Nickel-gold plating a whole board

Sorry, AlwaysWrong, but you're ALWAYS wrong. Just because oxygen won't corrode gold doesn't mean it there are no gold compounds.

As far as the Baer's assertion, that you claim is wrong (did I mention that

"Gold Tarnishing Possible causes include: (reference) Perspiration (everyone's body chemistry is different, hence this is why some are more susceptible than others); for women, the time of the month can influence their body chemistry."

DimBulb, you really should learn how to do a web search. You *might* learn something before posting your crap (that's ALWAYS wrong).

It can't. That is what I said. Learn to read.

No. I just happen to know more about jewelry than you do.

You're ALWAYS wrong, AlwaysWrong. ALWAYS.

Yes, you retarded twit, YOU are slow on everything.

Interesting choice of sock-puppets, DimBulb, since you obviously know nothing about the subject. Mommy's hamper getting low?

I worked for a company that, for a while, made their own PC boards. They did gold cardedge fingers without a nickel barrier, just gold on copper. Gold was cheap back in those days, and they plated about 1 mil of gold, which was enough to prevent copper diffusion. The sorts of gold people do nowadays, tens of microinches, needs the nickel barrier, or copper will diffuse up, in which case fingerprints would corrode things.

Their toxics disposal system was efficient: everything got dumped in a big puddle behind the building. The ragweed seemed to thrive on it.

John

So, what was the chemical composition of the greenish fingerprints on the gold plating?

John

he

t's

th

ns.

You really didn't pay any attention during your chemistry lectures, did you.

Waste disposal regulations are the kinds of pesky detail that costs money to conform to.

James Arthur wants to make the economy more productive by radically simplifying the regulatory environment. Some of the individual workers working in that - polluted - environment may end up less productive in consequence, but you can't make a right-wing omelet without breaking a few eggs.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The same as this stuff?

Then again there might have been a Home Depot across the street. They usually have this sausage stand that sells a delicious Jumbo Polish and I eat mine without mustard but lots of green relish :-)

Only enough to get A's, which turned out to be not very much.

John

? The

ood

. It's

with

nics

ped

of

tions.

s'

or

Clearly. If Tulane didn't get the idea into your head that fly dumping toxic waste was a very bad idea, its chemistry department must have been pretty hopeless, or at least dangerously irresponsible, which comes to much the same thing.

Since you used an unmarked snip to get rid of the url's pointing to two fairly dramatic examples of careless disposal of toxic chemicals ruining the health of innocent by-standers, you clearly still haven't got the message.

You may know quite a bit about electronics, but you do seem to be dangerously ignorant in quite a few other areas.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

It's

conditions.

What the hell is wrong with you? I didn't dump any toxics, and the people who did didn't report to me.

You are making no sense at all.

A study released in 2010 by the California Cancer Registry showed that cancer rates in Hinkley "remained unremarkable from 1988 to 2008."[7] An epidemiologist involved in the study said that "the 196 cases of cancer reported during the most recent survey of 1996 through 2008 were less than what he would expect based on demographics and the regional rate of cancer."[7]

John

his? The

e good

sen. It's

be with

Tronics

ropped

cs,

ched

mes of

nditions.

ous,

ve

dies'

conc

n, or

on

mil

n a

But your comment didn't show any sign that you understood - then or now - precisely how irresponsibly your employers were behaving. If you'd been properly taught in your chemistry class, you would have known enough to blow the whistle on them back then, and to have understood why you had a moral obligation to do so before the muck had a chance to spread.

None so deaf as those that do not wish to hear.

Strange that these witnesses weren't persuasive enough to prevent the law suit being "settled in 1996 for US$333 million, the largest settlement ever paid in a direct action lawsuit in US history."

If you follow up the link to groundwater contamination in Hinkley,

you find that the same sentence is directly followed by the observation that "However, considering the survey spanned a time period of 22 to 32 years after PG&E=92s discontinued use of hexavalent chromium, it is unknown how many cancer cases were not included in the study due to the relocation of families or the untimely deaths of afflicted residents of Hinkley."

In other words, the cancer survey doesn't have much to do with the period when people were exposed to hexavalent chromium in their drinking water.

And you snipped the url pointing to Love Canal, which - while it didn't manage to inspire an Academy Award winning film - didn't leave much room for argument about the unfortunate effects of that particular case of irresponsible waste disposal, though the authorities managed to ignore them for a depressingly long time

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

You obviously do not know what the term means, since it does not apply.

Now, you have to guess which term I refer to.

I know more about the subject to which my nym refers than you ever will.

I am sure the EPA would love to hear about that location.

You said it yourself, idiot. It was copper oxide.

If COPPER was present, that is what you saw. It certainly was NOT the gold. It really is that simple, dumbfuck.

It's

conditions.

Finally, something Sloman stated, which I am in agreement which (except for the electronic knowledge part).

Larkin is an idiot to act as if such behavior was trivial.

So, even if he knows a tiny bit about electronics (and I do mean tiny), he is criminally ignorant (practically) about environmental concerns. That for neglecting to report the activity. Even to this day.

How ill-vilized of you, John Larkin. I'll take ci-vility any day.

Turning a blind eye is a crime of complacency, which evolves into complicity virtually immediately, and forever.

You lose... again.