latest Euro ROHS fun

I think that was his point.

Jerry

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

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:

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

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

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:

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

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:

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

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.

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 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.

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:

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.

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:

but one still has to pay the deposit in Calif. These use barium instead of lead, which is currently deemed safe.

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:

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.

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

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.

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

Jerry

Oh great. Lucky us.

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

---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------