Searching \ for '[EE]:: ROHS - worse for the environment than the a' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/language/index.htm?key=environ
Search entire site for: ': ROHS - worse for the environment than the a'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]:: ROHS - worse for the environment than the a'
2008\03\26@073222 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
part 1 6295 bytes content-type:multipart/related; type="text/plain"; (decoded 7bit)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0740_01C88FA1.CBD10940
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252";
       reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



ROHS Roll back the lead-free initiative 12 ROHS myths -
9-13-2007 - EDN

   http://www.edn.com/article/CA6477864.html

____________________________

The detailed EPA investigation described /linked below is
said to conclude that ROHS sucks and that it is worse for
the environment than tin-lead solder was. I skim-waded
through the summary report - and it is highly interesting
and PROBABLY supports the claimed conclusions - but they are
very mealy mouthed in saying so.

The main report looks like even more fun. The executive
summary says even less about conclusions except effectively,
in my words "each user can use the data as input into
established evaluation systems to draw conclusions available
to their own interests."

The relative PDF size are interesting.


       Russell

_____________________________________________




Solders in Electronics: A Life-Cycle Assessment

This life-cycle assessment (LCA) evaluated the potential
environmental impacts of selected lead-free solders as
alternatives to tin-lead solder. LCAs, which are generally
global and non-site specific in scope, look at the full life
cycle of the product being evaluated, from materials
acquisition to manufacturing, use, and end-of-life (i.e.,
final disposition). This LCA assessed impacts related to
material consumption, energy use, air resources, water
resources, landfills, human toxicity, and ecological
toxicity. The partnership also investigated leachability and
recycling of solders at the end of their lives. The solders
evaluated were: tin/lead, tin/copper, tin/silver/copper,
bismuth/tin/silver, tin/silver/bismuth/copper.

Index page

       http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/pubs/solder/lca/index.htm

Summary
51 pages
3.6 MB

       http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/pubs/solder/lca/lca-summ2.pdf

Full report
472 pages
3.7 MB !

       http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/pubs/solder/lca/lfs-lca-final.pdf


------=_NextPart_000_0740_01C88FA1.CBD10940
Content-Type: image/gif;
       name="solder.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Location: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/images/bg-icons/solder.gif
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------=_NextPart_000_0740_01C88FA1.CBD10940--



part 2 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)

2008\03\26@075249 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Apptech <spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> ROHS Roll back the lead-free initiative 12 ROHS myths -
> 9-13-2007 - EDN
>
>    http://www.edn.com/article/CA6477864.html
>

Just take note that the study is by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and ROHS is mainly a EU things at least last time. Now China, Korea and
California are adding ROHS regulations as well.

Xiaofan

2008\03\26@081415 by fred jones

picon face

Wow, so China is actually becoming concerned about the environment?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Now China, Korea and California are adding ROHS regulations as well.
_________________________________________________________________
Test your Star IQ
club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_HMTAGMAR

2008\03\26@081744 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Apptech
> <.....apptechKILLspamspam@spam@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> ROHS Roll back the lead-free initiative 12 ROHS myths -
>> 9-13-2007 - EDN

>>    http://www.edn.com/article/CA6477864.html

> Just take note that the study is by U.S. Environmental
> Protection Agency (EPA)

Why?

> and ROHS is mainly a EU things at least last time. Now
> China, Korea and
> California are adding ROHS regulations as well.

The study is about the life cycle impact of various solders
and is applicable in all administrations.

Chinese ROHS effectively bans ALL smd resistors due to their
use of tin oxide glaze. European ROHS doesn't quite manage
that.


       R

2008\03\26@091042 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> Wow, so China is actually becoming concerned about the
> environment?

Not that I noticed in two trips there recently.
You probably can breathe in more lead in a 2 day visit to
Beijing than is used on the world's supply of smd resistors
in a year :-). OK, that's obviously an exaggeration. Make
that 5 days.

In fact I have no idea how much lead is in the air in
Beijing. But on a 500 km odd train ride up to Beijing from a
city to the south on the coast the air pollution was
constant. And the sources of it were everywhere evident on
the trip. In Hong Kong, at about the south eastern
extremity, the smog rolls in like thunder out of China
'cross the bay. And I'm reliably told that in the far north
west, near the Russian border, that people persist in
wearing white clothes despite the fact that the air makes
them dirty.

In the tourist books of the Great Wall the scenes are
pristine and sharp and you can see clearly to the horizon. I
have no idea of how this was achieved. In my visit the misty
landscape looked rather nice, but it's a "mist" that
persists. It will vary with time of day and I imagine that
under some conditions the air gets swept clean and the
photographers swarm to catch the moment. But wherever and
whenever I went the vista was one of unremitting smog.

It's very sad, and hopefully one of these decades they may
manage to get the country looking as beautiful as it once
did. But, until then, I suspect that lead oxide on smd
resistors is among the least of their problems.



           Russell

2008\03\26@093820 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Apptech <apptechspamKILLspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:

> >> ROHS Roll back the lead-free initiative 12 ROHS myths -
> >> 9-13-2007 - EDN
> >>    http://www.edn.com/article/CA6477864.html
>
> > Just take note that the study is by U.S. Environmental
> > Protection Agency (EPA)
>
> Why?

Because this somehow makes me think of the denial
of global warming by the US government some time ago.

Xiaofan

2008\03\26@094026 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:13 PM, fred jones <.....boattowKILLspamspam.....hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wow, so China is actually becoming concerned about the environment?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Now China, Korea and California are adding ROHS regulations as well.

Why not? Now the environment protect agency has just become a
ministry. So at least the top level government officials are recognizing
the problems. It takes time to solve the issues though. China is such
a large and complicated country.

Xiaofan

2008\03\26@100338 by John Coppens

flavicon
face
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:38:12 +0800
"Xiaofan Chen" <EraseMExiaofancspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:

> > Why?
>
> Because this somehow makes me think of the denial
> of global warming by the US government some time ago.

I haven't read the written article, but in the video interview, which was
also avaiable on EDN, there was a mention that similar (to the EPA
report) results had been obtained by a German University (in Stuttgart, I
believe).

John

2008\03\26@102338 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> >> ROHS Roll back the lead-free initiative 12 ROHS
>> >> myths -
>> >> 9-13-2007 - EDN
>> >>    http://www.edn.com/article/CA6477864.html
>>
>> > Just take note that the study is by U.S. Environmental
>> > Protection Agency (EPA)
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because this somehow makes me think of the denial
> of global warming by the US government some time ago.

You'll need to explain that if you want to make your point
clear.

Are you for example suggesting that the EPA are an arm or
tool of the US government and are used to implement
government policy? If you are then I would imagine that you
are not overly familiar with the EPA :-).

Have you skimmed or even looked at the report or summaries?

If the reports provided 'data' which lead one to conclude
that ROHS caused a net increase in global warming (and this
is probably what it does provide) would you conclude that
the motives of the report preparers are ideologically
influenced towards supporting the government's position?


       R

2008\03\26@104411 by John Gardner

picon face
> Because this somehow makes me think of the denial
> of global warming by the US government some time ago.

The connection with ROHS is'nt obvious. Care to elaborate?

best regards, Jack

On 3/26/08, Apptech <apptechspamspam_OUTparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\03\26@110200 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
John Gardner wrote:

>>Because this somehow makes me think of the denial
>>of global warming by the US government some time ago.
>
>
> The connection with ROHS is'nt obvious. Care to elaborate?

The connection is, I suppose, in "getting fake data from US" :-))

--
Ciao, Dario

2008\03\26@123043 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:30:45 +1300, "Apptech" <@spam@apptechKILLspamspamparadise.net.nz>
said:
> ROHS Roll back the lead-free initiative 12 ROHS myths -
> 9-13-2007 - EDN
>     http://www.edn.com/article/CA6477864.html
>
> The detailed EPA investigation described /linked below is
> said to conclude that ROHS sucks and that it is worse for
> the environment than tin-lead solder was.

Oh yeah, this is the same EPA that calls the expansion of coal burning
"clear skies".

As much as I hate the new solder, I really don't believe anything the
EPA says. Find some credible report and get back to me.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web

2008\03\26@123328 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:30:45 +1300, "Apptech" <KILLspamapptechKILLspamspamparadise.net.nz>
said:

> The detailed EPA investigation described /linked below is
> said to conclude that ROHS sucks and that it is worse for
> the environment than tin-lead solder was.

And the Toyota Prius is worse for the earth than a Hummer. You can find
"investigations" that say anything you want. I've also heard that
evolution is just a theory. Check your sources.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service

2008\03\26@124638 by John Gardner

picon face
Hi Dario -

I'm not aware of serious disagreement about the hazards of
ROHS - restricted substances.

The dubious case for anthropocentric GW was adequately addressed
by Mr. MacMahon recently - I don't see the connection to ROHS.

Jack

p.s. If you're just wanting to ridicule the current US administration, well -
     Get in line :)  November comes.



On 3/26/08, Dario Greggio <RemoveMEadpm.toTakeThisOuTspaminwind.it> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\03\26@130257 by David VanHorn

picon face
>  p.s. If you're just wanting to ridicule the current US administration, well -
>       Get in line :)  November comes.

Hmm.  We moved the primaries all around, maybe we can move November to
say April, just this once!
:)


If it were me running the show, the primaries and the general election
would each be a 24 hour period where the polls open and close
nationwide at the same moment, and media coverage like exit polls
would be banned under heavy penalty.  I think people should be voting
for the persons they want doing the job, not trying to vote for the
winner.  I'd be ok with a polling place closing early if all of their
registered voters have voted, so small town polling places wouldn't
have to sit there playing cards too long. (also some subtle peer
pressure there for people to get in and VOTE!)

This whole idea of pushing your votes/results earlier trying to
influence later voting is a travesty.

2008\03\26@131951 by John Gardner

picon face
>Hmm.  We moved the primaries all around, maybe we can move November to
>say April, just this once!   :)

The Italian system has much to recommend it - Rarely does
the Capo's chair get warm ...

Jack


On 3/26/08, David VanHorn <spamBeGonemicrobrixspamBeGonespamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\03\26@145217 by Ed Browne

flavicon
face
Russell,
EPA has been seriously revamped under the present administration to the point where arguably the EPA has eliminated much of the good that they have done in the past.  I would be skeptical of anything that EPA has written recently.  Wish it weren't so...

Ed

{Original Message removed}

2008\03\26@164842 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face

{Quote hidden}

Prove that ROHS is not just another "feel good" program that uses  
money and effort that could be applied for much better results.  The  
EPA has never been good at cost versus benefits analysis and that has  
been true from the beginning of their existence.  I have always felt  
that ROHS is another program that steals money and time from the  
populace, who are ultimately the best at determining what is best for  
them.
cc

2008\03\26@165533 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

Voting is mob rule at worst, ineffective, pretend citizen involvement  
at best.
Voting leads to bad things, 90% of the time.
Show me some examples of voting producing an better than average result.
The last two nation-wide votes in the U.S. produced GWB ..... reason  
enough to question the idea of voting.  And the democratic candidate  
would have been just as bad, just in a different way.
cc

> This whole idea of pushing your votes/results earlier trying to
> influence later voting is a travesty.
>
McCain will keep the U.S. in Iraq for 100 years, Obama will rule us  
with a velvet glove, and Hillary is beyond evil.  You want me to vote  
for one of these ?

2008\03\26@173520 by Dr Skip

picon face
Since this is an international list, let's keep it factual... The STATES elect
the president. It's not by popular vote. The states' populations determine whom
the state will 'vote' for, via delegates, and even then, the delegate electors
are not bound by the voting results in their state.

It has interesting consequences when you consider different voter turnout in
each state relative to its delegate 'weight', and, more easily understood, the
discrepancy from population growth and shift because delegate counts aren't
adjusted with real-time numbers. Each state also has its own rules on who can
vote or whether citizenship is even required too...


Cedric Chang wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\03\26@182244 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Cedric Chang wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Its even worse than that. Really tight PCBs are damaged by small threads
of tin that grow when
lead is NOT present to stop it. My company, which makes safety gear,
deliberately  avoids lead-free
PCB assemblies.

I got my links  from NASA, which had a LOT of circuit failures, and
apparently  has dropped  its
use of lead-free materials


--Bob

2008\03\26@185849 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
John Gardner wrote:

> I'm not aware of serious disagreement about the hazards of
> ROHS - restricted substances.

Hi, I just threw a guess... I did not mean to be serious :) but...

> p.s. If you're just wanting to ridicule the current US administration, well -
>       Get in line :)  November comes.

...yes, I awfully dislike current bush-ed administration, though I like
America and americans !

--
Ciao, Dario

2008\03\26@185937 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
John Gardner wrote:

>>Hmm.  We moved the primaries all around, maybe we can move November to
>>say April, just this once!   :)
>
> The Italian system has much to recommend it - Rarely does
> the Capo's chair get warm ...

Please, don't remember me *our* political system :-(((

!

--
Ciao, Dario

2008\03\26@191018 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
I did not say "popular" vote.  So I have to ask what your first  
sentence is about. It is still mob rule.  The "winners" presume they  
can run over the "losers".  The consequences of state electors  
picking the president are not very interesting because there is  
little difference between the republican and democratic candidates.  
They all expand government, print money, lower the value of the U.S.  
dollar and increase the infringement of personal liberties.  So what  
difference does it make which candidate is selected ?

cc

{Quote hidden}

2008\03\26@191732 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> I've also heard that

insert favourite subject here

       > evolution **

> is just a theory.

That concept is called "science".
I know you know this, but any time you hew to a favourite
concept or theory or whatever within an observational system
as if it were immutable and beyond error, you set yourself
up for a fall.*

Some very very very obvious 'facts' have proved not to be
so. At least as far as we can now tell from latest
observations :-).
My regular exemplar is the current flavour of the decades
'plate tectonics' which replaced an equally obvious system
so thoroughly that about nobody now realises that it used to
be taken seriously only 'a few' decades back. (For
increasing values of few).

Francis Crick (you may have heard of him and his colleague
James Watson)( :-) ) wrote a book ("Life Itself") explaining
that "directed panspermia" was by far the most probable
explanation for life as we know it because the prospect of
life having arisen "here" was so utterly small as to be
functionally non-existent.  IMHO it's a terribly written
book, but the fact that one of the two kings of the art saw
fit to write it to add support to what was not an original
theory in his own hallowed area should tell you something.
Or several things. But 'panspermia' is essentially utterly
derided as an alternative to "home made" with no good basis
that I am aware of. It does not of course solve the problem
of the prigin of life - just moves it somewhere else. But
somewhere else is sure to be better than here (or else), as
you'll be aware if you've ever checked your sources.

> Check your sources.

Check your sources.



       Russell

*    Yes. I'm aware of the opportunities for response that
that provides :-)

**  " ... " needs to be well defined for this to be a useful
observation.
"Natural selection" is a scientifically well demonstrated
phenomenon.
"Speciation" is the crunch point and the battle ground.
Agreeing on the former allows the decks to be cleared for
dealing with the latter.

2008\03\26@191732 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> ROHS Roll back the lead-free initiative 12 ROHS myths -
>> 9-13-2007 - EDN
>>     http://www.edn.com/article/CA6477864.html
>>
>> The detailed EPA investigation described /linked below is
>> said to conclude that ROHS sucks and that it is worse for
>> the environment than tin-lead solder was.
>
> Oh yeah, this is the same EPA that calls the expansion of
> coal burning
> "clear skies".
>
> As much as I hate the new solder, I really don't believe
> anything the
> EPA says. Find some credible report and get back to me.

I only skimmed the report BUT it seemed to be going out of
its way to present data and not conclusions (as I noted) and
I gained the impression that there was enough data and
enough indication of the process of derivation to
significantly assist an interested person/party in drawing
their own conclusions. Unlike eg ROHS which is a done deal
or IPCC which is a very well done with stuffing and garnish
deal. But, as ever, I may be wrong.


       Russell


2008\03\26@200415 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Dario Greggio <adpm.toEraseMEspam.....inwind.it> wrote:
> John Gardner wrote:
>
> >>Because this somehow makes me think of the denial
> >>of global warming by the US government some time ago.
> >
> > The connection with ROHS is'nt obvious. Care to elaborate?
>
> The connection is, I suppose, in "getting fake data from US" :-))
>

Maybe not to that extent. However I do think EU has higher
moral standard when it comes to global issues than US
especially in the technical standard side.

Just take note CE (including EMC/EMI) is an EU initiatives
and finally US decided to follow.

ROHS/WEEE/etc will be another thing that US has to follow.

Every country will have to put national interests (first). So it
is not really faking data. But the data are always subject to
interpretation. And since a lot of data are not really clear
cut and are only of statistical meanings. My wife is now
studying epidemiology. By helping her with her assignment
I come to understand why we can get medical reports
which seems to contradict to each other.

Xiaofan

2008\03\26@214427 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

The U.S. may not have high moral standards.  The EU may have high  
moral standards.  That does not make the ROHS legitimate and indeed I  
think it is not.  No amount of halos piled on top of an initiative  
changes it from a waste of money to cost effective.
cc

2008\03\27@103352 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamEraseMEmit.edu On Behalf Of Xiaofan Chen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:04 PM
>
<snip>
>
> Just take note CE (including EMC/EMI) is an EU initiatives
> and finally US decided to follow.

The US does not follow CE standards. We follow FCC and UL standards, while
there is overlap they are not the same. Since the FCC EMC/EMI standards
pre-date the CE standards by decades I'd say the CE followed the US in that
area. Actually to be fair the various members of the EU had their own
independent standards that are as old as the FCC standards. The CE standards
harmonized and expanded the various existing European country rules.

Last year Behringer USA tried to argue that since they passed CE tests they
were OK with FCC standards. In the $1 million forfeiture order issued to
Behringer USA the FCC said:
"12. We disagree. Although the CE and the FCC standards share some common
elements, as the NAL noted, "[CE] testing neither is the equivalent of nor
demonstrates compliance with the Commission's technical standards."
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-100A1.html

Paul Hutch

{Quote hidden}

2008\03\27@110114 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Paul Hutchinson
<RemoveMEpaullhutchinsonspam_OUTspamKILLspamyahoo.com> wrote:
> > Just take note CE (including EMC/EMI) is an EU initiatives
> > and finally US decided to follow.
>
> The US does not follow CE standards. We follow FCC and UL standards, while
> there is overlap they are not the same. Since the FCC EMC/EMI standards
> pre-date the CE standards by decades I'd say the CE followed the US in that
> area. Actually to be fair the various members of the EU had their own
> independent standards that are as old as the FCC standards. The CE standards
> harmonized and expanded the various existing European country rules.
>

Ok you have a point here.

Still I think CE's EMC/EMI part covers much more broad scope than FCC
since FCC seems to apply to less product.

As for UL, yes there are some different safety concerns in US than the
rest of the world (more emphasis to fire hazard, etc). Still what I hear
from UL guys is that they are more and more towards adoting IEC/ISO
standards which often follows EN standards.

Back to ROHS/WEEE, I think there is a problem with them. They
are not really standard based. For CE and other safety directives, they
are standard based. You meet the standard and you are considered to
follow the EU directive. ROHS/WEEE and some other environmental
directives are not standard based. They are legislation based. So
it is a bit harder for the vendors to follow.

Xiaofan

2008\03\27@112001 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Apptech <RemoveMEapptechTakeThisOuTspamspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> I only skimmed the report BUT it seemed to be going out of
> its way to present data and not conclusions (as I noted) and
> I gained the impression that there was enough data and
> enough indication of the process of derivation to
> significantly assist an interested person/party in drawing
> their own conclusions. Unlike eg ROHS which is a done deal
> or IPCC which is a very well done with stuffing and garnish
> deal. But, as ever, I may be wrong.
>
Same thing here. I only skimmed the report BUT it seemed
not presenting the full picture and could not persuade me to
believe its conclusion. But, as ever, I may be wrong. ;-)

Xiaofan

2008\03\27@121954 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> I only skimmed the report BUT it seemed to be going out
>> of
>> its way to present data and not conclusions (as I noted)
>> and
>> I gained the impression that there was enough data and
>> enough indication of the process of derivation to
>> significantly assist an interested person/party in
>> drawing
>> their own conclusions. Unlike eg ROHS which is a done
>> deal
>> or IPCC which is a very well done with stuffing and
>> garnish
>> deal. But, as ever, I may be wrong.

> Same thing here. I only skimmed the report BUT it seemed
> not presenting the full picture and could not persuade me
> to
> believe its conclusion. But, as ever, I may be wrong. ;-)

Given what you said previously, I can't see how they could
possibly satisfy your requirements.

The choice is to present conclusions, and be a tool of the
US government, or to present data and methodologies, and be
deemed lacking in content. Is there some 3rd way that would
work ?


       Russell

2008\03\27@132919 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Mar 27, 2008, at 8:06 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> I only skimmed the report BUT it seemed not presenting the full  
> picture and could not persuade me to believe its conclusion.

Ah, American politics.  Even if I agree with the basic conclusion  
("ROHS restriction of lead-based solders is silly"), a report from  
our government organizations (EPA, in this case) inspires such anti-
confidence that I'm back to square one.  Sigh.

BillW

2008\03\27@164708 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Cedric Chang wrote:

>> This whole idea of pushing your votes/results earlier trying to
>> influence later voting is a travesty.
>>
> McCain will keep the U.S. in Iraq for 100 years, Obama will rule us  
> with a velvet glove, and Hillary is beyond evil.  You want me to vote  
> for one of these ?

The President doesn't have the power to do any of the above without
Congress.

Vote carefully for your CongressCritters, and stop worrying about the
Presidential hype until there's an issue that may be vetoed.

Currently the approval rating of Congress as a whole is something less
than 20%... but we don't hear about that on the news.  That's the real
problem.

Lobbyists, big money, and lack of integrity... in both Congress and the
Oval Office.

Nate

2008\03\27@193508 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
I'd appreciate the tag being changed to [OT] or subject line
amended when the content changes to pure politics. That way
the two sub threads can die their own blazing deaths at
various times rather than together. Ta.

       TTFN


               R


Change the names and you could be talking about politics in
almost any country from any viewpoint :-)

>>> ... pushing your votes ...
>> ... keep the U.S. in Iraq for 100 years ...
>> ... Obama will ...
>> ... Hillary is beyond evil...
> ... Lobbyists, big money, and lack of integrity... in both
> Congress and the
> ... Oval Office.

2008\03\27@193508 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> Ah, American politics.  Even if I agree with the basic
> conclusion
> ("ROHS restriction of lead-based solders is silly"), a
> report from
> our government organizations (EPA, in this case) inspires
> such anti-
> confidence that I'm back to square one.  Sigh.

You could actually try looking at the contents:-).

What surprised me initially was that it appeared to be a
tool box of methods and data with almost no obvious
conclusions being drawn. It had tables of things like pre
manufacturing impacts in a range of areas such as mining
requirements, energy usage etc and post use impacts such as
landfill leachates etc.

Given the great difficulty of getting good information in
such areas it seemed that anyone who was interested could at
least look at what they say and how they say they obtained
the data and what methods they used to get it and present it
and see if it looked objective enough to be useful to prop
up whatever preconceived position the user already had.
(That is what one uses this sort of thing for, isn't it?).

Compare this with the IPCC approach of massaging the basic
statistical framework to make it impossible [yes, I know
what that word means] to make much data do anything except
fit their mould. This approach appears to work well, given
the significant amount of IPCC supporting commentary that is
made, when such matters are referred to, that completely
avoids addressing the claim that the emperors clothes have
been taken away and burned.

I have no mandate for the EPA -  I can believe that they are
not what they were, even though I have seen them do some
'good stuff' [tm] in the past,  but I would have thought
that a look through the report would be a reasonable
precursor to slanging them over it. I had no idea what I was
letting myself in for when I presented this. It seemed like
a gold mine of basic resource (also a tin mine, lead mine,
silver mine, tin mine and more) and I commented on how
surprisingly conclusion free it seemed. I can now see why.
They must be staggering shell-shocked from one report
release to the next wondering how to please anyone at all
:-).



       Russell




2008\03\27@204720 by John Gardner

picon face
Hi Russell -

US Civil Service law prevents wholesale dismissal of "non-political"
employees of Federal agencies upon change of administration.

It's commonplace for the political heads of such agencies to wage
protracted struggles with their own bureaucracies to produce results
acceptable to the resident @ 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Unsurprisingly, when the parties are at loggerheads, the results some-
times defy common sense.

Another reason we limit the terms of the Executive branch.

Your great(est?) countryman, W.S. Churchill,  is reputed to have said
that the United States can be counted on to do the right thing, after ex-
hausting the alternatives...

Jack

p.s. Apologies for mispelling your name in a previous post.



On 3/27/08, Apptech <EraseMEapptechspamspamspamBeGoneparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\03\31@160552 by James Newton

face picon face
This really shouldn't be discussed on the PICList, and I have already asked
that some of the language involved be changed offlist.

Having said that, this thread hasn't (as far as I have seen) generated a
flame war, which is the reason why the list was set up with prohibitions
against political or religious discussions.

I would like to add to what Nate said about not focusing so much on the
President. I would suggestion that were people can REALLY make a difference
is by voting with their dollars rather than for any political appointee.

Discussing or voting in political areas has little effect compared to voting
with money in the economy. No matter if you think we invaded Iraq entirely
to get oil, to keep oil from being sold under OPEC prices or, even for
humanitarian reasons, I think we can all agree that if there were not large
amounts of oil in that area, we would not be worrying about it. If you don't
like the war in Iraq, find a way to stop or reduce your purchases of oil.
For my part, I took a (slight) pay cut and changed to working 4 10 hour days
a week to reduce (some) my gasoline usage. I hope to convince my boss to let
me tele-commute. I put in a wood stove, and clothes drying racks to reduce
(vastly) my use of "Natural" Gas. I put in solar panels to reduce (vastly)
my use of fossil fuel electricity. We grow some of our own food. As a
result, I can sleep at night (now) and blame most of the rest of you for the
war rather than myself.

Arguing about politics is, by and large, a waste of time. Politicians do
what they do because they must do it to get re-elected. Educating the people
and changing the economy is the only real way to change the world.

The PICList is about educating the people. We, the engineers of the world,
are able, and therefore responsible to, change the world. When we present
the world with a logical alternative to oil based transport and energy
production, to non-toxic electronic circuitry, to better information and
education, the world will follow OUR lead.

Stand up.

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2008\03\31@160942 by James Newton

face picon face
Thank you, and yes, Please people: Do change the tags. It also helps to keep
busy, and often valuable, professional people ON the list by allowing them
to filter out the stuff they don't have time to read.

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...