Re: EU lead-free directive
- From: David Brown <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:54:22 +0200
Robert Latest wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.] On 2005-06-01, David Brown <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That certainly seems to apply to the more inexplicable exceptions (lead is allowed in servers, storage devices, and network infrastructure devices).
This is plenty explicable. The manufacturers of this equipment claim (with some validity) that there isn't much known about the long-term stability of the lead-free stuff, and since companies and governments and whatnot rely on reliable IT infrastructure they can't run the risk of switching over to a new technology.
robert
What about the rest of us that make electronics designed to last for decades? I fully understand the desire to remove lead from throw-away electronics, of which there is more and more these days. But there is a lot electronics produced that is a lot harder to replace than a network switch, or with greater consequences of failure than a typical server. A far more practical arrangement than a blanket ban on lead, except for groups with loud lobbyists, would have been a tax on lead-containing electronics along with obligatory marking of such cards. The tax would start small, and increase over the years, and be used to finance recycling plants. Then mass manufacturers would use lead-free to save their profits, while smaller and specialist manufacturers could choose.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: EU lead-free directive
- From: Robert Latest
- Re: EU lead-free directive
- Prev by Date: Re: The next name
- Next by Date: Re: Archiving very old paper diagrams, drawings and text
- Previous by thread: Re: EU lead-free directive
- Next by thread: Re: EU lead-free directive
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
