Amazing how doing the right thing can turn out to have a downside. In the latest example of one problem being caused by the solution to the previous one is this article about tin whiskers, as if there is not already enough to worry about.
Nope. Its a new one on me too, and it introduces another dilemma. Obviously having tons of lead used in the solder on all those circuit boards that can end up in landfill is not a good thing, and I don’t like the idea of it. I also don’t like the idea of planes falling out of the sky because of short circuits in their control systems. I certainly don’t like the idea of my own personal computers packing up for no apparent reason.
Hi,
I believe that it would be instructive to see a history of the research coorelating RoHS requirements with peer reviewed health research documenting health threats that would exist without the RoHS requirements, circumstances resulting in experiencing threats, and likelihood of experiencing those threats. Regulations such as RoHS come with social costs (as well as opportunity loss costs.) It may be possible to derive gross estimate of those costs to balance against estimated social benefits from having less lead to deal with if we have reliable data on the benefits (lives saved per $). Of course, by electing to experience those social costs, that means that value could not be devoted to other important causes such a preventing malaria in Africa, where limited investments per capita can have measureable inflences on death rates. Here, however, we have an emample of regulation that has provably resulted in enormous world wide costs with perhaps little understanding of the resulting magnitudes of benefit.
tin whiskers