Lead free solder - exposed in a UK national newspaper

I don't think that I would say that it has been done out of "sheer stupidity" - more out of misinformed madness. My feeling is that once lead had been determined to be a potential health hazard, as it probably was when lead compounds were added to petrol as anti-knock agents, then all uses of the material became automatically 'demonised', irrespective of whether any threat from them was real, or imagined. The ecobollocks that I have referred to elsewhere in this thread, has reached the point of unjustified hysteria amongst both the politicos and, worryingly, the scientific establishment, who should know better.

Governments rely heavily on so-called scientific advisors, but it seems to me that many of these are receiving commercial grants from government, and will tell them whatever they want to hear. Much of the current ecohysteria that is reported in the press, is based on very dubious science, that in my day, would have been thrown out of school for poor methodology. I, and most others in the electronic service industry, simply do not believe that lead in solder represents any threat to health, or the environment at all, and I personally have seen no persuasive evidence from any quarter to convince me otherwise.

I think that lead based solder is just an unfortunate victim of someone's over-enthusiastic approach to anything containing lead, and the whole RoHS thing has just swept it along with itself, without those who caused it in the first place, understanding the full implications of just what they've done. Apart from anything else, just consider how much extra power is being used every day world wide, to run all of the production solder baths and hand soldering tools, 30 or 40 degrees hotter than was needed for lead-based solder ... Eco-friendly, or what ...?

Arfa

Unless, of course, it's a CFL full of nasty mercury compounds ... d;~}

Arfa

Yes, you retarded f*****ad.

First off, how fast is an electron moving when it is in free air or a vacuum?

If the return for a "source" of an electron or stream of electrons is metallic, something those of us in the industry refer to as a target, when said electron strikes that return point, it WILL emit X-rays.

An X-ray emitter tube for X-ray machines works on that very principle!

A beam of electrons strikes a Palladium return point or target, and X-ray flux emission off the face of the target is one of the resultant effects of said electron beam's entry into said return point.

The differences are in power level, and also different mediums exhibit X_rays better than others.

The fact still remains, however,that ALL metals DO exhibit SOME amount of X-rays when struck by an electron or electron beam.

So Shut The F*ck Up, KeithTard!

"Jeff Liebermann" "Phil Allison"

( delete drivel)

You got a cite for that ?

It ain't changed.

..... Phil

when

referred

my

most

me

being

lead-based

I recently went to a lecture by Jim Thurston, Medical Engineering and Physics, King's College Hospital, London; mainly about hormesis and background to the polonium murder of Litvinenko in London.

But at the end I asked for an explanation of something that has always evaded me. Why some incinerator plants are licensed to incinerate low level radioactive waste , as it gives the impression that you can rid radioactive material be incineration, compared to landfill.

The answer, from that government scientific advisor, was along the lines that a lot of it is for the purpose of incinerating biological hazard material that is also radioctive. Then it is a matter of distributing the plume of radioctive outfall , from the smoke/gases, over as wide an area as possible, of adjascent communnities. It is some sort of ststistical exercise. Too much radiation per Kg then it cannot be allowed to be dumped but if the radioctive component from that Kg is distributed over some (unspecified) large area of land surface then that is permitted.

-- Diverse Devices, Southampton, England electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on

I would not know about integtrity, but the MP of the mix is a *lot* lower than lead-free (solder).

MP of Sn96.5 Ag3.5 is 430F/221C.

Speaking about feet, remember the "scopes" in some shoe stores that would show a real-time X-ray of one's wiggling feet/toes?

So that about says it, doesn't it ? 'Official' government advice from someone that you would expect better of, based on what you would have to say was at best, 'dubious science' !! It defies belief, but goes a long way towards explaining to 'eco-believers' why things such as lead-free solder, are actually nonsense ...

Arfa

Arfa

You clearly know nothing at all of Europe or its politics. If you seriously believe that the UK is responsible for bringing about ANY Europe-wide legislation, you are very seriously deluded. All Eurobollocks is driven by the likes of France and Germany, and our emasculated government just roll over at every opportunity, and follow like sheep. Do you actually know anything of the British Empire's history ? It was not about bending people's political will. It was about having a world united in friendship and trade. Admittedly, it was about ensuring that the trade was to our global advantage, but overall, the world was a better and more peaceful place back in those days. Now, we have 'superpowers' like the US, who want every country in the world to become another US state, with the same language, political views, religion, consumer and oil driven economies and so on. And you accuse US of trying to bend wills ? Sheesh.

Arfa

I assume you're being hyperbolic for humorous effect. But there is only a tiny amount of mercury in a fluorescent tube.

Yes, I'm old enough to remember those.

There's a Discovery or History Channel show with a segment attacking these fluoroscopes. They not only generated more X-radiation than needed, but spewed it all over the place.

Not only that, but it is pure metallic form Mercury, not some dangerous compound(s).

A very small amount.... In the big, long tubes. An even smaller amount in a desktop CFL.

You said "whenever", Dimbulb. As always, you're AlwaysWrong.

If "it", no matter what the energy of the electron? Dimmie, you're a prize!

ALL? No matter what the energy of the electrons?

Dimbulb, you need to look in a mirror, if you can find one that won't shatter!

Brings to mind the old saying: The solution to pollution is dilution. Thus, we now have oceanic dead zones off the coasts.

You assume correctly. However, it is a serious point, because there is more mercury in there than the official maximum limit for disposal in regular household garbage in Europe (apparently). At my local dump, there is a special bin for 'regular' fluorescent tubes, but no mention of CFLs, which I'm sure that many people don't realise, also employ the same basic technology. Incidentally, in an effort to promote these hateful lights, my local supermarket is 'giving them away' for 1 penny each. Another one was giving them free with a certain amount of shopping a few weeks ago. So I wonder how that equates with the proposals to 'build in' the cost of disposal of electronic waste, to the retail price ...?

Arfa

I'm right-well pleased with the $2 21W CFLs from Home Despot. Their balance is close to daylight (as confirmed with digital photographs taken under their light), and in a glass (or even plastic) fixture, you'd never know they were fluorescents. *

They're not only cheaper to operate than incandescents (regular or halide), but they come on _instantly_. Faster, actually, than incandescents, which you can see "ramp up".

Last year Home Despot gave away 12W CFLs on Black Friday. I stuck mine in the fixture next to my condo's front door. It's always burning out, because the owners' association doesn't understand why they should use 130V, rather than 120V, lamps.

• In my kitchen, living room, and two bedrooms, I've hung beautiful glass fixtures from IKEA. They're white glass, and have the sort of utterly simple design that will be considered classic even 1000 years from now. I just hope they survive that long, because IKEA doesn't make them any more. (Natch.) I had to scramble to find the four I have. By the way, they replaced four of those awful "tin-can" spotlights.

I said "halide" when I meant to say "halogen". They're not quite the same thing.