3 ms·

> like my tongue piercing I really hope you go with RoHS for that...

• kragen 5y ago
  That's not a serious consideration. People have lead bullets lodged inside their bodies for a lifetime without lead poisoning except in cases of extreme fragmentation. In most cases, and particularly in the case of metallic lead, RoHS represents the triumph of paranoia over reasoning.
  • mmastrac 5y ago
    The comment was more in jest, but RoHS is more than lead. Cadmium (Cd): < 100 ppm Lead (Pb): < 1000 ppm Mercury (Hg): < 1000 ppm Hexavalent Chromium: (Cr VI) < 1000 ppm Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBB): < 1000 ppm Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDE): < 1000 ppm Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP): < 1000 ppm Benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP): < 1000 ppm Dibutyl phthalate (DBP): < 1000 ppm Diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP): < 1000 ppm
    • kragen 5y ago
      Yeah, some of those, like hexavalent chromium and (non-metallic, non-sulfide) mercury, are pretty bad; definitely not things you want in your mouth 24/7. Others, like dibutyl phthalate, are probably harmless. Mercury sulfide is perfectly harmless, and metallic mercury is commonly used in dental amalgams with acceptably low toxicity. It wouldn't be surprising if whatever they replaced the phthalates with turned out to be more toxic. RoHS isn't rational, at least as a way to improve people's health or reduce environmental impact. Putting politicians elected by the ignorant in charge of engineering design by genuine hackers is a recipe for disaster.