Lead free controversy

[electronicsfreak]

So this question isn't necessarily over a tricky circuit or theory, but rather deals with social sciences.

In one of my courses we are to investigate a case study within a scientific controversy, specifically analyzing any rhetoric that may have been involved with the discovery, ruling, legislation, etc. of such a controversy.

My chosen topic is the Lead Free ruling put into place many many years ago through RoHS. In as tight a nutshell I can make it, Lead is a very toxic substance that can become hazardous to health and it was deemed necessary to remove it from electronics to keep the substance out of landfills. However, removing this lead has been the source of many problems including tin wiskering and poor solder connections from the lead free available solder.

for more info if interested, here's a couple of my initial E-sources:
http://www.sigcon.com/Pubs/news/10_01.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247531/

Here's where I'm stuck. The topic I've chosen reflects a very present controversy. Heck, there are numerous articles out there to choose from such as the one's I've listed above. However, I'm having a bit of difficulty searching for a specific case within this topic. A documented meeting or experiment/study is what we are to investigate.

Would anyone have any suggestions on what I could be searching for, or particular areas I should focus my search within?

Any of your search suggestions and/or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thankyou,

-EF

 

[ronsimpson]

Lead or no lead. You talked about RoHS.......
Before that there was lead on auto gasoline. I found talk, about studies done on auto lead and violence in people. I have not seen the studies just references to them. I feel that lead in electronics has little direct effect on people. Lead in gasoline seems to have a large effect. Much time has passed so the results are easy to see. It takes 15 to 20 years for the effects to be seen. I don't know where to find the studies but I will look.

 

[jpanhalt]

I think it is an interesting subject to address, particularly if you can keep an objective view point. "Lead is toxic, so we need to eliminate it" is not objective in my view. There are lots of toxic things in our life, and for most of them including lead, it is impossible to show a maximum safe level for exposure. A discussion of how the maximum allowable exposure should be set would seem to be essential. Then, was the procedure for setting it followed or was it highly influenced by politics and special interests. (You may want to read about the limits for formaldehyde exposure as an example where politics seemed to have a very great influence as opposed to cost benefit analysis.)

Lead is a very toxic substance that can become hazardous to health and it was deemed necessary to remove it from electronics to keep the substance out of landfills. However, removing this lead has been the source of many problems including tin wiskering and poor solder connections from the lead free available solder.

I have always wondered why putting lead back into the earth was dangerous to people's health. Are you sure that lead in electronics wasn't just an innocent bystander that got included in more justifiable prohibitions, such as in paint and automotive fuel? What is the state of toxicity studies on the substitute metals being used in lead-free solder?

You will also want to describe the toxic forms of lead (usually an oxidized or organified form of lead) and non-toxic forms, as well as the relative risks associated with various routes of exposure. For example, children more readily absorb ingested lead than adults do. A lead bullet embedded in flesh and not near a bone causes no measurable increase in blood lead concentrations.

Here's where I'm stuck. The topic I've chosen reflects a very present controversy. Heck, there are numerous articles out there to choose from such as the one's I've listed above. However, I'm having a bit of difficulty searching for a specific case within this topic. A documented meeting or experiment/study is what we are to investigate.

Unfortunately, I don't have references handy where I am at present. The early and current thrust to prevent lead exposure is primarily because of its effects on neurologic (i.e., brain) development in children. There are studies throughout the world that document that toxicity. Some examples are studies in Africa where lead was mined and batteries re-processed as well as in American cities that compared intellectual development of children in urban settings to rural (exposure was presumed to be from lead in exhaust of vehicles using gasoline that contained tetraethyllead and from eating flaking paint chips in homes with lead paint) . There are also studies done in rural settings in which certain cultural practices, such as eating cookies made from river mud, led to high lead concentrations and measurable neurologic effects. That practice was common in areas along the Mississippi River in Missouri and South. Also note that blood lead concentrations are critical to all studies of lead toxicity. The results can be confounded by the difficulty of obtaining samples that have not been contaminated with environmental lead.

The real question to address is the effect each of the various prohibitions has had on the intellectual development of the target population. From a practical standpoint, that is an impossible study to perform. However, it is not impossible to assess the collective effect of all of the efforts on intellectual development. Many studies equate lowering blood lead levels to preventing impairment of intellectual development. In other words, they assume there is no safe level of lead. I think that assumption can be questioned with available data. Then, once a non-harmful level for blood lead is established, studies can be done to determine the effects of relaxing restrictions in certain industries. Rather than eliminating restrictions, however, I think the more likely political outcome will be to broaden the exceptions or to apply additional taxes to lead-containing products.

Good luck.

John

 

[MikeMl]

No controversy, lead-free solder isn't worth a damn.

 

[steveB]

No controversy, lead-free solder isn't worth a damn.

The lead free solder itself is worth a lot of money! But, using it is another matter entirely.

This reminds me of the mandated use of ethanol in gasoline. It creates more problems than it solves. Failure rates and costs go up in both cases. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad idea, but it does require many problems to then be solved. Later someone will figure out if it was all worth the aggravation and cost. Usually, the final analysis shows things did not turn out as expected. The real problem often isn't solved and new unanticipated problems (that might be even harder to fix) are the result.

 

[MikeMl]

I have a blessing from the FAA to use >86 octane automobile gasoline in my airplanes. I cannot use fuel containing ethanol in airplanes.

Since the EPA has mandated 10% of all motor fuel sold in the US MUST contain ethanol, and since motor fuel contains 10% ethanol, virtually 100% of all fuel sold must contain ethanol. Non-ethanol gas is getting impossible to find locally. The distributors are penalized for selling it.

 

[KeepItSimpleStupid]

This search may help you:
https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=nasa+lead+soldering&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Unfortunately for you, it wasn't just lead, but the European ROHS directive. In the US, only a few states such as California that are enforcing ROHS. The EU is also restricting the standby power allowed in electronics.

 

[electronicsfreak]

Thank-you all for your help thus far. I've had a couple of conversations with my professor since my last post. The assignment is meant to highlight, in layman's terms the methods used for arguing within a controversy. Unfortunately, I'm having a great bit of difficulty finding reliable academic sources that clear cut. Most of my searches have been returning very broad articles for example showing how corporations are adjusting to meet the bare minimum requirement as their RoHS exemptions expire.

A company fighting for an exemption would be perfect, or perhaps a documented account of the talks that went into RoHS or WEEE legislation. Swatch is a good example of this, where they lost ~1billion due to the affects from wiskering when they went lead free, thereafter applying for an exemption. Anything like this seem to stand out at all or come to mind?

Again, thank-you all for your input. Putting this assignment aside, this is a very interesting topic.

-EF

 

[KeepItSimpleStupid]

Don't know if this search helps "NASA whiskering?

 

[jpanhalt]

A company fighting for an exemption would be perfect, or perhaps a documented account of the talks that went into RoHS or WEEE legislation. Swatch is a good example of this, where they lost ~1billion due to the affects from wiskering when they went lead free, thereafter applying for an exemption. Anything like this seem to stand out at all or come to mind?

What you say about broad descriptions is, I am sure, accurate. You will need to narrow your searches.

As to your other point about how to argue something, let me suggest that showing a costly example of compliance, like in the case of Swatch, will not be persuasive on its own regardless of how many such examples you have. From a regulatory standpoint, such costs are considered recoverable from the customers. The contrary view will be something to the effect of, "Sure the regulation costs, but how much is one life worth?" In my experience, you not only have to show that the current regulation is costly (that is almost a given), you have to show either a less costly way to the same end or show that the intended ends are not being attained and propose an alternative that might work. As a concrete example in another area, suppose your house is appraised for taxation at $100,000. You feel that is way too high, so you present studies to the taxation board showing that all other houses in the area are appraised for a lower value and therefore the appraised value for your home is wrong -- or other arguments to the same effect. You will probably lose the appeal, if that is all you present. The key, missing argument is to show what the correct appraised value should be. Now, back to lead. You not only have to show the current regulation has flaws, you have to propose a better solution.

One thing to remember is that the regulation already exists. The political benefits of making the regulation have already been realized. Softening the regulation will have adverse political fallout. That is why in my earlier response I focused so much on the rationale for the regulation and its (presumed) failure to attain its goals, except in well-defined areas where lead exposure was easily addressed . If you show that, then costs become relevant, and hopefully, you can propose an alternative. Your alternative doesn't have to be perfect, it only has to be less costly and have about the same or greater chance of success.

John