[time-nuts] OT: RoHS crap

[Chuck Harris]

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <45ABD815.2020207 at erols.com>, Chuck Harris writes:
> 
> Sorry, incoming rant:
> 
>> Especially when you consider the amount of lead that will enter
>> the environment when a single automotive battery (which are not
>> subject to RoHS, by the way) is improperly dumped.
> 
> Automotive batteries are subject to different and quite tough
> regulations for recycling here in europe, and the recycling
> frequency was up in the 99.8% range last I heard.

That's wonderful!  So when I don't bring my battery to a recycling
center, they will visit my home and ask me where it is?  Do they insist
that I give them a battery when I buy a new one?  Are all new batteries
serial numbered, with records tracing them back to the original purchaser?
How about when a used one gets sold, do I have to register the sale?

No?

Oh darn!   Another toothless regulation.

> 
> The main problem which RoHS tries to solve is that people throw
> electronics in the household waste, which is often incinerated here
> in Europe.

Incinerators are a perfect place to scrub these metals out of the
waste stream.  Perhaps we need to perfect the pollution controls
on incinerators? ...or better still, eliminate incinerators?

...
> 
> Because of the soldering issues, there exists what is called the
> "RoHS5" excemtion where lead permitted in solder for hi-rel and
> wide-temperature equipment.

For which nothing that matters to a consumer qualifies.  And since there
are virtually no non RoHS parts made anymore, the exemption is moot.

> 
> As to the solder issues, the sad fact is that the average age of
> consumer electronics these days is less than 3 years and that more
> than 10% of it fails within the first two years.  Therefore
> tin-whiskers and similar is mostly an academic issue in consumer
> electronics: it's so shitty quality already that it doesn't make a
> measurable difference on reliability.  (I'm told that Bang&Olufsen
> has spent twice as much money on RoHS research as Sony).

That is desirable?  Maybe RoHS should require electronics be made
more reliable?

...
> If "corporate responsibility" meant anything besides "make money
> for the shareholders", then RoHS would never have happened:  The
> electronics industry would have eliminated lead at the same time
> it was eliminated from the gasoline.

That logic doesn't follow:  The lead in gasoline was by design destined
to enter the atmosphere.  The lead in electronics isn't designed for
that fate.  The only reason lead was taken out of gasoline was to
facilitate catalytic converters, and smog reduction.  The environmental
benefits of lead removal were invented much later.

> As a consumer and a parent, I applaud RoHS, and with my electronics
> hat on, I detest the industry which has been so hell bent on not
> taking the clue for so many years.
> 
> Finally I'll cordially remind you gentlemen that there were similar
> dire predictions when gasoline additives where changed from alcohols
> to ethyl-lead and again when ethyl-lead was banned.

Of course cars now cost 5 to 10 times as much as they did in 1976 when
lead was banned from gasoline in the US.  In the US, this fact keeps a
lot of very old, and marginally safe cars on the road.

> 
> Regardless, the world spins unabated and cars still clog the arteries
> of all major cities.
> 
> Poul-Henning
> 
> (Who will use SnPb solder until he runs out, probably 10 years from now.)

I'm sorry Poul, if you use that Sn/Pb solder, knowing what you *know*,
then you are a hypocrite.

-Chuck Harris