People Still Not Getting the Purpose of RoHS

Comments (add your comment)

1. John Burke:

   Dr Lasky,

   Thank you for the kind reference to our site. I believe you missed the point. Our site does not promise the "truth about RoHS" as you state it promises the "Truth about RoHS and lead free soldering" and uses the EPA environmental report as evidence that the replacements for leaded solders are a far higher environmental burden than the currently used product.

   As far as recycling is concerned, yes recycling of any product is an onerous task leaded or unleaded - I believe the industry needs to address this with investments aimed at virtually "pollution free" recycling plants instead of the current practices of dumping container loads of electronics waste onto third world populations.

   I will let the EPA report speak for itself.

   The European Commissioner has publicly stated on 11 November 05 that "The Commission is aware that the substitution of lead in electrical and electronic equipment may have led companies to invest in new technologies with greater energy use. However, if companies can prove that the elimination or substitution of the banned substances via design changes or the use of alternative materials and components causes negative environmental, health and or consumer safety impacts, and that these outweigh the environmental benefits of ceasing to use the banned substances, an exemption can be granted. So far, only one company has asked for an exemption on these grounds. All the other exemption requests are based on either the lack of suitable substitutes or for cost reasons, which cannot be considered under the RoHS Directive."

   RoHSUSA has provided support documentation for 9 of the current exemption requests based on the fact that the replacements are environmentally more damaging. It has submitted evidence of the EPA August 2005 report to suport this.

   I agree, it will be an interesting year,

   Kind regards,

   John Burke

   PS Give my best regards to Dr Lee

2. John Burke:

   Doctor Ron,

   If you would like I can post this blog for you on the RoHSUSA Blog as the site is getting a lot of traffic. It is running at around 8000 to 9000 hits a day.

   Let me know,

   John

3. John Mitchel:

   Thanks for the laugh! I can just see the TAC advisors looking over the exemption request and actually having to seriously debate allowing Swatch watches complete exemption. Even if the request came with a complimentary Swatch watch it is doubtful that this will be debated longer than it takes the TAC to read the request.

   Cutting edge electronics technology companies has proven the ability, in general, to comply with the requirements and yet the "technological leaders" of watch designs can't? Would be curious to nkow the average lifespan of a Swatch watch to begin with... would hardly have time for a tin whisker to appear.

   Too funny.

   Cheers
   John

4. John Burke:

   Glad you are laughing Mr Mitchel,

   I submitted further support for the SWATCH application to the EU yesterday. It is posted on their web site at:

   http://tinyurl.com/ffzj3

   You will note that JES00337.pdf in support of the SWATCH application is dealing specifically with tin whiskers. Hope you can stop giggling long enough to read it. Which I am sure the TAC will indeed do.

   ………and thank you Doctor Ron for this excellent discussion forum.

   John

5. Kurt Zierhut:

   Dr. Lasky,
   You stated that Motorolla has over 120 million lead-free cell phones. Have you really determined the truth of this? My investigation has found most cell-phone companies stating RoHS compliance BUT, when you press for details, you find that they are claiming compliance by EXEMPTION not by exclusion of the banned material.

6. Oliver Betz:

   Dr. Ron,

   are we really living in a world where 5 year operation is "very long term reliability"?

   I don't think so. Most EEE I'm using at home or in the lab is older than 5 jears. Even the PC I'm using to write this is nearly that old. And I expect my (old, SnPb soldered) Omega watch to last much more than 20 years.

   I'm designing electronics for industrial control where our customers expect more than 10 years service life. Even if we continue using SnPb solder, tin whiskers growing out of Sn plated leadframes might make this harder with RoHS.

   So shall RoHS force us to arrive at the "don't last longer than 5 year" level?

   Oliver

7. Dan B.:

   Assuming that removing Pb and other substances actually reduced the risks from landfilling old electronics, doesn't RoHS actually make it simpler to toss away rather than recycle?

8. Graham Comber:

   Dear Dr Lasky
   I am the technical director of a modest sized electronics product manufacturing company, and whilst my company supports decreasing pollution, I am puzzled to know how "RoHS and WEEE make recycling a success" or how you think it is even going to work in a practical commercial world.

   Really now, where would I purchase the hundreds of necessary reels of various recycled miniature electronic components to place on my next 1000 printed circuit boards?
   How would the recycling company provide quality assurance on components with no traceable history, have almost certainly been handled without care for Electrostatic Discharge protection and almost guaranteed to fail shortly thyerafter, or possibly even be the faulty component which caused the original product to have been recycled?

   I dont know what your policy is when buying a "New" product but Ill bet you wont pay full commercial price for a Mercedes with ABS brakes, a Lear jet with autopilot, or heart pacemaker with recycled components

   So seeing as how its not commercially viable to manufacture using recycled electronic components, AND even if it were, they are more than likely to fail early in their lifetime - Just where is the logic ???

9. JamesD:

   Don't you just get so irritated when someone - usually 14 year old girls, exclaim "Hello" like "hey stupid don't you get this?" How insulting and what arrogance.

   The sane are struggling with the logistics of the illogical but - it is sufficient to know that one shouldn't be in in the asylum as long as you recognize that you're in one! So let us keep up the - "Fight for Reason," whether struggling for the survival of your business and their families or just plain sick of the folly of autocratic government and misplaced protectionism.

   If a majority thinks that this doesn't make sense - then it probably doesn't - isn't there an axiom for this?

10. Samson:

    Dear Dr. Ron and other visitors,

    Swatch was apply for an exemption, may I ask what is the newest situation? Does the company succeed and go back to lead solder? Where can I find more information about this?

    Your reply would be truly appreciated. Thanks a lot.

11. MRL:

    Dr Lasky:
    Do you know what substance RoHS suggests to replace the lead used in automobile batteries ?
    By weight, it seems there is significantly more Lead in car batteries in just one country in Europe, say Germany, than in the solder used in every watch on the planet Earth.

12. Erik Steely:

    Does Motorolla really want their cell phones to last more than 5 Years?

    Think about BASIC economics for a moment. Microsoft and Motorolla want their products to break down after a few years, creating more sales. Being ROHS complient helps their bottom line. NASA and BOEING, on the other hand are very firm that they will pay what ever fee/ fines because they know that lead-free products are inferior.

Comment on this entry

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License: