an element, it is composed of lead and can't decompose. It is so
soluble that water pipes and roofs are made out of it......

Lead is an element, it is a toxic element, and it can react chemcially
to make toxic compounds. It can corrode when exposed to water,
and the corrosion by-products are soluble enough that lead found
in drinking water comes mostly from the lead in pipes and solder
used to hold the pipes together.

References:
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/pollairpolead.html
http://www.epa.gov/lead/
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/lead.html
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/t-ioc/lead.html

I went to the EPA site and did a search on "lead" because it
became clear to me from previous discussion here that I really
didn't know enough about lead toxicity to write at my usual
level of knowledge. As I've said, I know more about other,
more toxic, heavy metals, and lead has not been of big concern
to me.

What I read at the EPA's site confirmed that there isn't much
cause for concern with regards to the lead in solder. They
say that although there is cause for concern, lead doesn't
have as great a bioaccumulation factor as other heavy metals.
And they didn't say anything at all about electronic solder
or people who work with it, so it looks like those who said
they got blood tests that showed no problem are justified
to feel they are ok. (If it were me, and maybe it is, I'd
still get the test done that uses a hair sample, just to
make sure.)

Most of the fuss in the past was about lead-based paint and
lead from car exhaust. Both of those have been phased out.
(Although recently there have been problems with lead paint
being used on toys made in China.)

The EPA hardly mentioned solder at all. As far as I could
find, only with regards to water pipe and tin cans (where
it is also no longer used).

Looks like I was right about the lead smelting operations,
though. And wouldn't you know it, most of that is done in
the general region of the planet in which I live (SW USA).
By far, most of the lead in use is for car batteries,
so I don't see any need to give up leaded solder just
for that.

In the Wikipedia article for "solder", it is said that
smoke from solder flux can contain a little lead oxide,
and that the flux smoke itself can be toxic. So I'll be
a little more careful to have good ventilation while
soldering. Pretty simple!

Although the EPA noted that metallic lead does corrode,
resulting in toxic soluble compounds, they didn't say anywhere
(at least that I could find) that lead in landfills is
considered a significant problem, and there was no mention
of danger from tossing used electronics in the trash.

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

"clifto" wrote in message
...
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.

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

Alpha rays are helium nuclei. Not likely, and not particularly dangerous.

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:47:53 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

When I was young (and stupid), I took some sealed Polaroid ASA 3000
speed "film" sheets, attached some coins to the surface, and plastered
them all over a late 1960's vintage color TV, where I was working.
After running the TV all day, I developed the pictures, and found a
noticeable lightening around the coins. (Polaroid "film" is positive
exposure, not negative). The shadow wasn't very distinct. The "film"
on the front screen was barely exposed, while the "film" near the Hi-V
cable was more noticeable. The "film" had to be attached to the CRT
to get any kind of exposure. Those on the cabinet showed no shadows.
About the only change that this prompted in my lifestyle was to not
leave my loaded film camera on top of the TV set.

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.

The principal source of X-ray emissions on a CRT is from the electrons
hitting the slot mask immediately behind the phosphor screen face, as
well as electron impacts on the phosphors themselves..

"Principal"? Two wrongs in one word.

X-rays are exhibited whenever an electron strikes a metal surface.

Whenever? Riiggghhtt, Dimbulb.

With things like a welding arc, it is barely measurable and considered
negligible. A TV screen, however, is thousands of "arcs" at one time. It
is still fairly negligible, however.

No, HV power supplies, even those intended for use as an anode supply,
do not emit X-rays.

AlwaysWring strikes again!


--
Keith

"Didi" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
....
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.
...

All this being obviously true, it is inconceivable that the ROHS thing
has been done out of sheer stupidity - noone is that stupid, even
though
those in high offices routinely want to look that in order to be left
alone.
I can think of no plausible explanation for this ROHS madness
other than a well planned and executed sabotage action agaist the
countries which have (and rely on) an electronics industry. At a
scale that large, even the most expensive to bribe officials cost
peanuts.

Dimiter


I don't think that I would say that it has been done out of "sheer
stupidity" - more out of misinformed madness. My feeling is that once lead
had been determined to be a potential health hazard, as it probably was when
lead compounds were added to petrol as anti-knock agents, then all uses of
the material became automatically 'demonised', irrespective of whether any
threat from them was real, or imagined. The eco******** that I have referred
to elsewhere in this thread, has reached the point of unjustified hysteria
amongst both the politicos and, worryingly, the scientific establishment,
who should know better.

Governments rely heavily on so-called scientific advisors, but it seems to
me that many of these are receiving commercial grants from government, and
will tell them whatever they want to hear. Much of the current ecohysteria
that is reported in the press, is based on very dubious science, that in my
day, would have been thrown out of school for poor methodology. I, and most
others in the electronic service industry, simply do not believe that lead
in solder represents any threat to health, or the environment at all, and I
personally have seen no persuasive evidence from any quarter to convince me
otherwise.

I think that lead based solder is just an unfortunate victim of someone's
over-enthusiastic approach to anything containing lead, and the whole RoHS
thing has just swept it along with itself, without those who caused it in
the first place, understanding the full implications of just what they've
done. Apart from anything else, just consider how much extra power is being
used every day world wide, to run all of the production solder baths and
hand soldering tools, 30 or 40 degrees hotter than was needed for lead-based
solder ... Eco-friendly, or what ...?

Arfa

snip

Although the EPA noted that metallic lead does corrode,
resulting in toxic soluble compounds, they didn't say anywhere
(at least that I could find) that lead in landfills is
considered a significant problem, and there was no mention
of danger from tossing used electronics in the trash.

Jay Ts
--

Unless, of course, it's a CFL full of nasty mercury compounds ... d;~}

Arfa

On 05 Apr 2008 20:31:02 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

nospam wrote:
Jay Ts wrote:

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.

By this I meant that if it's deeper than groundwater, there's
a nearly zero chance of it getting into the water, or being a
problem in any other way.

Also, I had run into some information about lead toxicity several
years ago that said that naturally-occurring lead compounds are
not as much a problem as artificial (industrial) ones, because
living beings are evolved to handle the "organic" (I think it
was orthophosphate, but am not sure) form of lead, and can more
easily flush it out of the body, preventing bioaccumulation.
I tried just now to find that info again, but couldn't.

Lead is an element, it is composed of lead and can't decompose. It is so
soluble that water pipes and roofs are made out of it......

Lead is an element, it is a toxic element, and it can react chemcially
to make toxic compounds. It can corrode when exposed to water,
and the corrosion by-products are soluble enough that lead found
in drinking water comes mostly from the lead in pipes and solder
used to hold the pipes together.

References:
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/pollairpolead.html
http://www.epa.gov/lead/
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/lead.html
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/t-ioc/lead.html

I went to the EPA site and did a search on "lead" because it
became clear to me from previous discussion here that I really
didn't know enough about lead toxicity to write at my usual
level of knowledge. As I've said, I know more about other,
more toxic, heavy metals, and lead has not been of big concern
to me.

What I read at the EPA's site confirmed that there isn't much
cause for concern with regards to the lead in solder. They
say that although there is cause for concern, lead doesn't
have as great a bioaccumulation factor as other heavy metals.
And they didn't say anything at all about electronic solder
or people who work with it, so it looks like those who said
they got blood tests that showed no problem are justified
to feel they are ok. (If it were me, and maybe it is, I'd
still get the test done that uses a hair sample, just to
make sure.)

Most of the fuss in the past was about lead-based paint and
lead from car exhaust. Both of those have been phased out.
(Although recently there have been problems with lead paint
being used on toys made in China.)

The EPA hardly mentioned solder at all. As far as I could
find, only with regards to water pipe and tin cans (where
it is also no longer used).

Looks like I was right about the lead smelting operations,
though. And wouldn't you know it, most of that is done in
the general region of the planet in which I live (SW USA).
By far, most of the lead in use is for car batteries,
so I don't see any need to give up leaded solder just
for that.

In the Wikipedia article for "solder", it is said that
smoke from solder flux can contain a little lead oxide,
and that the flux smoke itself can be toxic. So I'll be
a little more careful to have good ventilation while
soldering. Pretty simple!

Although the EPA noted that metallic lead does corrode,
resulting in toxic soluble compounds, they didn't say anywhere
(at least that I could find) that lead in landfills is
considered a significant problem, and there was no mention
of danger from tossing used electronics in the trash.

---
In my opinion, this brouhaha about the elimination of lead in solder
has been brought about by Europe's (led by the UK, of course) trying
to bend everyone to their will, once again, (empire dies hard) with
the UK leading the charge by claiming that all lead based solders are
evil.

Idiots die hard.

JF

"Jeff Liebermann"
"Phil Allison"

Most of the x-rays emitted by CRT's come out the BACK of the tube, not
the front. The shadow mask blocks most of them.

X-rays are generated at the point where maximum electron deceleration
occurs - ie as the moment they

1. Hit the colour phosphors.

2. Are intercepted and absorbed by the shadow mask while on the way
there.

( delete drivel)


In case 1, x-rays travelling towards the viewer are absorbed only by the
face glass.

The metal CRT shadow mask is fairly impervious to x-rays.


** Nonsense - the x-ray attenuation factor of thin Fe-Ni alloy is small.



What
electrons go through the holes in the shadow mask to light up the
phosphor dots, do not produce x-rays.


** Wiki disagrees.

You got a cite for that ?



In case 2, x-rays are generated on the reverse side of the shadow mask
and then travel both forward and backwards. Those travelling forwards
are absorbed by the face glass.

Most travel backwards (reflected) which is why the funnel of the CRT
has much more lead in it than the screen.


** Maybe so, but the face glass is way thicker.


The face glass is many times thicker than the rest of a CRT's glass - so
it
contains most of the of lead.

See appendix B at:
http://www.eiae.org/chemicals/files/EIA_CRT_5-01.pdf


** You must be desperate to use survey crapology as evidence.


The shadow mask itself is made from very thin alloys sheet ( " invar " or
nickel-iron) so will not absorb x-rays to any great extent.

The shadow mask is made from Invar for mechanical stability.


** Irrelevant to the point - fool.


When I was young (and stupid),


** When ???

It ain't changed.



...... Phil

Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Didi" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:

I don't think that I would say that it has been done out of "sheer
stupidity" - more out of misinformed madness. My feeling is that once lead
had been determined to be a potential health hazard, as it probably was
when
lead compounds were added to petrol as anti-knock agents, then all uses of
the material became automatically 'demonised', irrespective of whether any
threat from them was real, or imagined. The eco******** that I have
referred
to elsewhere in this thread, has reached the point of unjustified hysteria
amongst both the politicos and, worryingly, the scientific establishment,
who should know better.

Governments rely heavily on so-called scientific advisors, but it seems to
me that many of these are receiving commercial grants from government, and
will tell them whatever they want to hear. Much of the current ecohysteria
that is reported in the press, is based on very dubious science, that in
my
day, would have been thrown out of school for poor methodology. I, and
most
others in the electronic service industry, simply do not believe that lead
in solder represents any threat to health, or the environment at all, and
I
personally have seen no persuasive evidence from any quarter to convince
me
otherwise.

I think that lead based solder is just an unfortunate victim of someone's
over-enthusiastic approach to anything containing lead, and the whole RoHS
thing has just swept it along with itself, without those who caused it in
the first place, understanding the full implications of just what they've
done. Apart from anything else, just consider how much extra power is
being
used every day world wide, to run all of the production solder baths and
hand soldering tools, 30 or 40 degrees hotter than was needed for
lead-based
solder ... Eco-friendly, or what ...?

Arfa



I recently went to a lecture by Jim Thurston, Medical Engineering and
Physics, King's College Hospital, London; mainly about hormesis and
background to the polonium murder of Litvinenko in London.

But at the end I asked for an explanation of something that has always
evaded me. Why some incinerator plants are licensed to incinerate low level
radioactive waste , as it gives the impression that you can rid radioactive
material be incineration, compared to landfill.

The answer, from that government scientific advisor, was along the lines
that a lot of it is for the purpose of incinerating biological hazard
material that is also radioctive.
Then it is a matter of distributing the plume of radioctive outfall , from
the smoke/gases, over as wide an area as possible, of adjascent
communnities.
It is some sort of ststistical exercise. Too much radiation per Kg then it
cannot be allowed to be dumped but if the radioctive component from that Kg
is distributed over some (unspecified) large area of land surface then that
is permitted.

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

Arfa Daily wrote:
snip

Tried a very small amount of lead free solder, didn't like how it
behaved and then set it aside to keep using leaded solder until I
can't get it anymore. The antique stuff I work on has leaded solder so
it seems proper to repair it with the same type solder



Indeed, some experts recommend this, saying that mixing leaded and lead-free
in the same joint, reduces the potential integrity of that joint

Arfa


I would not know about integtrity, but the MP of the mix is a *lot*
lower than lead-free (solder).

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Robert Baer" wrote in message
news:vIidndjK9McujWranZ2dnUVZ_qbinZ2d@localnet...

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Jay Ts" wrote in message
ting.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.

Eco********. Covers what a lot of this bull actually is ...

Arfa

Try tin/silver, *no* copper.
Nice shiny (sexy looking?) surfaces, easy to solder, have seen no
problems in 2 years where circuits get a lot of temperature cycling.



My usual supplier was doing small samples of just about every type that he
carried. I'll have a look and see if he still is. What's the melting
temperature of that mix, and what's the price like ?

Arfa


MP of Sn96.5 Ag3.5 is 430F/221C.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

When I was young (and stupid), I took some sealed Polaroid ASA 3000
speed "film" sheets, attached some coins to the surface, and plastered
them all over a late 1960's vintage color TV, where I was working.
After running the TV all day, I developed the pictures, and found a
noticeable lightening around the coins. (Polaroid "film" is positive
exposure, not negative). The shadow wasn't very distinct. The "film"
on the front screen was barely exposed, while the "film" near the Hi-V
cable was more noticeable. The "film" had to be attached to the CRT
to get any kind of exposure. Those on the cabinet showed no shadows.
About the only change that this prompted in my lifestyle was to not
leave my loaded film camera on top of the TV set.


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.


Speaking about feet, remember the "scopes" in some shoe stores that
would show a real-time X-ray of one's wiggling feet/toes?

"N_Cook" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Didi" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:

I don't think that I would say that it has been done out of "sheer
stupidity" - more out of misinformed madness. My feeling is that once
lead
had been determined to be a potential health hazard, as it probably was
when
lead compounds were added to petrol as anti-knock agents, then all uses
of
the material became automatically 'demonised', irrespective of whether
any
threat from them was real, or imagined. The eco******** that I have
referred
to elsewhere in this thread, has reached the point of unjustified
hysteria
amongst both the politicos and, worryingly, the scientific establishment,
who should know better.

Governments rely heavily on so-called scientific advisors, but it seems
to
me that many of these are receiving commercial grants from government,
and
will tell them whatever they want to hear. Much of the current
ecohysteria
that is reported in the press, is based on very dubious science, that in
my
day, would have been thrown out of school for poor methodology. I, and
most
others in the electronic service industry, simply do not believe that
lead
in solder represents any threat to health, or the environment at all, and
I
personally have seen no persuasive evidence from any quarter to convince
me
otherwise.

I think that lead based solder is just an unfortunate victim of someone's
over-enthusiastic approach to anything containing lead, and the whole
RoHS
thing has just swept it along with itself, without those who caused it in
the first place, understanding the full implications of just what they've
done. Apart from anything else, just consider how much extra power is
being
used every day world wide, to run all of the production solder baths and
hand soldering tools, 30 or 40 degrees hotter than was needed for
lead-based
solder ... Eco-friendly, or what ...?

Arfa



I recently went to a lecture by Jim Thurston, Medical Engineering and
Physics, King's College Hospital, London; mainly about hormesis and
background to the polonium murder of Litvinenko in London.

But at the end I asked for an explanation of something that has always
evaded me. Why some incinerator plants are licensed to incinerate low
level
radioactive waste , as it gives the impression that you can rid
radioactive
material be incineration, compared to landfill.

The answer, from that government scientific advisor, was along the lines
that a lot of it is for the purpose of incinerating biological hazard
material that is also radioctive.
Then it is a matter of distributing the plume of radioctive outfall , from
the smoke/gases, over as wide an area as possible, of adjascent
communnities.
It is some sort of ststistical exercise. Too much radiation per Kg then it
cannot be allowed to be dumped but if the radioctive component from that
Kg
is distributed over some (unspecified) large area of land surface then
that
is permitted.

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


So that about says it, doesn't it ? 'Official' government advice from
someone that you would expect better of, based on what you would have to say
was at best, 'dubious science' !! It defies belief, but goes a long way
towards explaining to 'eco-believers' why things such as lead-free solder,
are actually nonsense ...

Arfa

Arfa

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
On 05 Apr 2008 20:31:02 GMT, Jay Ts
wrote:

nospam wrote:
Jay Ts wrote:

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.

By this I meant that if it's deeper than groundwater, there's
a nearly zero chance of it getting into the water, or being a
problem in any other way.

Also, I had run into some information about lead toxicity several
years ago that said that naturally-occurring lead compounds are
not as much a problem as artificial (industrial) ones, because
living beings are evolved to handle the "organic" (I think it
was orthophosphate, but am not sure) form of lead, and can more
easily flush it out of the body, preventing bioaccumulation.
I tried just now to find that info again, but couldn't.

Lead is an element, it is composed of lead and can't decompose. It is so
soluble that water pipes and roofs are made out of it......

Lead is an element, it is a toxic element, and it can react chemcially
to make toxic compounds. It can corrode when exposed to water,
and the corrosion by-products are soluble enough that lead found
in drinking water comes mostly from the lead in pipes and solder
used to hold the pipes together.

References:
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/pollairpolead.html
http://www.epa.gov/lead/
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/lead.html
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/t-ioc/lead.html

I went to the EPA site and did a search on "lead" because it
became clear to me from previous discussion here that I really
didn't know enough about lead toxicity to write at my usual
level of knowledge. As I've said, I know more about other,
more toxic, heavy metals, and lead has not been of big concern
to me.

What I read at the EPA's site confirmed that there isn't much
cause for concern with regards to the lead in solder. They
say that although there is cause for concern, lead doesn't
have as great a bioaccumulation factor as other heavy metals.
And they didn't say anything at all about electronic solder
or people who work with it, so it looks like those who said
they got blood tests that showed no problem are justified
to feel they are ok. (If it were me, and maybe it is, I'd
still get the test done that uses a hair sample, just to
make sure.)

Most of the fuss in the past was about lead-based paint and
lead from car exhaust. Both of those have been phased out.
(Although recently there have been problems with lead paint
being used on toys made in China.)

The EPA hardly mentioned solder at all. As far as I could
find, only with regards to water pipe and tin cans (where
it is also no longer used).

Looks like I was right about the lead smelting operations,
though. And wouldn't you know it, most of that is done in
the general region of the planet in which I live (SW USA).
By far, most of the lead in use is for car batteries,
so I don't see any need to give up leaded solder just
for that.

In the Wikipedia article for "solder", it is said that
smoke from solder flux can contain a little lead oxide,
and that the flux smoke itself can be toxic. So I'll be
a little more careful to have good ventilation while
soldering. Pretty simple!

Although the EPA noted that metallic lead does corrode,
resulting in toxic soluble compounds, they didn't say anywhere
(at least that I could find) that lead in landfills is
considered a significant problem, and there was no mention
of danger from tossing used electronics in the trash.

---
In my opinion, this brouhaha about the elimination of lead in solder
has been brought about by Europe's (led by the UK, of course) trying
to bend everyone to their will, once again, (empire dies hard) with
the UK leading the charge by claiming that all lead based solders are
evil.

Idiots die hard.

JF

You clearly know nothing at all of Europe or its politics. If you seriously
believe that the UK is responsible for bringing about ANY Europe-wide
legislation, you are very seriously deluded. All Euro******** is driven by
the likes of France and Germany, and our emasculated government just roll
over at every opportunity, and follow like sheep. Do you actually know
anything of the British Empire's history ? It was not about bending people's
political will. It was about having a world united in friendship and trade.
Admittedly, it was about ensuring that the trade was to our global
advantage, but overall, the world was a better and more peaceful place back
in those days. Now, we have 'superpowers' like the US, who want every
country in the world to become another US state, with the same language,
political views, religion, consumer and oil driven economies and so on. And
you accuse US of trying to bend wills ? Sheesh.

Arfa

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

Although the EPA noted that metallic lead does corrode,
resulting in toxic soluble compounds, they didn't say
anywhere (at least that I could find) that lead in landfills is
considered a significant problem, and there was no mention
of danger from tossing used electronics in the trash.

Unless, of course, it's a CFL full of nasty mercury compounds ... d;~}

I assume you're being hyperbolic for humorous effect. But there is only a
tiny amount of mercury in a fluorescent tube.

"Robert Baer" wrote in message
news:8ZOdnSvB__wOHGXanZ2dnUVZ_rninZ2d@localnet...

Speaking about feet, remember the "scopes" in shoe stores
that showed a real-time X-ray of one's wiggling feet/toes?

Yes, I'm old enough to remember those.

There's a Discovery or History Channel show with a segment attacking these
fluoroscopes. They not only generated more X-radiation than needed, but
spewed it all over the place.

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 19:52:47 -0400, krw wrote:

X-rays are exhibited whenever an electron strikes a metal surface.

Whenever? Riiggghhtt, Dimbulb.

Yes, you retarded ****head.

First off, how fast is an electron moving when it is in free air or a
vacuum?

You said "whenever", Dimbulb. As always, you're AlwaysWrong.

If the return for a "source" of an electron or stream of electrons is
metallic, something those of us in the industry refer to as a target,
when said electron strikes that return point, it WILL emit X-rays.

If "it", no matter what the energy of the electron? Dimmie, you're
a prize!

An X-ray emitter tube for X-ray machines works on that very principle!

A beam of electrons strikes a Palladium return point or target, and
X-ray flux emission off the face of the target is one of the resultant
effects of said electron beam's entry into said return point.

The differences are in power level, and also different mediums exhibit
X_rays better than others.

The fact still remains, however,that ALL metals DO exhibit SOME amount
of X-rays when struck by an electron or electron beam.

ALL? No matter what the energy of the electrons?

So Shut The **** Up, KeithTard!

Dimbulb, you need to look in a mirror, if you can find one that
won't shatter!

--
Keith

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 09:36:13 +0100, "N_Cook" wrote:

[snip...snip...]
The answer, from that government scientific advisor, was along the lines
that a lot of it is for the purpose of incinerating biological hazard
material that is also radioctive.
Then it is a matter of distributing the plume of radioctive outfall , from
the smoke/gases, over as wide an area as possible, of adjascent
communnities.

Brings to mind the old saying: The solution to pollution is dilution.
Thus, we now have oceanic dead zones off the coasts.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

Although the EPA noted that metallic lead does corrode,
resulting in toxic soluble compounds, they didn't say
anywhere (at least that I could find) that lead in landfills is
considered a significant problem, and there was no mention
of danger from tossing used electronics in the trash.

Unless, of course, it's a CFL full of nasty mercury compounds ... d;~}

I assume you're being hyperbolic for humorous effect. But there is only a
tiny amount of mercury in a fluorescent tube.



You assume correctly. However, it is a serious point, because there is more
mercury in there than the official maximum limit for disposal in regular
household garbage in Europe (apparently). At my local dump, there is a
special bin for 'regular' fluorescent tubes, but no mention of CFLs, which
I'm sure that many people don't realise, also employ the same basic
technology. Incidentally, in an effort to promote these hateful lights, my
local supermarket is 'giving them away' for 1 penny each. Another one was
giving them free with a certain amount of shopping a few weeks ago. So I
wonder how that equates with the proposals to 'build in' the cost of
disposal of electronic waste, to the retail price ...?

Arfa

In an effort to promote these hateful lights, my local supermarket
is "giving them away" for 1 penny each.

I'm right-well pleased with the $2 21W CFLs from Home Despot. Their balance
is close to daylight (as confirmed with digital photographs taken under
their light), and in a glass (or even plastic) fixture, you'd never know
they were fluorescents. *

They're not only cheaper to operate than incandescents (regular or halide),
but they come on _instantly_. Faster, actually, than incandescents, which
you can see "ramp up".

Last year Home Despot gave away 12W CFLs on Black Friday. I stuck mine in
the fixture next to my condo's front door. It's always burning out, because
the owners' association doesn't understand why they should use 130V, rather
than 120V, lamps.

* In my kitchen, living room, and two bedrooms, I've hung beautiful glass
fixtures from IKEA. They're white glass, and have the sort of utterly simple
design that will be considered classic even 1000 years from now. I just hope
they survive that long, because IKEA doesn't make them any more. (Natch.) I
had to scramble to find the four I have. By the way, they replaced four of
those awful "tin-can" spotlights.

I said "halide" when I meant to say "halogen". They're not quite the same
thing.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Robert Baer" wrote in message
news:8ZOdnSvB__wOHGXanZ2dnUVZ_rninZ2d@localnet...

Speaking about feet, remember the "scopes" in shoe stores
that showed a real-time X-ray of one's wiggling feet/toes?

Yes, I'm old enough to remember those.

There's a Discovery or History Channel show with a segment attacking these
fluoroscopes. They not only generated more X-radiation than needed, but
spewed it all over the place.

It wasn't believed back then to be very harmful. Hell, in those days,
Superman used X-ray vision to heat stuff, he didn't have heat vision until
x-rays became politically incorrect.

I'm sure everyone will be pleased to hear that my feet haven't fallen off
from having used those machines.

--
$109,000,000 in income! Capitalism works GREAT for Billary...
...why does she want Marxism for us?

Arfa Daily wrote:

Incidentally, in an effort to promote these
hateful lights, my local supermarket is 'giving them away' for 1 penny
each.

Arfa

I got some of those ! 11 watt rated.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 12:04:56 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

The metal CRT shadow mask is fairly impervious to x-rays.

** Nonsense - the x-ray attenuation factor of thin Fe-Ni alloy is small.

The x-rays are produced by the electron beam hitting the metal. One
characteristic of metals is that they have loosely bound outer
electrons. That's why metals conduct electricity. Hit the metal atom
hard enough, and one of the electrons in the inner shell gets knocked
out. The outer electron falls inward to replace the displaced
electron, emitting x-rays in the process.

What
electrons go through the holes in the shadow mask to light up the
phosphor dots, do not produce x-rays.

** Wiki disagrees.
You got a cite for that ?

Got a reference page from whatever Wiki you were reading that says
phosphors emit x-rays when pounded on by electrons?

I don't do any extra work for anyone spewing vague denunciations
without substantiation. If you claim your "Wiki" reference is more
accurate than mine, kindly supply the URL and applicable quotes.

This article has a fairly simple explanation of x-ray production from
a Scientific American article:
http://www.noah.org/science/x-ray/stong/
I have the original article somewhere in my pile of books.

See appendix B at:
http://www.eiae.org/chemicals/files/EIA_CRT_5-01.pdf

** You must be desperate to use survey crapology as evidence.

True. I picked the first reference that someone of your limited
intelligence can understand. Got anything better or more recent?

** Irrelevant to the point - fool.

I do have one simple question. Why do you feel it necessary to add
insults to your comments? It doesn't add anything of value and
certainly doesn't improve your credibility.

When I was young (and stupid),
** When ???

Late 1960's. I was working in a hi-fi and TV repair shop. A few
weeks after I plasted the CRT with Polaroid film, one of the techs
nearly died when he grabbed the anode lead of a similar TV. Digging
around the guts of an old TV without first discharging the tube is a
really bad idea.

It ain't changed.

For you, nothing ever does.

..... Phil

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558