-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Dr. Lasky's Latest RoHS Defense-- "It's for safer recycling, that's all, folks"-- my paraphrase Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:17:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Harvey Miller Reply-To: snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org To: snipped-for-privacy@IPC.ORG CC: Joseph Fjelstad , John Burke , Bob Baer
To all
This is NEWS. Dr. Lasky has conceded to the correctness of most criticisms of the lead ban, after minimizing their importance. And then he goes on to argue the most indefensable position of all to support the lead ban. He suggests that 'lead is not safe to recycle'. My friend at the Colorado School of Mines called that crazy.
Lead is recycled safely every day. The main process is called smelting. Printed Circuit Boards are ground up and put in a copper smelter. Recyled lead is a byproduct. Noranda would really give Dr. Lasky an argument for questioning the safety of the processes.
On the other hand, the new lead turned from ores to metal by smelting in all the new silver mining can be estimated. It will exceed the mass of silver many, many times. New smelters will have to be built in China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bolivia. New tailings, new mines, lots of energy, many dead and sick miners-- that's part of the price.
Lead is recycled safely every minute of the year, no mining required. And I haven't even begun to estimate the impact of any new tin mining, even more environmentally costly and devastating. Initially it will be more than 5% incrementally.
And who is asking for the repeal of RoHS? Just repeal the ban on the 0.5% of lead that is used in electronics, or else be consistent and ban lead in the 90%+ used in storage batteries, shielding, and bullets.
A couple of other points--one, the unreliability of lead free is not something that the future will decide. It is intrinsically unreliable with many failure mechanisms. Tin whiskers, the Kirkendall effect, and CAF are physical flaws, not subject to repeal, mitigated at high cost. But why?
Two, re density, work is being done on 25 micron flip chips and lower with tin-lead. Who would dare use tin-rich alloys for dense spacings. That's why 25 micron and under spacings have been exempted from the lead ban in response to the Swatch Group's experience with tin whiskers. And these exemptions do not apply just to mission-critical equipments, but to watches and cell phones. Yes, lead-free solder doesn't wet. Strange to hear that used as an argument for its use. But we won't object to its use where it has an advantage-- just not everywhere.
The lead ban will be re-evaluated by the EU. I hope that Dr. Lasky will join the electronics industry in helping to repeal it. The alternatve at best is a hybrid world, lead and lead free, with inadvertant, unintended mixtures at every stage from mining to recycling. Ther has to be a better way.
I'm embedding Dr.Ron's blog below.
------------------------------------------------------------------- >
> Dr. Lasky?s Blog > Recent Entries > ? Repeal RoHS Movements Emerge > July 30th, 2006 >
> Folks, > As one might expect, repeal RoHS movements > are now occurring. These movements continue to miss or misunderstand a > few > points which are think are worth clarifying. Their main arguments > follow: > 1. Lead from electronics is not a significant contributor of lead to the > environment. > 2. Lead from electronics has never been shown to harmful to humans. > 3. Lead from electronics has never been shown to leach into ground > water. > These statements are all true, but they miss an important aspect of > RoHS. > The EU lists the ROHS objective as: > The purpose of this Directive is to approximate the laws of the Member > States on the restrictions of the use of hazardous substances in > electrical and electronic equipment and to contribute to the protection > of > human health and the environmentally sound recovery and disposal of > waste > electrical and electronic equipment. > Safe and easy recycling is an important aspect of RoHS...it supports > WEEE. > The intent is that recycling will be so much more common that toxic > heavy > metals must be avoided to assure safe and easy recycling. > Another aspect of the "Repeal RoHS" movement is the stated negative > impact > of RoHS assembly on the environment. Three of the stated negative > impacts > are: > 1. Increased use of electricity in RoHS compliant assembly > 2. Increased mining of tin, a much more rare metal than lead > 3. Silver (used in the most common lead-free solder) poses a risk to > marine and microbial life > All of the above are likely true, but let's look at the magnitude of the > effect: > 1. World-wide electricity use is about 15.7 trillion KWhrs. Speedline's > Joe Belmonte estimates that the average assembly line will use about > 8250 > KWhrs of additional electricity each year. Enthone's Yann Morvan and I > estimated that there are about 35,000 assembly lines in the world. > Hence, > the total increase in electrical use is a little less than 300 million > KWhrs or 0.0002% of the total world usage. Forgive me if I'm not looking > for "brown outs" to occur due to RoHS compliant assembly! > 2. According to Prismark about 50,000 tons of electronic solder is > consumed per year. Historically, 63% of this amount would be tin or > 31,500 > tons. So approximately 18,500 more tons of tin will be needed. The > United > States Geological Survey (USGS)estimates that the total world usage of > tin > in 2005 was about 337,000 tons. Hence, RoHS will require about 5% more > tin. This number compares well to that calculated by the USGS. While 5% > is > not insignificant, it is not a "first order" effect. I also believe that > the recycling demanded by WEEE will result in a lower amount of virgin > tin > needed. > 3. Silver is valuable and its price as skyrocketed in the last few > months. > Its value will encourage recycling. For these reasons, I believe that no > measurable amount of silver will be introduced into marine or microbial > environments. > Do the "Repeal RoHS" folks have any concerns that I am sympathetic to? > They point out correctly that long term reliability (greater than five > years) has not been established. For this very reason, mission critical > devices have been temporarily exempted from lead in solder. I strongly > agree that work is needed in this arena for to understand the long term > reliability effect of RoHS compliant assembly on mission critical > devices. > Another issue that is valid is the concern for lead and lead-free > assembly > existing together. Because of the military's RoHS exemption some > companies > will have to maintain both types of assembly. This creates a > considerable > logistics challenge. > What about benefits that the lead-free assembly might provide? The > "Repeal > RoHS" folks miss a strong plus for lead-free assembly. In the era of > cheaper, lighter, faster, and smaller products, lead-free assembly > enables > closer pad spacings because it doesn't wet as well as tin-lead solder. > Hence, many smaller and lighter lead-free products could not be > manufactured with leaded solder. > So what do I think the chances of RoHS being repealed? This Wednesday, > weather permitting, I will play golf at Dartmouth's golf course. In my > youth I had a 4 handicap, however I will be happy to shoot in the low > 80s > on this outing. I think the chances of RoHS being repealed are less than > my Wednesday score beating Tiger Woods first round in the upcoming PGA > Championship ...not impossible, but...... > Cheers, > Dr. Ron > Posted 2 hours ago by Dr. Ron Lasky | 0 Comments 0 Linking Posts >
>
>