Cedric Chang wrote: >> On Mar 26, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Bob Blick wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:30:45 +1300, "Apptech" >> >> 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 >> > > 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 > 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 -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist