http://www.edn.com/blog/570000257/po...351&rid=764914

bob

bob urz wrote in message ...
http://www.edn.com/blog/570000257/po...351&rid=764914

bob


Does

"This would bring into scope all electrical products used in building and
transport (unless covered by other legislation such as the ELV directive),
all "fixed installations" and electrical parts in aircraft, trains, ships,
and commercial vehicles."

mean planes will be falling out of the sky with greater frequancy than at
present ?

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:30:39 -0000, "N_Cook"
wrote:

Does

"This would bring into scope all electrical products used in building and
transport (unless covered by other legislation such as the ELV directive),
all "fixed installations" and electrical parts in aircraft, trains, ships,
and commercial vehicles."

mean planes will be falling out of the sky with greater frequancy than at
present ?

Possibly. However, the increased weight of the RoHS stickers will
probably prevent the airplane from leaving the ground.

Personally, I suspect that government meddling and technical
ineptitude are more detrimental to public health than any alleged
toxic substances. Like any good dinner, good ideas like RoHS can
become intolerable when overly well done. The question is where does
one stop regulating? This limit line varies radically with agenda,
politics, and position. Worse, when the EU wants to extend their
control into a few small areas, they will usually demand control over
many more areas, so that the inevitable compromise results in the
limited expansion originally desired.

(Drivel: What I want to see is some disincentive for manufacturers to
make and sell throw away and disposable products. However, that's
another topic for another day).

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

I am a believer in aggressive government regulation. Really. But...

I also believe there is no such thing as a hazardous substance -- it is how
materials are used and disposed of that makes them hazardous -- or not.

Lead is a poison, and a nasty one. We know that. The question is really what
happes to the lead in the solder when the item is disposed. I'm still not
convinced that it easily finds its way into the water supply.

On 11/21/2009 5:40 PM William Sommerwerck spake thus:

I am a believer in aggressive government regulation. Really. But...

I also believe there is no such thing as a hazardous substance -- it
is how materials are used and disposed of that makes them hazardous
-- or not.

Lead is a poison, and a nasty one. We know that. The question is
really what happes to the lead in the solder when the item is
disposed. I'm still not convinced that it easily finds its way into
the water supply.

It does. Like most every other element, lead reacts with other stuff in
the environment to form salts, acids, etc., so while elemental lead
itself may not be a huge environmental problem, these compounds can very
easily contaminate water and soil.

It's really bad for kids. And I definitely don't want to be ingesting
that stuff. So the RoHS rationale is very understandable.

The problem, of course, is the unintended consequences on the
electronics side (like planes falling out of the sky?).


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:40:18 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I am a believer in aggressive government regulation. Really. But...

I'm undecided. Sometimes, such regulations work well. Other times,
they're a waste of time and tax dollars. The problem is that once
regulations are in place, they never seem to go away. Even the bad
ones.

I also believe there is no such thing as a hazardous substance -- it is how
materials are used and disposed of that makes them hazardous -- or not.

I don't think you can expect the average consumer to follow (or read)
the instructions or warnings. Try reading the instructions and
warning that come with one of the most hazardous substances we
commonly handle, perscription drugs. Don't forget to read the fine
print.

Lead is a poison, and a nasty one. We know that. The question is really what
happes to the lead in the solder when the item is disposed. I'm still not
convinced that it easily finds its way into the water supply.

It does. It's showing up in all manner of odd places. The theory is
that once it ends up in the landfill, it's only a matter of time
before it ends up in the water supply. I consider the logic, testing,
and some of the regulations to be seriously flawed. I covered this in
previous rants at:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/msg/e60cf96df9bfb75b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/msg/16de8814c32844b5
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/msg/aaa21f0d0dc5eadd
While we're sealing nuclear wastes in glass for long term storage:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/12/971210063125.htm
apparently that's not good enough for sequestering lead from CRT's.


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

William Sommerwerck wrote in message
...
I am a believer in aggressive government regulation. Really. But...

I also believe there is no such thing as a hazardous substance -- it is
how
materials are used and disposed of that makes them hazardous -- or not.

Lead is a poison, and a nasty one. We know that. The question is really
what
happes to the lead in the solder when the item is disposed. I'm still not
convinced that it easily finds its way into the water supply.




As far as I can see RoHS is designed to increase the amount of stuff ending
up in landfill, ok not containing lead perhaps.
Institute a system that on average makes things fail a factor of 3 to 10
times quicker than before (dependent on vibration and temperature regimes in
use). Knowing that there is next to no-one who will repair this stuff and
also keep the makers happy knowing that their resupply rate is faster - they
sell more.

While we're sealing nuclear wastes in glass for long term storage:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1210063125.htm
apparently that's not good enough for sequestering lead from CRTs.

But that's not quite the same thing. It's assumed that broken CRTs will
exposed to rain in landfills. Nuclear wastes aren't supposed to be exposed
to rain or a flow of water.

Paying for disposal or recycling when you buy something new, or turning in
the old item when you buy its replacement is probably the best approach.

PS: Someone who can't tell the difference between a CRT and an LCD display
ain't very bright.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
While we're sealing nuclear wastes in glass for long term storage:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1210063125.htm
apparently that's not good enough for sequestering lead from CRTs.

But that's not quite the same thing. It's assumed that broken CRTs will
exposed to rain in landfills. Nuclear wastes aren't supposed to be exposed
to rain or a flow of water.

The thing i find interesting about that is that i read somewhere one way
of stabilizing spent nuclear waste is encapsulating it in glass.
Is a CRT not essentially encapsulated in glass? If the lead is in the
glass and the glass does not break down, how is any quantity of it going
to leach out?



Paying for disposal or recycling when you buy something new, or turning in
the old item when you buy its replacement is probably the best approach.

This is the part that is so simple yet so hard. With mandatory recycling
of used electronics and such, only a small percentage would ever hit the
landfill and the rest would be properly separated and recycled or
disposed of. Screw the ROHS on the front end, take care of it on the
back end.

I truly think these environmentalist wack ohs are just like mid level
bureaucrats. They live to make up rules to justify there existence.
The state of California is a good example. There trying to pass crazy
energy regulations on large flat TV's. Nothing wrong with using less
energy, but these idiots won't be happy until every 50" TV consumes 1/2
watt of power and call the industry a liar if they cannot make one.
These are the same brain surgeons that want you to buy electric cars and
plug them into your garage every night. And how many 50" TV's would it
take to use the same energy as charging your electric car?
Yet there is plenty of energy for that.

If California is so short of energy, they should utilize what plentiful
sources they have now. If they put all the illegal aliens in the state
on large scale hamster wheels hooked to generators, they would have tons
of extra power.

In twenty years or so, we will truly be in a throw away society. There
will be no one left to fix anything. The only thing trades are teaching
anymore are computers. Repairs shops will be excavated in the future
like dinosaurs for artifacts. They will all be extinct.

bob





PS: Someone who can't tell the difference between a CRT and an LCD display
ain't very bright.

The thing i find interesting about that is that i read somewhere one way
of stabilizing spent nuclear waste is encapsulating it in glass.
Is a CRT not essentially encapsulated in glass? If the lead is in the
glass and the glass does not break down, how is any quantity of it going
to leach out?

As I said in another, recent post, radioactive wastes are not dumped into
landfills, where they are washed by rain.


This is the part that is so simple yet so hard. With mandatory recycling
of used electronics and such, only a small percentage would ever hit the
landfill and the rest would be properly separated and recycled or
disposed of. Screw the ROHS on the front end, take care of it on the
back end.

I'm inclined to agree. Of course, you can never remove 100% of the solder
from the board, short of stripping off the copper traces and melting them
down. Which is not a bad idea -- if you can find enough poverty-stricken
people to do it for next to nothing.


I truly think these environmentalist wack ohs are just like mid level
bureaucrats. They live to make up rules to justify there existence.
The state of California is a good example. There trying to pass crazy
energy regulations on large flat TV's. Nothing wrong with using less
energy, but these idiots won't be happy until every 50" TV consumes 1/2
watt of power and call the industry a liar if they cannot make one.

I don't think all environmentalists are whackos -- humans are doing a very
good job of destroying this planet. However, the proposed energy
requirements for large-screen TVs, though well-intended, make little sense
in light of the fact that the consumer-electronics industry wants to produce
lower-consumption sets, simply because they'll be more reliable and cost
less. This is one of those very rare cases where big business does the right
thing on its own.


These are the same brain surgeons that want you to buy electric cars and
plug them into your garage every night. And how many 50" TV's would it
take to use the same energy as charging your electric car?
Yet there is plenty of energy for that.

You're not thinking this through. Where does the energy to power the car --
or an electric power plant -- come form?

William Sommerwerck wrote:


These are the same brain surgeons that want you to buy electric cars and
plug them into your garage every night. And how many 50" TV's would it
take to use the same energy as charging your electric car?
Yet there is plenty of energy for that.

You're not thinking this through. Where does the energy to power the car --
or an electric power plant -- come from?


Well valid question. Supposedly, there is a shortage of power in
California. So adding a million electric cars is going to do what?
Require building new power plants. I think they more or less tapped
out hydro capacity. So that leaves nuclear and coal as the only
feasible alternatives. It would take 20 years to get a new nuke
plant built (if ever). So that leaves coal. With all the new
environmental regs on coal plants, that leaves tons of toxic fly ash
to be disposed of. Where is that all going to go? There was a big
release of fly ash in Tennessee that is still an environmental
nightmare. Its an environmental shell game of shifting blame and who
has to pay on any given day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsto...h_slurry_spill
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/...wind-turbines/


The Bio fuels industry is in shambles in some parts of the country due
to dropping oil prices. many plants were abandoned or sit half
completed. Wind power and solar are feel good alternatives, but
realistically are supplemental sources of power. It won't be long until
the "no cell phone tower in my back yard" group moves on to wind mills.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache....barchart.com/
ethanol/archive/1232044724CME-Weekly-Ethanol-12-Jan-2009.pdf+ethanal+plant
+shut+down+nebraska&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&clien t=firefox-a

Our local public owned utility in Nebraska is asking for a 5% or so
increase in rates next year. The reason? they did not sell enough power
last year. So, you ask the public to conserve, they do, then they charge
you more. Go figure.

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/69798352.html

All of the materials moving through the US cost more to ship now due to
the new class 8 truck emission laws. While i don't think some
improvement was out of line, i think it has gone beyond that. Even
farm tractors and train locomotives are liable now too.
Between he cost of the new low sulpher diesel and the lower mileage
of the newer class 8 trucks, it was a double hit to the increase in
costs of transporting goods



bob

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:46:26 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

While we're sealing nuclear wastes in glass for long term storage:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1210063125.htm
apparently that's not good enough for sequestering lead from CRTs.

But that's not quite the same thing. It's assumed that broken CRTs will
exposed to rain in landfills. Nuclear wastes aren't supposed to be exposed
to rain or a flow of water.

Agreed. However, grinding down the CRT and exposing the remains to an
acid is not my idea of suitable testing. Yet, that's what it took to
get any numbers for lead leaching into the environment from CRT's. How
many landfills grind their waste to powder and then acid etch them?

Paying for disposal or recycling when you buy something new, or turning in
the old item when you buy its replacement is probably the best approach.

Really? I find it a great excuse not to properly dispose of anything.
After all, there's no financial incentive. The only good thing about
this system is that it subsidizes recycling centers for handling
unprofitable wastes, such as CRT's. The only reason it exists is that
the alternatives are worse. Penalizing anyone owning something deemed
hazardous will result in CRT's getting dumped by the road side. That's
exactly what happened here during the short period when the local
"transfer station" was charging outrageous amounts (i.e. what it
really costs to handle the stuff) for disposing of CRT's.
Incidentally, the high cost was due to the classification of CRT's as
hazardous waste because of the lead content and therefore requiring
special handling. That lasted about 6 months and was replaced by the
pay in advance system you seem to favor.

PS: Someone who can't tell the difference between a CRT and an LCD display
ain't very bright.

That's exactly why we have a recycling fee on LCD monitors, which have
very little lead content. Santa Cruz City landfill employs the
mentally handicapped to do sorting, which certainly qualifies.

Here's the local disposal fee schedule:
http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=8452
Note the entry for "Major appliances containing regulated hazardous
materials (e.g., washers, dryers, water heaters, microwaves)". These
contain a circuit board or glass with potentially some lead in them,
and are thus deemed hazardous waste. The problem is that while most
manufacturers have switched to lead free manufacturing, the local
landfill will probably continue collecting the fee because there's a
small possibility that some old lead containing appliances might
appear.

Now, expand the above lead handling to a wider assortment of "toxic"
substances. Do you smoke in front of your computah? Too bad because
Apple claims the residue is toxic and will not honor the warranty.
http://consumerist.com/5408885/smoking-near-apple-computers-creates-biohazard-voids-warranty
Yeah, I know this is the "slipper slope" argument, but without sane
guidelines as to what constitutes hazardous, the list will grow
without bounds which seems to be what the EU now wants.


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

In article ,
Meat Plow wrote:

Lead is a poison, and a nasty one. We know that. The question is really what
happes to the lead in the solder when the item is disposed. I'm still not
convinced that it easily finds its way into the water supply.


I've not heard of one case of innocent children being poisoned by
eating Pb based solder. Isn't that the watermark for government
intervention?

It's not primarily a question of "eating pB based solder." It's a
question of total exposure to lead from all paths, including release
of lead from equipment being dismantled.

Consider the research documented at

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1913570/

This documents the effects of the electronic-waste recycling practices
in Guiyu, China. A high percentage of e-waste from the U.S. is
exported to locations in Asia for recycling, and much of this is done
via rather primitive methods such as those described in Guiyu.

"Results: BLLs in 165 children of Guiyu ranged from 4.40 to 32.67
μg/dL with a mean of 15.3 μg/dL, whereas BLLs in 61 children of
Chendian were from 4.09 to 23.10 μg/dL with a mean of 9.94 μg/."

"In conclusion, elevated BLLs in Guiyu children are common as a
result of exposure to lead contamination caused by primitive e-waste
recycling activities. Lead contamination from e-waste processing
appears to have reached the level considered to be a serious threat
to children."

Back in 2003, the results of a five-year study reported in the New
England Journal of Medicine seems to indicate that children can suffer
a measurable (and quite significant) decrease in their intellectual
capacity from blood-lead levels of 10 uG/dL or less.

"In our sample, most of the damage to intellectual functioning occurs
at blood-lead concentrations that are below 10 mcg/dl," said
Canfield. The amount of impairment was also much greater than the
researchers had expected. "Given the relatively low exposure levels,
we were surprised to find that the IQ scores of children with
blood-lead levels of 10 mcg/dl were about seven points lower than
for children with lead levels of 1 mcg/dl," Canfield said.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

However, grinding down the CRT and exposing the remains to an
acid is not my idea of suitable testing. Yet, that's what it took to
get any numbers for lead leaching into the environment from CRT's.
How many landfills grind their waste to powder and then acid etch them?

Few. The worst that would happen is that the bulb would be thoroughly
broken -- but not ground to powder.

The other issue is what happens over a period of time. My gut feeling is
that only a little lead, from the surface of the glass, would efer leach
out.


Paying for disposal or recycling when you buy something new, or turning
in
the old item when you buy its replacement is probably the best approach.

Really? I find it a great excuse not to properly dispose of anything.
After all, there's no financial incentive. The only good thing about
this system is that it subsidizes recycling centers for handling
unprofitable wastes, such as CRTs. The only reason it exists is that
the alternatives are worse. Penalizing anyone owning something deemed
hazardous will result in CRTs getting dumped by the road side. That's
exactly what happened here during the short period when the local
"transfer station" was charging outrageous amounts (i.e. what it
really costs to handle the stuff) for disposing of CRT's.
Incidentally, the high cost was due to the classification of CRT's as
hazardous waste because of the lead content and therefore requiring
special handling. That lasted about 6 months and was replaced by the
pay in advance system you seem to favor.

I don't know. We can't continue to dump huge amounts of electronic waste
without making a reasonable effort to at least extract the useful and
dangerous components of it.

When I bought my plasma TV, I paid Magnolia an extra $50 to pick up my 32"
Toshiba IDTV. I don't know what they did with it.

Best Buy will take almost anything for (supposed recycling) for $10, then
give you the $10 back as a store credit.

Gold is now around $1000 an ounce. That's $35 a gram. Is that enough to
justify simply extracting the gold?


Now, expand the above lead handling to a wider assortment of "toxic"
substances. Do you smoke in front of your computah? Too bad because
Apple claims the residue is toxic and will not honor the warranty.

http://consumerist.com/5408885/smoki...reates-biohaza
rd-voids-warranty
Yeah, I know this is the "slipper slope" argument, but without sane
guidelines as to what constitutes hazardous, the list will grow
without bounds which seems to be what the EU now wants.

Again, I don't know. I'm a Liberal who believes in extreme government
regulation -- but these sorts of things go beyond what I consider "common
sense".

As for smoking voiding your warranty -- that's going a little far.

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:00:32 -0800, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1913570/
This documents the effects of the electronic-waste recycling practices
in Guiyu, China.

Yep. Yet China's RoHS is even more restrictive that the EU. The EU
is modeling their new and expanded regulations on Chinas.
http://www.chinarohs.com

A high percentage of e-waste from the U.S. is
exported to locations in Asia for recycling, and much of this is done
via rather primitive methods such as those described in Guiyu.

Mexico is even worse. Find a concrete pad. Bulldoze a pile of ewaste
over the pad. Add diesel. Ignite. The lead and most useful metals
melt to the pad, where it's collected. Shove the slag out of the way
and repeat.

However, there's hope. The bottom fell out of the scrap metals market
last year mostly due to China deciding not to buy as much US scrap.
The children of China are safe. Now, all we have to do is figure out
what to do with the scrap ourselves.

Back in 2003, the results of a five-year study reported in the New
England Journal of Medicine seems to indicate that children can suffer
a measurable (and quite significant) decrease in their intellectual
capacity from blood-lead levels of 10 uG/dL or less.

I'm surprised they didn't study the effect of lead on the researchers.
"In our sample, most of the damage to intellectual functioning
occurs
at blood-lead concentrations that are below 10 mcg/dl," said
Canfield. The amount of impairment was also much greater than the
researchers had expected. "Given the relatively low exposure levels,
we were surprised to find that the IQ scores of children with
blood-lead levels of 10 mcg/dl were about seven points lower than
for children with lead levels of 1 mcg/dl," Canfield said.

Chuckle. That sounds like a repeat of a similar study done in the
1960's. I'll see if I can find the references (later). What they did
was compare the IQ scores of children that lived near a lead recycling
plant in Colorado(?) with those in a more pristine atmosphere. The
former were in a designated poverty area, while the latter were in a
more affluent location. The IQ test results were predictable. The
same data also showed an increased incidence of various diseases in
the former. Hopefully, this report is a bit more sane.

Incidentally, one of my friends is a biomedical researcher. She does
the numbers for many such research projects. I don't know if it's
really true, but many such studies cannot be funded unless the result
is known in advance. They can't afford to embarrass those that are
paying the bills.



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

Were the two groups of children controlled for family background? Those with
the higher lead might have been from lower-income communities with poorer
parenting.

bob urz wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:


These are the same brain surgeons that want you to buy electric cars
and plug them into your garage every night. And how many 50" TV's
would it take to use the same energy as charging your electric car?
Yet there is plenty of energy for that.

You're not thinking this through. Where does the energy to power the
car -- or an electric power plant -- come from?


Well valid question. Supposedly, there is a shortage of power in
California. So adding a million electric cars is going to do what?
Require building new power plants. I think they more or less tapped
out hydro capacity. So that leaves nuclear and coal as the only
feasible alternatives. It would take 20 years to get a new nuke
plant built (if ever). So that leaves coal. With all the new
environmental regs on coal plants, that leaves tons of toxic fly ash
to be disposed of. Where is that all going to go? There was a big
release of fly ash in Tennessee that is still an environmental
nightmare. Its an environmental shell game of shifting blame and who
has to pay on any given day.

In the UK the Fly ash and the gypsum are used to manufacture building
blocks and drywall sheet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsto...h_slurry_spill
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/...wind-turbines/


The Bio fuels industry is in shambles in some parts of the country due
to dropping oil prices. many plants were abandoned or sit half
completed. Wind power and solar are feel good alternatives, but
realistically are supplemental sources of power. It won't be long
until the "no cell phone tower in my back yard" group moves on to wind
mills.

We have got a group locally that wants to ban the construction of a wind
farm five miles or so away. Unfortunately for them its a wasted quest
since the construction is a forgone conclusion. The master control
system for it and several others has already been built and
commissioned.

A new wood (Willow) fired power station was built not too far away. It
ran for less than three months and is now in mothballs. A waste of the
millions spent to purchase the land, build it, contract the farmers to
produce the willow, commission, test and close it down.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache....barchart.com/

ethanol/archive/1232044724CME-Weekly-Ethanol-12-Jan-2009.pdf+ethanal+plant
+shut+down+nebraska&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&clien t=firefox-a

Our local public owned utility in Nebraska is asking for a 5% or so
increase in rates next year. The reason? they did not sell enough
power last year. So, you ask the public to conserve, they do, then
they charge you more. Go figure.

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/69798352.html

That sounds like our electricity utilities here.

All of the materials moving through the US cost more to ship now due
to the new class 8 truck emission laws. While i don't think some
improvement was out of line, i think it has gone beyond that. Even
farm tractors and train locomotives are liable now too.
Between he cost of the new low sulpher diesel and the lower mileage
of the newer class 8 trucks, it was a double hit to the increase in
costs of transporting goods



bob

Fortunately, unlike Europe "Bio Diesel" hasn't got to us yet ! But I
feel sure that it will.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

bob urz wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:


These are the same brain surgeons that want you to buy electric cars and
plug them into your garage every night. And how many 50" TV's would it
take to use the same energy as charging your electric car?
Yet there is plenty of energy for that.

You're not thinking this through. Where does the energy to power the car --
or an electric power plant -- come from?


Well valid question. Supposedly, there is a shortage of power in
California. So adding a million electric cars is going to do what?
Require building new power plants. I think they more or less tapped
out hydro capacity. So that leaves nuclear and coal as the only
feasible alternatives. It would take 20 years to get a new nuke
plant built (if ever). So that leaves coal. With all the new
environmental regs on coal plants, that leaves tons of toxic fly ash
to be disposed of. Where is that all going to go? There was a big
release of fly ash in Tennessee that is still an environmental
nightmare. Its an environmental shell game of shifting blame and who
has to pay on any given day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsto...h_slurry_spill
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/...wind-turbines/

Wind mills & solar power, you know, the greenies "renewable energy".
Of course the sun doesn't shine at night, when presumably most people
would be recharging their electric cars, and wind power is unreliable.
It all *sounds* good, especially if you're a lawyer or a journalist
whose scientific knowledge is at the elementary school level.


The Bio fuels industry is in shambles in some parts of the country due
to dropping oil prices. many plants were abandoned or sit half
completed. Wind power and solar are feel good alternatives, but
realistically are supplemental sources of power. It won't be long until
the "no cell phone tower in my back yard" group moves on to wind mills.

They already have, here in PA various communities are now regulating
windmills. Then there was the proposal to build windmills in the ocean
off Cape Cod; the Kennedys and their rich friends killed it because
the windmills would ruin the view.

Jerry

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Were the two groups of children controlled for family background? Those with
the higher lead might have been from lower-income communities with poorer
parenting.

I think that was his point.

Jerry

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I'm surprised they didn't study the effect of lead on the researchers.
"In our sample, most of the damage to intellectual functioning
occurs
at blood-lead concentrations that are below 10 mcg/dl," said
Canfield. The amount of impairment was also much greater than the
researchers had expected. "Given the relatively low exposure levels,
we were surprised to find that the IQ scores of children with
blood-lead levels of 10 mcg/dl were about seven points lower than
for children with lead levels of 1 mcg/dl," Canfield said.

Chuckle. That sounds like a repeat of a similar study done in the
1960's. I'll see if I can find the references (later). What they did
was compare the IQ scores of children that lived near a lead recycling
plant in Colorado(?) with those in a more pristine atmosphere. The
former were in a designated poverty area, while the latter were in a
more affluent location. The IQ test results were predictable. The
same data also showed an increased incidence of various diseases in
the former. Hopefully, this report is a bit more sane.

Incidentally, one of my friends is a biomedical researcher. She does
the numbers for many such research projects. I don't know if it's
really true, but many such studies cannot be funded unless the result
is known in advance. They can't afford to embarrass those that are
paying the bills.

Sounds like most opinion polls. The *first* thing I want to know about
the latest & greatest poll results is *who paid* for the poll. This
information is usually enough to explain the results.

Jerry

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:12:12 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Were the two groups of children controlled for family background? Those with
the higher lead might have been from lower-income communities with poorer
parenting.

Yep. That was exactly what I was mumbling.

I'll leave it to your imagination as to which of the 4 or so
"standard" IQ tests was used. Also, a 7 point (average or median?)
decrease doesn't mean much without also knowing the distribution.

Way back in college, I was part of an IQ study, or so I thought. We
were given the then standard Binet test in the morning. Another group
was given the same test in the late afternoon. About a week later, we
were informed that there was some kind of mistake and that all the
results were lost. The two groups took similar tests again, but this
time reversing the time of day that the tests were administered. This
was repeated at several other colleges.

The results were that almost everyone scored higher in the morning
than in the afternoon. The order of testing didn't matter. I don't
recall the exact numbers, but it was something like 5 to 10 points
higher. I've read about similar intelligence tests to estimate the
effects of stress, diet, assorted supplements, astrology, and peer
pressure. With a little practice, IQ scores can also be improved:
http://www.lumosity.com/k/improve-your-iq

Moral: There are plenty of other things, besides lead, that
significantly affect a persons IQ, that are also rather difficult to
control.

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

Were the two groups of children controlled for family background?
Those with the higher lead might have been from lower-income
communities with poorer parenting.

I think that was his point.

It was the opposite. The lowered scores were supposedly due /solely/ to the
higher lead levels, and had no other cause.

Moral: There are plenty of other things, besides lead,
that significantly affect a person's IQ, that are also
rather difficult to control [for].

Most importantly... An IQ test measures one thing -- the ability to take an
IQ test.

I can get away saying that, because I consistently score in the 99th
percentile.

On 11/22/2009 4:13 PM William Sommerwerck spake thus:

Moral: There are plenty of other things, besides lead,
that significantly affect a person's IQ, that are also
rather difficult to control [for].

Most importantly... An IQ test measures one thing -- the ability to take an
IQ test.

I can get away saying that, because I consistently score in the 99th
percentile.

So instead of saying "Oh, you're so smart!" we should say "What a great
IQ test-taker you are"?


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:13:10 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Moral: There are plenty of other things, besides lead,
that significantly affect a person's IQ, that are also
rather difficult to control [for].

Most importantly... An IQ test measures one thing -- the ability to take an
IQ test.

Yep. However, I've noticed that my scores tend to deteriorate as I
get older. Probably started when I switched to decaf. Also, there
was a drop when I started using reading glasses:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060504082306.htm
"The poorer performance by older adults may be characterized by a loss
of efficiency in visual search," stated the researcher." If it takes
a few milliseconds more for someone older to read the symbology,
multiplied by a few hundred questions, it becomes a significant
factor.

I can get away saying that, because I consistently score in the 99th
percentile.

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

I about typical for a college graduate. That means I'm not as smart
as I pretend to be.


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

bob urz wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
While we're sealing nuclear wastes in glass for long term storage:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1210063125.htm
apparently that's not good enough for sequestering lead from CRTs.

But that's not quite the same thing. It's assumed that broken CRTs will
exposed to rain in landfills. Nuclear wastes aren't supposed to be exposed
to rain or a flow of water.

The thing i find interesting about that is that i read somewhere one way
of stabilizing spent nuclear waste is encapsulating it in glass.
Is a CRT not essentially encapsulated in glass? If the lead is in the
glass and the glass does not break down, how is any quantity of it going
to leach out?


The EPA ground the glass to a very fine dust, then dumped it into
acid, rather than do an honest test. On top of that, they claimed to
only recover a small percentage of the lead. "The claim of 27 pounds of
lead in every TV" made by a local TV station was funny. I emailed them
and asked where it was, since most of my TVs weighed less than 20
pounds. Of course they didn't reply because they were caught in a lie.
By the EPA figures, CRTs were about 50% lead.


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

Most importantly... An IQ test measures one thing -- the
ability to take an IQ test.
I can get away saying that, because I consistently score
in the 99th percentile.

So instead of saying "Oh, you're so smart!" we should say
"What a great IQ test-taker you are"?

That's about right.

The original IQ test was designed to see whether a child was ready for
school -- whether he or she knew certain words, could tie their shoelaces,
etc.

I'm smart, but I'm also a good test-taker. If you lack test-taking skills,
you'll score lower than you should.

I've noticed that my scores tend to deteriorate as I get older.

I think this is probably because it's harder to focus and concentrate. Also,
time seems to pass more quickly, so you seem to have less time for each
question.

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:55:09 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

The EPA ground the glass to a very fine dust, then dumped it into
acid, rather than do an honest test.

Yep. However, even that's not good enough for the EPA. The new
solution involves grinding it down to a fine powder, and encapsulating
the mess in high tech concrete:
http://ewasteguide.info/biblio/encapsulation
I don't suppose any of the researchers considered that once the CRT is
ground down to a fine powder, just heating the stuff will separate out
the lead and glass, thus offering recycling opportunities.

On top of that, they claimed to
only recover a small percentage of the lead. "The claim of 27 pounds of
lead in every TV" made by a local TV station was funny. I emailed them
and asked where it was, since most of my TVs weighed less than 20
pounds. Of course they didn't reply because they were caught in a lie.

I've seen one claim of 50 lbs of lead per TV. The real numbers for
TV's is somewhere between 1.5 lbs for 14" screens, to 12 lbs for 50"
screens. These numbers are from a 1999 study, so I expect current
numbers to be considerably lower.

Note that one can purchase lead free CRT monitors:
http://www.philipschannel.com/monitors/pdf/107B60.pdf
but one still has to pay the deposit in Calif. These use barium
instead of lead, which is currently deemed safe.

By the EPA figures, CRTs were about 50% lead.

Chuckle... For just the CRT tube, it's actually about 8% of the weight
of the tube. The EPA used the same 1999 study that I've been using,
so the numbers are a bit dated. See:
http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/comp-dic/lca-sum/ques8.pdf
Lead is a significant material in current CRTs, accounting
for up to eight percent of the overall composition of the
CRT by weight.
That's down from the 20% or so from the 1999 study. Current figures
are even lower than the 8%.

I just noticed this interesting quote from the EPA FAQ:
Lead is not as prevalent in LCDs, being found only
on printed wiring boards.
So, why are we paying deposits on LCD's that contain no more lead than
the average Hi-Fi or computah? Is it the mercury in the backlighting
tubes? Maybe, but I suspect it's just to help pay for the CRT
disposal.



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

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:55:09 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

The EPA ground the glass to a very fine dust, then dumped it into
acid, rather than do an honest test.

Yep. However, even that's not good enough for the EPA. The new
solution involves grinding it down to a fine powder, and encapsulating
the mess in high tech concrete:
http://ewasteguide.info/biblio/encapsulation
I don't suppose any of the researchers considered that once the CRT is
ground down to a fine powder, just heating the stuff will separate out
the lead and glass, thus offering recycling opportunities.

On top of that, they claimed to
only recover a small percentage of the lead. "The claim of 27 pounds of
lead in every TV" made by a local TV station was funny. I emailed them
and asked where it was, since most of my TVs weighed less than 20
pounds. Of course they didn't reply because they were caught in a lie.

I've seen one claim of 50 lbs of lead per TV. The real numbers for
TV's is somewhere between 1.5 lbs for 14" screens, to 12 lbs for 50"
screens. These numbers are from a 1999 study, so I expect current
numbers to be considerably lower.

Note that one can purchase lead free CRT monitors:
http://www.philipschannel.com/monitors/pdf/107B60.pdf
but one still has to pay the deposit in Calif. These use barium
instead of lead, which is currently deemed safe.

By the EPA figures, CRTs were about 50% lead.

Chuckle... For just the CRT tube, it's actually about 8% of the weight
of the tube. The EPA used the same 1999 study that I've been using,
so the numbers are a bit dated. See:
http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/comp-dic/lca-sum/ques8.pdf
Lead is a significant material in current CRTs, accounting
for up to eight percent of the overall composition of the
CRT by weight.
That's down from the 20% or so from the 1999 study. Current figures
are even lower than the 8%.


The 50% came from the screwy numbers reported by that TV station.


I just noticed this interesting quote from the EPA FAQ:
Lead is not as prevalent in LCDs, being found only
on printed wiring boards.
So, why are we paying deposits on LCD's that contain no more lead than
the average Hi-Fi or computah? Is it the mercury in the backlighting
tubes? Maybe, but I suspect it's just to help pay for the CRT
disposal.


That's why the phone company had a surtax to pay for the 1898
Spanish-American war that lasted over 100 years. It's a way to hide the
government's greed.

--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Were the two groups of children controlled for family background?
Those with the higher lead might have been from lower-income
communities with poorer parenting.

I think that was his point.

It was the opposite. The lowered scores were supposedly due /solely/ to the
higher lead levels, and had no other cause.

I meant *Jeff's* point, not that of the original researcher.

Jerry

On 22/11/2009 3:31 AM, bob urz wrote:
http://www.edn.com/blog/570000257/po...351&rid=764914

Oh great. Lucky us.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

On 22/11/2009 3:31 AM, bob urz wrote:
http://www.edn.com/blog/570000257/po...351&rid=764914

Oh great. Lucky us.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------