Greenpeace Bitching Again. This time: Video Games
May 23rd, 2008
|
| Share |
In yet another blatant ploy for attention and publicity, while actually accomplishing absolutely NOTHING for the environment, Greenpeace has recently issued a statement whining about how video game consoles are not “green” enough. In their recent “Guide to Greener Electronics”, the organization claims that consoles like the Wii, X-Box 360 and Playstation III are not only harmful to the environment, but downright dangerous to those who own them.
The report calls them a “toxic menace,” and implies that simply bringing these devices into one’s home presents a danger to health. However, the scare tactic gets worse! Greenpeace has suggested that the toxic materials in these consoles are a danger to children and will impair development. And in a clear ploy to create panic over a sensitive issue, they have even stated that these consoles contain material which could affect sexual development or create sexual dysfunction in males.
So what are these horrible toxins that Greenpeace is alleging will kill us all, make kids stupid and turn men into eunuchs? Their report cites a few. These include: polyvinyl chloride, phthalates, beryllium and bromine. Well, first of all, it’s worth mentioning that polyvinyl chloride is also known as PVC and is a very common plastic which is in all manner of products. You may be familiar with “PVC pipes” which are very commonly used for waste water and are also used for drinking water and general purpose plumbing. It’s also one of the most common plastics used for electrical insulation and other general purpose consumer goods. It can be hazardous, if for example it is burned and you huff the fumes of it. But having it in a video game console? COME ON!
As for the rest of the claims, I’ve read the Greenpeace report, and at best they’re extremely inflated. The concentrations found were often measured in PPM or “parts per million.” The primary analysis methods used was x-ray fluorescence. This method only provides data on the amount of an element present in a sample, and does not provide any data about what chemical form or compound the element is in, which is a critical omission since the chemistry of the material is often far more important than the component elements – the classic example being table salt.
Bromine was reportedly found in the circuit boards of the devices. This is not surprising at all, because bromine is a commonly used in the process of producing printer circuit boards. It’s also used in photographic chemicals, disinfectants, dyes and numerous other products. Like chlorine, small concentrations of bromine are used as a sanitizing agent in water treatment and swimming pools and hot tubs. The amounts found in the consoles were not unusual, and although bromine is highly toxic (if you eat it), the best Greenpeace can come up with is that it could be a hazard if the consoles were disposed of by burning in an open pit or uncontrolled incinerator. One thing lacking is the hard data on exactly what form the bromine was in. Was it in a compound of some type? Was it on the surface or embedded in the components? Greenpeace won’t say. Only the most vague data is provided. Since only the concentrations of the element are provided (which are quite nominal) the actual toxicity is not apparent from these tests. Based on the data avaliable, however, it appears to be relatively low.
The other alleged toxins were likewise considerably less dangerous than the headline of the report alleges. Beryllium was found in some of the electrical contacts. Again, this is not surprising because beryllium is very common as an additive in metal alloys. Adding small amounts of beryllium to copper improves its durability and mechanical properties. It may also be used in alloys to help reduce corrosion or weight. However, Greenpeace does not state the amount of beryllium found, only that it was detected. Beryllium is indeed toxic, however the primary danger from it is from inhaling dust which is produced if the material is ground or machined without proper precautions. Considering that the material is only present in the metal alloys of the consoles, presumably in small amounts and well contained within the material, the idea that it poses a danger to consumers is absurd.
The phthalates which were found in the consoles were detected in electrical wiring. Again, this is not any news because phthalates are very common in plastics and are used to improve flexibility and durability of numerous plastic formulas. The alledged health effects comes from the fact that phthalates have been shown to cause hornomal issues in animal studies, including interfering with sexual hormones and triggering allergies. Of course, this was only observed in considerably higher doses than one would ever expect to be exposed to from consumer products. Also, it only is a concern if you plan on eating the wiring of your consoles. Even then, the danger is, at best, dubious.
Lead and cadmium were also found, again in unremarkable concentrations. These can be found in most electronics, as lead is the most common soldering agent in use and cadmium is also used in soldering as well as in alloys, rechargeable batteries and other semiconductors.
So, again, don’t eat your console.
Conclusion:
This is blatant scaremongering and a ploy for publicity, which has unfortunately worked by getting some press coverage. Simply looking at their website for the “Clash of the Consoles” shows the slick graphics and style of an obviously well funded publicity operation. Worse still, they’re asking people to write to Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft and whine at them about perfectly safe and legitimate products which are no different than many other consumer products in their composition. While it may be reasonable to criticize video games for reducing the social interactions of children or just being a waste of time, this line of reasoning is totally bogus.
Beyond that, there’s good reason to think that some video games may be GOOD for kids, not only in the form of educational games but also products like the Wii. The Wii is pretty unique because it is the first console to be based primarily on the player’s movements, and it has proven to actually be a pretty decent source of exercise.
Lets not forget, we live in a world where there are millions of tons of coal burning in mine fires that pollute the atmosphere and destroy local environments, where shipbreakers in India are tearing apart contaminated vessels with no protection or containment of toxic runoff, where rain forests are being slashed and burned and where a massive collection of trash is accumulating in the Pacific Ocean. And these idiots sit there and bitch about video games containing plastic.
This entry was posted on Friday, May 23rd, 2008 at 1:04 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Enviornment, Obfuscation, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
God, I wonder sometimes why anyone takes these idiots seriously. Come on! Trying to scare people over supposed toxins in their video games? This is just ridiculous. Why the hell does the press even cover it.
It also makes me wonder how the hell an organization like this manages to keep up the membership. I know these groups have tens of thousands or more of passive members and supporters. How do they not notice how silly this is?
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I got the feeling that the Greenpeace is beginning to panic. Their cash cow antinuclear issues are becoming more and more difficult to milk as the population is taking a second look at nuclear power and liking what it sees. If Greenpeace can’t stir up some new threats soon they are going to slip into irrelevancy and the leadership knows it.
I predict that this is just the start of several campaigns as they try to broaden their donor base, and probe about for the next issue that they can exploit.
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I like that graphic at the top of the page–that’s a pretty good description of almost all Greenpeace activity.
About the only thing they do that I agree with is try to save the whales.
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
DV82XL said:
Agreed.
This is somewhat shocking for me though, I feed old video game consoles to my robot all the time, and I do worry that some of these things could be effecting it’s health. It has trouble obeying the three laws of robotics more and more often…
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
The whole thing about phthalate esters being a danger to health is another issue onto itself, which from what I have seen is totally inflated and not based on real scientific data other than the unproven hypothesis that trace amounts could cause health issues in the same manner that massive doses are observed to in animals. This is at best a weak hypothesis simply based on the fact that any chemical which stimulates a hormonal response is going to need to be of a certain quantity to get the body to respond. The best data is that it is probably negligible and it’s not a concern under normal circumstances.
This is especially idiotic to single out video game consoles as being dangerous or “not green” because there’s nothing unique about them for containing the compounds. They’re found in a huge variety of products and this includes food and beverage containers, toys and almost anything else which has flexible plastics in it. Even if they were dangerous, video game consoles would be the least of concerns for exposure, because they’re so ubiquitous.
I’m not sure what is worse the phthalate or the PVC. Jesus, do these clowns know that more than half of new water infrastructure piping is PVC-based. It’s one of the most common plastics in existence.
Good advice about not burning this stuff and huffing the smoke or for that matter eating it. I think that about covers the safety instructions necessary.
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Kirk Sorensen said:
Yes, I like it a lot. Blowing smoke out their ass pretty much sums up what they do. It’s just a wonder there are still media outlets that will provide them any coverage of this crap.
It’s a bit insulting really when you consider the gravity of the enviornmental crisis around the world that they would be whining about this crap and also putting out such misleading information in a very obvious attempt to scare people. It’s stupid.
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Wow, I just got back from trolling Greenpeace drones who were gathered at a public square around here. They seem to be programmed to dismiss criticism with “have a nice day”. No dice. I guess they saw it coming!
The worst part of it is when world media tries to ease their eco-guilt by giving these wankers any credibility.
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Greenpeace’s individual donors may take a flyer upon seeing this, but I would lay odds that Greenpeace gained a couple of new corporate donors – to shut Greenpeace up.
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
GreenPUS, or GreenPISS, will do and say anything to raise money. Babbling on and on about EVIL ‘toxins’ has brought GreenPUS money in the past, so they will keep at it.
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Yeah, PVC’s monomer is fairly dangerous, but after it’s been made, it’s pretty darn stable, and I wouldn’t believe it was harmful–especially to gamers . . . unless they spontaneously combust while playing . . . but then they have other problems
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Kendall said:
Vinyl chlorid, which despite being the basic monomer of PVC is verry different before polymerization. Vinyl chloride is a gas at room temperature, it’s toxic, fairly reactive and stinky nasty stuff. It actually can act as an anesthetic if inhaled, assuming it is not enough to kill you. In some ways it’s similar to ethyl chloride or other simple organic chlorides in basic properties.
The polymerized final product is entirely different and quite stable. Beyond that, it’s an extremely common plastic. It’s strong and durable so it is the the number 1 plastic for construction use. Of course it is used in many other products too. It’s generally good solid inert stuff.
The big complaint is dioxins, which you can get if it’s burned as in a waste incinerator or something. Greenpeace has wanted it phased out because of this and the state of California has considered restrictions on it. It’s idiotic because this is only something that is going to happen with uncontrolled waste burning, which is always bad anyway and creates dioxins when there is ANY similar chlorine-containing organic compound being oxidized like that.
Of course all that amounts to is another good reason not to go around throwing all manner of trash into a big open fire. We all knew that was a bad idea anyway or at least should have.
There are claims that it releases dioxins as a result of producing PVC, but I don’t buy it. It might release dioxins if it’s manufactured without any kind of enviornmental controls or containment. Modern production methods shouldn’t produce that much and it should all be properly contained and treated, assuming the manufacturers are doing what they should be.
When it comes down to it, PVC is just a common, stable and normally harmless plastic.
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Oh wait. You’re a chemical engineering grad student? and a female too?
You want to maybe get married or something?
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Not wasting any time getting to the point there Gregor, are we?
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
DV82XL said:
Well, my name is actually Gregory. However, I thought dropping the Y made it sound a lot more exotic and badass in general. I mean there was Gergor Mendel, who wasn’t really that badass but he was a good scientist.
But in any case, enough with that silliness. I am certainly more mature than ever needing to rely on a name variation because it sounds more badass or interesting. I am of course an interesting person myself and very sensitive, but sensitive in a good way and not in a prissy or un-manly way. Actually I am quite masculine and I have all the traits necessary to provide shelter and safety and potentially fertility. I’m a stable yet powerful male who is assured success in the hunt. I’m also sometimes described as “Dashing.”
I happen to live in Pennsylvania which is not all that far from where the poster before me lives. Okay, you might say she lives on the other side of the US, but really that’s not that far compared to most of the earth’s surface. Actually, in astronomical terms it’s really really close.
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:39 pm
DV82XL said:
Perhaps, but I predict this will backfire on them badly. They’re going after video games and cell phones and stuff people use. This is not a good thing for them. People like video games. Video games are fun. When you start going after video games and ipods and television and other stuff like that you’re pissing on the party and you won’t be popular. Remember that people want their damn bread and circus.
Nuclear energy was the perfect issue because for one thing it was something most people didn’t know a lot about or have a lot of experience with. Tell someone that the nuclear reactor can kill them and they may believe you because they don’t know anything else about it other than it’s in a big scary concrete dome. If you tell people their PS2 is going to kill them and ruin the environment, that’s a lot more easy for everyone to see the absurdity of. The fact that this is so stupid seems like it will be more obvious to everyone because it hits home.
Then the other thing about nuclear power is people do not notice the changes in power generating as easily or directly. People think electricity comes from the plug in the wall. If it is made by fission or coal they can’t tell the difference. What will happen if we decide to start building nuclear reactors to replace coal plants? Will people see the difference? Not right away at all. And will they notice as acutely the fact that there’s less asthma? I doubt it. There’s not nearly as acutely a change.
On the other hand, tell someone to give up their favorite consumer product and that’s something they can relate to in a very tangable way and put into perspective.
Therefore, I predict Greenpeace will ultimately find these tactics are failing them and they are better off going after something more big and abstract than things in your home that you get enjoyment from. It’s the same thing with the London Airport protest. The average person can easily identify with the frustration of overcrowded and delayed air travel. Plus, most people know airplanes are a drop in the bucket, so that might be a bad move too.
At least I hope that is what will happen. They do have a lot of PR experience though.
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Here’s something else for Greenpeace to be upset about:
http://www.spacedaily.com/2006/080522171203.1doq4bwk.html
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Russel said:
All the more reason to start building nuclear powered cars, now. Let people experience the actual tangiable benefit of never having to buy fuel for the entire life of the car. In this market they should get popular in a hurry.
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Burya Rubenstein said:
Even I would draw the line before letting nuclear-powered cars on the road.
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2008 at 12:45 am
DV82XL said:
The correct method for using nuclear power to run cars is via your home electricity supply to charge an electric vehicle, or by burning artificial chemical fuel synthesised with power from a nuclear reactor. Which I’m pretty sure most here realise already.
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2008 at 1:47 am
We could use the same standard used for game consoles also for photovoltaics panels. I think we could get some interesting results!!!
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Kendall said:
MIT FTW!
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2008 at 2:20 am
I just read the whole report and kudos to the manufactures in meeting or exceeding RoHS compliance. A lot of the work I have done in the last 12 months has been over bringing secondary processes in to line with that Directive, and I will tell you for nothing that this is not a trivial task.
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2008 at 11:08 am
DV82XL said:
Which reminds me of another topic. The RoHS in the EU is absolutely ridiculous. The way it is written there are no exemptions even for tiny amounts of the materials restricted. Since it applies to each and every homogeneous material of a product, a product can fail while only containing a total of less than a gram of lead, mercury, cadmium etc. There’s no way to allow for the use of the materials in general use products even in limited quantities and in well embedded components.
It’s absurd, and it could present enormous problems for manufacturers who are dependent on existing components which may not meet the standards. “What’s that? The little contact strip in your enormous product doesn’t meet RoHS? Well, does your parts supplier make one that does? They don’t? Uh oh. Looks like you have to now redesign it and find an alternate component or even fabricate it! You have hundreds of thousands of those little contact strips in your warehouse? Too bad!” And again, this could all come down to the fact that it contains milligram quantities of lead or something.
And for that matter… as mentioned, really no flexibility on the standards, so it’s not like you can get a pass for using a little lead solder in applications where non-lead solder might not be a good choice. For example, lets say you have a component that vibrates and the tin-bismuth solders tend to fail often because of being brittle. Lead solder is more flexible, so would it be okay to use a tiny amount on that one component? NO! Then you fail RoHS.
Really, banning lead solder at all is idiotic, considering the relative toxicity and amounts. Restricting it in some ways, okay that might be justified. However, it’s by far the most common, and arguably the best solder for many applications. And forget that it does not apply to stuff like batteries anyway. Thus, you could sell a phone with a big battery loaded with cadmium in it, but if there is even a few miligrams of lead, cadmium or mercury.
Oh yeah, one other thing. I predict the EU is going to be seeing a LOT of tin whiskers in the near future.
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2008 at 11:20 am
drbuzz0 said:
No argument (although it has been a nice earner for me!)
And yes tin whiskering is already an issue in some products over there.
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
DV82XL said:
Admittedly, I was unaware of this until now but I looked this up. Let me see if I have got this straight: For electronic products you can’t have any measurable amounts of lead or the other materials listed, including lead solder in any concentration beyond 0.1% and cadmium beyond .01%. This is regardless of the total amount of the material in the device, instead it is measured independently for each and every material used in the device.
To put it more simply, you just plain can’t use the materials lead, cadmium, mercury Hexavalent chromium and PPB/PBDE in any component except maybe a trace. You can’t have any amount of it, no matter how tiny. It’s illegal to have a single electrical lead coated with a thin layer of lead in a device that weighs 100 kg with the lead totaling a few milligrams.
How on earth does that make sense as a way of determining safe material usage? You can’t even have the stuff in an amalgamation or embedded in a solid component, if it can be separated as a material?
That’s downright crazy. The craziest thing is lead, being the most common standard for solder.
If I’m reading this correctly, if you have a situation where there is a known risk of failure, due to tin whiskering, and the way to remedy the problem is simply to use a lead-based coating for a tiny electrical connection or the pin on a chip or component or something like that – just coating the little bitty thing in a touch of lead solder to keep it from whiskering to another nearby path.. no, you can’t do that?????
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Chem Geek Gregor said:
I’m guessing the green party had some input on this. There’s no way the conservatives or probably even the center-left party would have come up with such an absurd standard.
Europe is on a slow path of de-industrialization. The Ironic thing is that manufacturing is instead moving over to China, where environmental regulations are none existent in comparison.
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
It’s a little disappointing to see Europe falling into such a state, actually. The birthplace of Western philosophy, a pinnacle of thought and logic, and an industrial powerhouse with worldwide reach in the 19th and 20th centuries… now being reduced to mind-numbing inanity.
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Andrew said:
The standard applies to all imports as well. But China has its own RoHS laws that are in some instances tougher than the E.U. This is not going to go away as it is part of a series of restrictions that are being codified into law to regulate the use of, and end concentrations of, certain materials in manufactured goods by various governments all over the world.
The problem is as Andrew has pointed out, they are being written to meet political agendas, with little thought on the technical consequences and as a result are spawning a bureaucrats wet-dream of exceptions, and exclusions on a case-by-case bases, that is making compliance a nightmare for any product that hopes to have a global market.
It is my considered opinion that many of these laws are thinly veiled trade barriers, put in place as much for their utility at protecting an industry as the environment, or as sops to the green movement.
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
DV82XL said:
China? China??? The country that has been importing used industrial equipment from elsewhere which was no longer useful in other countries because it did not meet enviornmental standards? The same country that had the massive benzine spill into a river used for drinking water? The country with the most deaths from coal mining and the most underground mine fires in the world? The same country that has had medications turn out to accidentally contain toxic industrial chemicals?
I was under the impression that China owed a large portion of their success to the fact that they can do things cheaply because Chinese manufacturing does not need to meet anywhere near the enviornmental, safety, labor or licensing requirements of most Western countries.
If they are planning on having MORE comprehensive RoHS laws, I think they should at least start by doing something about the fact that many of the todler’s toys they have exported turned out to have lead paint!
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
drbuzz0 said:
That, I think was a wake-up call for them. You can read an overview of the Chinese laws here:
http://thor.inemi.org/webdownload/newsroom/Presentations/SMTAI_2006/China_RoHS.pdf
On page 3 they compare the two different regulations.
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
DV82XL said:
Well I’m surprised that this exists. Yes, the Chinese are likely going to take actions in terms of the lead paint thing because that was some very bad PR and made many question their production quality and safety, but the I find the RoHS laws to be, to say the least, excessive. I would have expected the Chinese to be more business concerned and not the kind to pander to the Greens.. well not domestically at least, but perhaps this is a PR move.
Don’t get me wrong, I do recognize the hazards of waste from electronic devices which contain toxic material that can get into the environment and of course there should be regulations of materials in consumer products. However, it is ridiculous to not allow mercury concentrations in alloys inside consumer electronics which would be permited in dental fillings. It is likewise ridiculous to think that consumers are endangered by the lead solder on the circuit boards inside their products or by cadmium or mercury which may be deeply embeded in a component and of a tiny quantity.
I see this as attacking the problem from the wrong end. The difficulty of enforcing the regulations, the excessive nature of the regulations and the fact that it presents production issues, problems with existing parts and designs and tooling, issues with finding substitutes especially relating to potential whiskering and so on…
Too disruptive to enforce. It seems like it was written with zero thought given to the practical implications for production.
The way to improve the electronic waste problem is to provide better control of disposal. Recycle or properly disassemble and dispose of the materials. Provide the proper disposal and if necessary, enforce restrictions on improper disposal or throwing away the products.
This is a better all around solution to the issue. Not only is there no disruption to the supply, but it ends up helping more because additional substances not covered which may be in electronic devices are also taken care of. Recycling the materials has energy and resource benefits. And very importantly, while these regulations only do something for new products, going after the disposal end of it will also address existing products which will be finding their way into the waste now and in the future as they wear out and become obsolete.
A very comprehensive and avaliable disposal policy should address most of the problem and if done properly it should have minimal negative economic impacts and possibly even positive ones. Recycling programs have been very successful in other areas. In the US, more than 50% of aluminum beverage cans are recycled and that’s just based on the 5 cent redemption of deposit, and it’s not even illegal to throw them out if you so choose. Also similar programs to collect used motor oil, car batteries and so on have all but eliminated the problem of improper disposal.
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
drbuzz0 said:
This is one of the reasons I think that this whole initiative is more a trade barrier than an environmental protection. You will note that compliance is at the whim of the regulators lab and what is out of scope what is in-scope is flexible. As free trade becomes the norm, the political apparatus is looking for other protectionist tools, and right now the environment is a hot-button item. Once that is gone, look to labor laws as the next issue.
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Well of course it’s obvious that this whole thing has nothing to do with science or actually addressing the problem and everything to do with politics. That I had no doubt of.
However, you have an excellent point that I had not thought of. The way the standards are written is both so tight that most devices can fail if you try hard enough, yet due to the nature of the testing, it’s not practically to subject all devices to complete analysis of each and every mechanically separable part and individual material, no matter how small. The vagueness of how extensive the testing must be leaves a lot of room as to how hard you want to look for a violation.
It’s a perfect law for “selective enforcement,” which is the common backdoor to allowing the authorities to just decide who’s allowed and who’s not.
Quote Comment
May 25th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
“Really, banning lead solder at all is idiotic, considering the relative toxicity and amounts. Restricting it in some ways, okay that might be justified. However, it’s by far the most common, and arguably the best solder for many applications. And forget that it does not apply to stuff like batteries anyway. Thus, you could sell a phone with a big battery loaded with cadmium in it, but if there is even a few miligrams of lead, cadmium or mercury.”
The irony is that lead is so ubiquitous in other products that outlawing it where it is vital is asinine.
Any hobbyist can go pick up some tin-lead solder-wire or some big blocks of lead for casting little toy soldiers and the like. Lead sinkers for fishing aren’t banned. Lead car batteries aren’t banned(well below 100% of these are recycled. They’re very commonly found littering in the ditches besides lesser used roads near residential areas).
Quote Comment
May 25th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
The major stated objective to the Pb solder ban is to protect people against the health problems that could be caused if lead solder in discarded electronic equipment leaches into drinking water. However the directive might as well have also included protecting us from the hazards of dragon bites, unicorn stampedes, and pieces of the falling sky. That’s because no studies have established that any such lead-related problem exists, and studies suggesting that the problem does not exist were denied consideration.
Worse, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency looked at the principal solders now being introduced to solve this non-problem are predicted in several models to have larger negative effects on environmental pollution, fossil fuel consumption, cancer risk, and global warming than tin-lead solder. This is particularly true of the SnAgBi solders which are showing the best in-service performance.
The study is here: Solders in Electronics: A Life-Cycle Assessment Summary. United States Environmental Protection Agency Publication EPA-744-S-001, August 2005
Quote Comment
May 25th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Very true. I’ve heard of lead contamination in the environment being a concern for water supplies, although often it’s more surface water and local organisms more than ground water. However, I don’t know of any cases of ground water contamination from lead solder in electronics EVER being documented. Contamination has occred from major industrial sources, like for example lead oxide contamination from years of runoff from paint manufacturing. Also, there have been some limited issues with munitions on ranges that have been used for a long time and have acidic soil.
All the largest source of manmade lead contamination I’m aware of in ground water and local enviornments is coal related. For example: Leaching from slurry ponds, mining waste, fly ash seepage and also fallout from the exhaust of burning.
Of course, with coal, the lead is usually less of an issue than mercury, but that depends on the nature of the local geology of the coal. There are also issues with thallium, arsenic and all the other nasty stuff you find in coal waste.
THAT is something I am actually concerned about as a source of heavy metal exposure for humans and other organisms.
Quote Comment
May 27th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Soylent said:
What I do not get is that people seem to have gotten this irrational fear of toxic substances to the point that they think that even going near them is going to kill them. I mean, there are plenty of toxic chemicals in ordinary items that would be dangerous if you ate them, right? Do we really need to panic, about this stuff? Who here is planning on ripping the soder out of their electronics and making a sandwich out of it?
It’s not like I worry that every day I come in contact with substances which would render me blind if I had them injected directly into my eyeball!
Quote Comment
May 27th, 2008 at 2:38 am
Kim said:
The short answer is the lack of good general science schooling.
The long answer is that people fear what they don’t understand. Mass media, knowing that fear sells, winds people up in magazines and on radio and on television with a new fear every week. Fear makes the audience feel vulnerable and that makes them easy targets for advertising. The propagandists of the Third Reich made a science out of it – Madison Avenue has refined it into an art.
Quote Comment
May 27th, 2008 at 3:13 am
I don’t think that’s true. Most people understand that it’s perfectly fine to have stuff like household cleaner, antifreeze and drain cleaner in their homes and nobody will be harmed as long as they take very reasonable and obvious precautions like keeping them away from kids and well labeled and sealed.
If we started running in fear from everything that was ‘harmful or fatal if swallowed’ then we would not be able to paint, polish, varnish, seal, clean, unclog or disinfect most stuff. This stuff is harmful or fatal ‘if swallowed’ and not ‘if you look in its general direction’! I’m sure most people understand that a little lead in your Playstation is not like a little lead in your morning coffee.
Quote Comment
May 27th, 2008 at 4:56 am
Just A Fluke said:
You’d better send a memo off to the regulatory authorities of the European Union. They don’t seem to be appraised of this intelligence.
Quote Comment
May 27th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
This problem is not limited to Europe, that is for sure, but my understanding of the RoHS regulations is that they appear to be a prime example of politically motivated “bad science” and are to put it bluntly, downright stupid.
Lead is a good example, because it’s such an important, even vital component of electronic attachments and protections and it has a very low danger when properly used. The alternatives to lead exist but tend to have some major compromises in quality and capabilities. Beryllium is also a good example because it has been used for a very long time as a component of alloying. You see it especially in copper. The actual concentrations of it in an alloy may be as little as .5% but it still makes a very noticable difference in creating a more wear resistant material. This can be important for electrical contacts that are expected to have repeated mechanical stress, for example, in a charger that will be connected and disconnected frequently.
I know, I’m repeating everything that has been stated.
These regulations clearly seemed to be written without any thought given to the practical implications for production.
My prediction is that as enforcement becomes more rigorous, you will start to see that more and more products avaliable in most of the world will not be in the EU or other countries with similar regulations, or they may be delayed. I wonder how people will start to feel if they notice a lot of the hottest video games and electronics in North America or Asia are not avaliable in their countries.
Quote Comment
May 27th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
My big concern is that the Cu-Ni-Sn bronzes that are replacing Cu-Be bronzes in heavy service bushings, are not going to have the same mean time before failure (MTBF). As a consequence they will have to be replaced more often leading to a greater release of pollutants. The other major replacement option is Cu-Ti-Tl-Cr a very expensive alloy both to fabricate and machine, and again I am not sure that life-cycle reductions in hazardous waste is being realized.
Quote Comment
May 28th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
DV82XL said:
hmm. Thallium is not on their list of no-no’s? Interesting. Not that either alloy is really that much of a concern when it’s done properly and contained, but thallium would be more likely to be acutely toxic than beryllium, especially in water or ingestion because beryllium tends to be the greatest hazard when it is inhaled anyway. Thallium would be more of a concern, relatively speaking, I would think.
Quote Comment
May 29th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Depleted Cranium suits your blog too well. It’s great that you are aware that shipbreakers in India are tearing apart contaminated vessels with no protection. I know about that too because Greenpeace campaigns on it and they told me about it. Do you know that kids in India and China tear apart our e-waste (like games consoles and computers) without protective gear and that it is the biggest waste issue facing the planet today? The toxics in game consoles might not affect YOU while using them, but they can impact on these kids and stay in our environment for ages. And yes, der, PVC is a problem when burned. And manufactured. That’s the issue! Why do you think they are talking about this stuff? And yes, millions of tons of coal are messing with the atmosphere, rain forests are being slashed and burned. Greenpeace is probably the reason you know about those issues too, because they work on them too. Fact is: you just don’t like Greenpeace and you’ll do or say anything to put them down.
Quote Comment
May 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Cath said:
Good for you. I’m glad they could tell you since apparently you could not figure that out on your own. Don’t tell me *I* know because of Greenpeace or any of the others in their camp. I happen to be quite aware of a number of enviornmental issues which I’m sure you’ve never heard of.
Yes, I am aware of the e-waste issue and I’m also very much aware of what goes into computers and game consoles. These kids are not in danger from something like tearing apart a game console is nearly zero. Beryllium copper is perfectly safe to handle as long as it is not ground or machined. In that case you need basic protection. In the case of lead solder, I use it all the time. I handle it with my bare hands and I wash them afterward.
The problem is that you know nothing at all about the e-waste problem because you know nothing about how electronics are made and what goes into them. The end use items are not the biggest issue. I know because I actually have fabricated circuit boards and such things. They involve photochemical processes which are followed by dips in acid, polishing, drilling and the use of some compounds which are rather nasty if not disposed of properly. That is the problem and it has nothing to do with the end components because it’s universal.
Now as far as kids tearing apart consoles and stuff, that’s no problem. The problem is kids tearing apart other things, for example lead acid batteries which they are not protected from and causes major runoff of lead. Also, they tear apart industrial equipment, asbestos containing items and so on.
Consumer electronics are not really the issue and never were. Greenpeace is going after one of the most minuscule issues while ignoring the elephants in the room.
Well yeah. They came out of the enviornment too!
If they were concerned about PVC they would do well to ignore game consoles and go after construction since electronics is peanuts anyway. It hardly matters though, because there’s no way PVC is going anywhere. It’s a vital plastic of numerous uses and it’s proven tough and safe.
Manufacturing by modern processes is not really the issue. Burning is a problem. Burning a lot of things is a problem. Even if you phased out PVC it would not do much if you continued uncontrolled garbage burning. Thus, Greenpeace would do well to go after that and forget about PVC.
They’re attacking this on the wrong end and thus there is a horrible ROI and more than that, there are greater enviornmental impacts from the energy issues involved.
Don’t tell me I need greenpeace to hold my hand and feed me my information, especially since most of theirs is bogus. I’m aware of many issues which I have searched and searched for Greenpeace references to.
Greenpeace has NOTHING to say about mine fires. NADA, ZIP, ZILCH. I’ve searched their pages and blogs and archives. Nothing. They also have nothing to say about cement manufacturing, which is a considerably larger source of CO2 than aviation, of which they have plenty to say. Yes, I’ve looked for this too.
How about well head gas flaring? That’s still done big time in Nigeria and Grrenpeace is characteristically silent on the issue. The most successful flaring reduction program is run by the World Bank, actually. Do they have anything to say about methane emissions or potential groundwater contamination from agricultural septic lagoons which are not covered and barely lined? Of course not!
They say nothing about tillage and the nitrous or methane emissions or any number of soil management issues. All they tell us is “Oh just use organic farming” and completely ignore that it actually increases tilling and can make runoff and soil retention WORSE.
Quote Comment
May 31st, 2008 at 4:44 am
Cath said:
You have no idea what you are talking about and you are talking to people who do. Greenpeace is worse than useless. They spend approximately zero time on stuff that actually matters a real lot and do these publicity stunts over concerns which are tiny and have greater impacts than benefits. They don’t care about addressing problems but jet making noise over the issues which are glamorous.
BTW: A great deal of the Greenpeace and other ecoscum criticism you see here is out of genuine concern for the enviornment, global warming, nitrous and sulfur emissions, farm land management. The difference is that on a site like this or the sites of people who are attracted to this you will find that there is a very strong emphasis on actually making something happen for real and not just talking about it or saying how it has to.
Quote Comment
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:05 pm
I rest my case! You just named a whole lot of issues Greenpeace does work on and criticised them for not working on them and then you picked out a few random issues and criticised them for not working on those! You also completely misunderstood or misrepresented their campaign on e-waste. I’m really passionate about this issue and I’ve read up on it and think Greenpeace has done a really good job on it. It isn’t hard to find the information on the toxics these products contain that they are concerned about because of their impact on the environment and health during their manufacture, and disposal (including incineration). I just went here: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/what-s-in-electronic-devices
I’m glad you are ok handling a circuit board. How do you feel about the brominated flame retardants, the lead in computer monitors, the cadmium used in rechargeable computer batteries, contacts and switches, the mercury used in lighting devices for flat screen displays, hexavalent chromium, and the chlorinated dioxins and furans released when PVC is burnt? Oh I forgot. You don’t have to worry about it because it is happening in a developing country, and anyway, it was Greenpeace that mentioned it, so it probably isn’t important.
If you really are all for action and you really are concerned about the environment, why not take this opportunity to get the global manufacturers of these toxic products to clean up their mess? Otherwise, all this toxic waste will just end up in developing countries, where workers (including kids) aren’t protected, this stuff will almost certainly just be dumped or, worse, burnt, and we’ll all end up suffering for it in the long run. (If you really wanted to, you could also support Greenpeace’s campaign to stop the trade in toxic waste.) You have the chance to tell these companies to get really good recycling and reuse operations in place and to use safer alternatives. And instead, you decide to attack the messenger and the organisation that is actually getting people to address the issue! Sorry depleted cranium, but you have lost me…
Quote Comment