| General > General Technical Chat |
| Really RS Components, I am not allowed to order solder anymore?? |
| << < (17/21) > >> |
| penfold:
--- Quote from: tooki on February 15, 2021, 11:50:08 pm --- --- Quote from: penfold on February 15, 2021, 11:28:41 pm --- --- Quote from: tooki on February 15, 2021, 10:06:44 pm ---As best I can tell, listing under REACH is about inherent human and environmental toxicity of a compound, not about net risk after risk mitigation. --- End quote --- We might be on crossed wires because to say "...listing under..." is quite different to saying "...restricted as a result of..." which is where risk mitigation comes in --- End quote --- The relevant part of REACH is Annex XVII, which is the part that actually restricts trade in it. Here's the entry for lead: https://echa.europa.eu/substances-restricted-under-reach/-/dislist/details/0b0236e1807e30a6 What's weird is that the draft explanatory document for that made it clear that it was focused on items that babies could mouth. But the Swiss chemical trade association's press release says that the EU lead consortium's guidance on Annex XVII compliance expressly listed lead solder as a product whose reclassification (as a listed material) requires it to be restricted from consumer sale. The other thing is something called Article 33. https://www.tsgconsulting.com/news-detail/lead-on-reach-candidate-list/ But honestly, what a f••king mess of a regulation, in the sense that it seems to me to be a web of various rules. --- End quote --- IKR, but application of reach is down to the member states (and those who.. err.. aren't), the REACH document itself is very prescriptive in areas, but any exemption or restriction is nearly impossible to attribute to any one source yet all states seem to have the same outcome. Its maybe just some perceived lack of objectivity I'm imagining the authorities having when considering whether "soldering" is a worthwhile task for a hobbyist and perhaps to a layperson which swung the restriction rather than considering the facts and mitigation for lead/lead-free. This is where my backing falls apart, because a) all I need to do to use lead solder is pick it up off my day-job workbench (and pretend I didn't) and b) I'm not totally against lead-free, it just not as nice. But something makes me think the powers that be weren't considering the pros and cons objectively. If that makes sense. Especially when weighed against roof flashing strips being the task with an actual likelihood of exposure. |
| tooki:
Oh, you make total sense. Had anyone with two technical brain cells to rub together been in charge of RoHS, it would never have banned lead in electronics, since they would have realized that the overwhelming bulk of lead in electronics was in CRTs, which were very clearly on their way out, and were indeed nearly entirely obsolete by the time RoHS took effect. There was definitely no objectivity at play. I know even less about REACH, just that it's a much bigger Jabba the Hutt of a law. |
| coppercone2:
people do burn PCBs but the problem is like 150 smart phone boards being toasted at the same time inside of a barrel all day every day in some village |
| Siwastaja:
--- Quote from: penfold on February 15, 2021, 03:51:16 pm --- --- Quote from: Siwastaja on February 15, 2021, 03:33:06 pm --- --- Quote from: GlennSprigg on February 15, 2021, 12:17:31 pm ---However, the huge 'registered' Companies that manufacture multiple millions of devices/circuits worldwide, are the ones that should be limited! 8) --- End quote --- But they ARE limited, have been for a long time now. (See RoHS for example.) --- End quote --- Yes, restricted from selling stuff containing lead to consumers (I've not needed to check recently but I assume even the remaining exemptions have been revoked for telecoms and other non-consumer stuff?), but professionals have never been restricted in purchasing it for prototype and legacy rework/repair stuff at their own discretion. --- End quote --- Please read the quote you replied to, no need to run in circles with obvious facts. |
| penfold:
--- Quote from: Siwastaja on February 17, 2021, 09:33:54 am --- --- Quote from: penfold on February 15, 2021, 03:51:16 pm --- --- Quote from: Siwastaja on February 15, 2021, 03:33:06 pm --- --- Quote from: GlennSprigg on February 15, 2021, 12:17:31 pm ---However, the huge 'registered' Companies that manufacture multiple millions of devices/circuits worldwide, are the ones that should be limited! 8) --- End quote --- But they ARE limited, have been for a long time now. (See RoHS for example.) --- End quote --- Yes, restricted from selling stuff containing lead to consumers (I've not needed to check recently but I assume even the remaining exemptions have been revoked for telecoms and other non-consumer stuff?), but professionals have never been restricted in purchasing it for prototype and legacy rework/repair stuff at their own discretion. --- End quote --- Please read the quote you replied to, no need to run in circles with obvious facts. --- End quote --- I agree it was somewhat pedantic, but with regard to the actual topic, without a distinction between "restriction of purchase" and "restriction of sales", your statement offered no clarification. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |