3 ms·
Why not blame the EU? It is just a well known fact that non-leaded soldier has inferior properties to leaded soldier, which require careful engineering to work
by gjsman-1000 2y ago
Why not blame the EU? It is just a well known fact that non-leaded soldier has inferior properties to leaded soldier, which require careful engineering to work around, and still remain somewhat unresolved.
At this point, the directive may have caused more e-waste and environmental damage from part failures than the damage the original leaded soldier would have caused.
- tecleandor 2y agoYou should remember the bioaccumulative properties of lead. Lead: The most extensively spread toxic environmental contaminant (2024): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780323904001000069 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B97803... The Urban Lead (Pb) Burden in Humans, Animals and the Natural Environment (2022): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8812512/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8812512/
- mulmen 2y ago> At this point, the directive may have caused more e-waste and environmental damage from part failures than the damage the original leaded soldier would have caused. “May” is doing a lot of work there. Can you substantiate the claim that the risk of lead is lower than the switching cost?
- mschuster91 2y ago> At this point, the directive may have caused more e-waste and environmental damage from part failures than the damage the original leaded soldier would have caused. The problem is where the e-waste ends up - some ditch or desert in Africa. From there it ends up leeching in the environment due to corrosion or, worse, as widespread aerosols when the people there burn the waste to get to the copper.