<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tin Whiskers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://skuds.org/2008/04/tin-whiskers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://skuds.org/2008/04/tin-whiskers/</link>
	<description>&#34;Please send me evenings and weekends&#34;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 15:06:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: tin whiskers</title>
		<link>http://skuds.org/2008/04/tin-whiskers/comment-page-1/#comment-100224</link>
		<dc:creator>tin whiskers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:09:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skuds.org/2008/04/tin-whiskers/#comment-100224</guid>
		<description>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. 
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.niton.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;tin whiskers&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,<br />
    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.<br />
<a href="http://www.niton.com" rel="nofollow">tin whiskers</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

