Critical Links

Judging from the comments posted to my previous blog “ROHS – more harm than good?” the directive clearly is still an emotional subject. There were many interesting and certainly valid points made, and I thank you for taking the time to reply. 

Reliability was a favourite subject, although in reality, lead-free technology is now sufficiently advanced to have no effect on most (but not all) products. The increased energy costs and reduced tip life, as well as the lack of long-term reliability data are clearly concerns, but I doubt that we will now see a change of heart on this issue. 

Another common theme was, rightly so, the impact on the environment, not least because the affect of alternatives to the six ROHS substances was not considered when ROHS was adopted. Hopefully, the REACH regulations will lead to tighter substance controls.

You may also wish to consider that only 0.5% of lead that is mined was used in electronic solders pre-ROHS. Also, while silver may be less toxic than lead, its mining and refining involve huge amounts of waste, and the use of significant quantities of highly toxic substances such as cyanide, which have been known to leak, causing considerable damage to the environment.

Lead-free solder consumes more energy than tin/lead-based solder in the whole life cycle, but there is no link between the harm to health and the environment and these solders, whereas the energy consumption link to climate change is now almost proven.

Lead poisoning occurs in many third world countries and is due to uncontrolled mining, refining and recycling processes. ROHS and WEEE (Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment) is unlikely to help in the short term, as it encourages recycling of older equipment that contains lead solders. The Basel Convention, which entered into force in May 1992, was designed to reduce the movements of hazardous waste between nations, and specifically to prevent the transfer of waste from developed to less developed countries that did not have the facilities or capability to efficiently, and safely, dismantle and recycle.

The US signed the original Convention in March 1989, but, I believe, has yet to pass implementing legislation.

One of the main principles of the Convention is the requirement to treat and dispose of hazardous wastes as close as possible to their source of generation.

In China, for example, the reality is that the air has a strong, unpleasant smell from the gas burners that sit outside poor people’s homes, melting wires to recover copper and cooking computer motherboards to release gold. Workers smash picture tubes by hand to recover glass and electronic parts, which in turn releases lead dust that is then inhaled.

This ugly business is driven by economics. For the West, where safety rules continue to drive up the cost of recycling it is often up to 10 times cheaper to export WEEE to developing countries.

The majority of e-waste is dumped in countries such as China and India despite a Chinese ban, and its ratification of the Basel Convention. In 1995, following lobbying by Greenpeace and countries such as Denmark (leading activists that were the drivers behind the recent annulment of the ROHS exemption on deca-BDE), a decision was taken to adopt the Basel Ban Amendment that, among other things, prohibits the export of hazardous waste from a list of developed countries to developing countries for any reason, including recycling. The Ban Amendment was strenuously opposed by nations such as the US and Canada, while it was fully implemented by the European Union.

A spokesperson at the National Centre for Lead Poisoning in India says that the unsupervised recycling of e-waste is literally leading to brain drain. He said, “Half of the children in a city like Bangalore already have blood lead levels at about 10 micrograms per decilitre, which has resulted in a reduction in their intelligence quotient. We are seeing more and more cases now because of the volumes of e-waste handled by our people”. However, environmental activists would also say that such countries need to have tighter import controls. Often equipment such as second hand computers are imported with the intention of helping charities and schools. Nevertheless, many end up with the poor dismantling by boiling, crushing, or burning parts in order to extract valuable materials like gold or platinum.

There must be better ways???? Share your thoughts below.

About the author
As director of legislation and environmental affairs, Gary Nevison is Newark's and Farnell's spokesperson and customer interface on legislation that affects the electronics industry, such as the ROHS (all variations around the world, including China ROHS), REACH, EuP, and WEEE directives. For more on Gary, click here.