> the vast majority of e-waste is being generated from simpler failures than tin whiskers I can't assert or challenge this conclusion because we simply do not

> the vast majority of e-waste is being generated from simpler failures than tin whiskers I can't assert or challenge this conclusion because we simply do not have the data. This is yet another reality of this issue: Tin whisker failures in the consumer domain are nearly 100% unreported. Consumers are certainly not in a position to conduct the forensic work required in order to determine failure modes. My guess is that the large majority of devices are thrown out upon failure, which means we know nothing about why they failed. Companies, on the other hand, frankly, have little incentive to conduct that research other than to use best practices during design. If a product survives a couple of years they are good. This isn't due to some dark profit motive, it's just a reality of business. You simply can't ask every single customer to send you their failed hardware for expensive --very expensive-- forensic analysis no matter their age or condition. This would mean having to manage a process involving forensics of millions of devices per month or year, depending on scale. When I was investigating tin whisker mitigation options I explicitly sought out data from the consumer electronics domain. I quickly discovered there was none, at least nothing useful. This is why I don't think a statement such as the one you made is neither right or wrong, it simply has virtually no supporting data in either direction.