wrote:
On May 28, 8:03 am, gwatts wrote:
AF6AY wrote:
...
The do-gooders done did too much with all those warnings and
attempts to protect us all from everything.

If a product is dangerous, why shouldn't it have warnings?
Particularly when there are known carcinogens and other health hazards involved?

It's not being a "do-gooder" or "doing too much" to discover hazards
and eliminate or contain them.

I think it a matter of magnitude.

Some items such as Benzene are pretty dangerous and have an established
track record of making people sick. Those should go whenever possible.

OTOH, the little bottle of Strip-X with it's foul stench is probably not
going to cause anyone harm outside of self inflicted (i.e. suicide attempts)

Of course, I'm not so sure if Strip-X was discontinued because of health
concerns or that it just didn't work any more on new generations of
enameled wire.


Sure, not everyone who uses Strip-X will get cancer. But some of the
components of it are known carcinogens, and a proven hazard. More
important,
we can't know ahead of time who the susceptible folks are.
Naaa, it's the people who think they should be rewarded for stupidity
and basic capitalism that took all that stuff off the market. Some
idiot did something stupid with the product and decided to sue. The
company looked at a long legal fight or settlement and settled.

Maybe. But I doubt it.

More likely, they looked at the *possibility* of such a lawsuit, the
scientific evidence of the hazards of the ingredients, the limited profit and
declining sales, and just stopped making the product.

Once a chemical is shown to be dangerous, the manufacturers can't
claim ignorance anymore.

They...decided it would be more profitable
to eliminate the product and concentrate on other things as they're not
in the business to keep consumers satisfied, just get their money and
keep as much of it as possible.

Profitability is what "capitalism" and "business" are all about.
Without profitability, a capitalist company just disappears.

Since the formula for Strip-X appears to be in the public domain,
anybody can make it and sell it. Would *you* be willing to set up shop to make
it and sell it, with all the risks that entails, and the very limited
market for it?

There you touch on the real issue with items like Strip-X. The
manufacturing side. While I might have my little bottle that I get out a
time or two during the day, the people making the stuff have exposure
issues well beyond that.

As an aside:

The butter flavor on your popcorn (diacetyl) has a nasty side effect
for the people who make it (and apparently at least one microwave
popcorn addict) when it vaporizes, it can pretty seriously impair lung
function. It is a natural substance, but the way in which it is used is
the problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacetyl

http://www.butterflavoringlunginjury.com/index.htm

http://defendingscience.org/Diacetyl-Background.cfm

But I digress. My main point is that while we might not get much
exposure, those who produce it just might be getting serious contact
with nasty chemicals.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On May 29, 9:34�am, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
On May 28, 8:03 am, gwatts wrote:
AF6AY wrote:

The do-gooders done did too much with all those
warnings and
attempts to protect us all from everything.

If a product is dangerous, why shouldn't it have warnings?
Particularly when there are known carcinogens and other
health hazards involved?

It's not being a "do-gooder" or "doing too much"
to discover hazards
and eliminate or contain them.

I think it a matter of magnitude.

Not really. See below.

Some items such as Benzene are pretty dangerous
and have an established
track record of making people sick. Those should go
whenever possible.

Agreed.

OTOH, the little bottle of Strip-X with it's foul stench is probably not
going to cause anyone harm outside of self inflicted (i.e. suicide
attempts)

But it *is* dangerous stuff, and should have adequate warnings,
shouldn't it?

What does

"do-gooder done did too much with all those warnings and
attempts to protect us all from everything."

really mean? Are there too many warnings on dangerous chemicals?

More important, do we really *know* that Strip-X isn't going to cause
anyone harm unless intentionally abused?

Did every user of the stuff do so in a "well-ventilated area"? I think
not.

Of course, I'm not so sure if Strip-X was discontinued
because of health
concerns or that it just didn't work any more on new generations of
enameled wire.

AFAIK, it worked on all enameled wire. Teflon isn't an "enamel".

Sure, not everyone who uses Strip-X will get cancer.
But some of the
components of it are known carcinogens, and a proven
hazard. More important,
we can't know ahead of time who the susceptible folks are.


More likely, they looked at the *possibility* of such a lawsuit, the
scientific evidence of the hazards of the ingredients, the limited
profit and
declining sales, and just stopped making the product.

Once a chemical is shown to be dangerous, the manufacturers
can't
claim ignorance anymore.

Since the formula for Strip-X appears to be in the public
domain,
anybody can make it and sell it. Would *you* be willing
to set up shop to make
it and sell it, with all the risks that entails, and the very limited
market for it?

There you touch on the real issue with items like Strip-X. The
manufacturing side. While I might have my little bottle that I get
out a
time or two during the day, the people making the stuff have
exposure issues well beyond that.

Depending on the manufacturing process. The history of industry is
full of examples of people being slowly killed at work by exposure to
hazards. Asbestos, radium paint, carbon tet, MEK, all sorts of
wonderful stuff.

The fact that something doesn't kill everyone who gets near it doesn't
make it safe enough.

My main point is that while we might not get much
exposure, those who produce it just might be getting
serious contact with nasty chemicals.

'zactly.

It's all about avoidable risk.

Another example:

Once upon a time, cars had single main hydraulic brake systems. The
master cylinder had one pump that fed all four wheel cylinders.

It was simple and effective, but a failure anywhere in the system
(wheel cylinder, master cylinder, brake lines, etc.) meant total
hydraulic brake system failure.

Then the "do-gooders" pushed for dual brake systems, on the theory
that most single failures would leave half the brake system working,
plus a warning system.

Critics said that the cost and complexity were too much, and that
complete brake failure was very rare in then-modern cars with single
systems.

The "do-gooders" won, and dual brake systems with warnings became the
standard.

Was that excessive? I guess it depends on whether you've ever had the
brake pedal go right to the floor at a critical moment.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
On May 29, 9:34�am, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
On May 28, 8:03 am, gwatts wrote:
AF6AY wrote:

The do-gooders done did too much with all those
warnings and
attempts to protect us all from everything.

If a product is dangerous, why shouldn't it have warnings?
Particularly when there are known carcinogens and other
health hazards involved?

It's not being a "do-gooder" or "doing too much"
to discover hazards
and eliminate or contain them.

I think it a matter of magnitude.

Not really. See below.

Some items such as Benzene are pretty dangerous
and have an established
track record of making people sick. Those should go
whenever possible.

Agreed.

OTOH, the little bottle of Strip-X with it's foul stench is probably not
going to cause anyone harm outside of self inflicted (i.e. suicide
attempts)

But it *is* dangerous stuff, and should have adequate warnings,
shouldn't it?

There's my magnitude issue. I'm in no way implying that there be no
warning on the bottles. I am implying that it is a useful product, and
legislating it out of existence, or just making it too much trouble for
a company to produce is not a good thing.

We do have a system that is pretty good. The MSDS reports are pretty
slick and non-sensational.

Of course, they won't fit on that little bottle! 8^)

I'd rather read that than something about what "The state of California
knows" you know, those strange postings beside gasoline pumps? This
product is know to the State of California as a carcinogen" type stuff.

I wonder how many people called up the state of California to talk about
that?


What does "do-gooder done did too much with all those warnings and
attempts to protect us all from everything."
really mean? Are there too many warnings on dangerous chemicals?


I don't mind the warnings too much as long as they are not stupid
warnings. What I do mind is when a useful product goes away.

More important, do we really *know* that Strip-X isn't going to cause
anyone harm unless intentionally abused?

Or salted codfish for that matter? I know that sounds a little
sarcastic, but the point is that there is a statistical correlation
between large consumption of salted and smoked fish with stomach cancer.



Did every user of the stuff do so in a "well-ventilated area"? I think
not.

One can only give guidelines, not enforce them.


Once upon a time, cars had single main hydraulic brake systems. The
master cylinder had one pump that fed all four wheel cylinders.

It was simple and effective, but a failure anywhere in the system
(wheel cylinder, master cylinder, brake lines, etc.) meant total
hydraulic brake system failure.

Then the "do-gooders" pushed for dual brake systems, on the theory
that most single failures would leave half the brake system working,
plus a warning system.

Critics said that the cost and complexity were too much, and that
complete brake failure was very rare in then-modern cars with single
systems.

The "do-gooders" won, and dual brake systems with warnings became the
standard.

Was that excessive? I guess it depends on whether you've ever had the
brake pedal go right to the floor at a critical moment.

For me at least, the comparison of mechanical with chemical issues is a
little hard to work. I have long advocated such radical technology as
strong roll cages, 5 point seat belts and fire suppression systems on
automobiles if we want to get serious about safety.

On the other hand, I've silvered my telescope mirrors in my garage. This
involves a litany of nasty stuff, from Silver nitrate to potassium
hydroxide to nitric acid. (now that stuff is scary) And oddly enough,
sucrose and citric acid. I'd hate to be not allowed to do such things
because someone thought I might get hurt.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:


I'd rather read that than something about what "The state of California
knows" you know, those strange postings beside gasoline pumps? This
product is know to the State of California as a carcinogen" type stuff.

I wonder how many people called up the state of California to talk about
that?


What does "do-gooder done did too much with all those warnings and
attempts to protect us all from everything."
really mean? Are there too many warnings on dangerous chemicals?


I don't mind the warnings too much as long as they are not stupid
warnings. What I do mind is when a useful product goes away.

More important, do we really *know* that Strip-X isn't going to cause
anyone harm unless intentionally abused?

Or salted codfish for that matter? I know that sounds a little
sarcastic, but the point is that there is a statistical correlation
between large consumption of salted and smoked fish with stomach cancer.



Keep voting Democrat, and you'll insure that Government will protect you...at a
price!

NoMoreSpam wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:


I'd rather read that than something about what "The state of
California knows" you know, those strange postings beside gasoline
pumps? This product is know to the State of California as a
carcinogen" type stuff.

I wonder how many people called up the state of California to talk
about that?


What does "do-gooder done did too much with all those warnings and
attempts to protect us all from everything."
really mean? Are there too many warnings on dangerous chemicals?



I don't mind the warnings too much as long as they are not stupid
warnings. What I do mind is when a useful product goes away.

More important, do we really *know* that Strip-X isn't going to cause
anyone harm unless intentionally abused?


Or salted codfish for that matter? I know that sounds a little
sarcastic, but the point is that there is a statistical correlation
between large consumption of salted and smoked fish with stomach cancer.



Keep voting Democrat, and you'll insure that Government will protect
you...at a price!

Better than voting Republican where you still pay the price, your
children and grandchildren continue to pay the price, and all the
protections go away under the guise of 'we big, rich business types have
to be able to make a profit!'

On Jun 2, 2:38Â*pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
On May 29, 9:34�am, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
On May 28, 8:03 am, gwatts wrote:
AF6AY wrote:

The do-gooders done did too much with all those
warnings and
attempts to protect us all from everything.

If a product is dangerous, why shouldn't it have warnings?
Particularly when there are known carcinogens and other
health hazards involved?

It's not being a "do-gooder" or "doing too much"
to discover hazards
and eliminate or contain them.

I think it a matter of magnitude.

Not really. See below.

Some items such as Benzene are pretty dangerous
and have an established
track record of making people sick. Those should go
whenever possible.

Agreed.

OTOH, the little bottle of Strip-X with it's foul stench is probably not
going to cause anyone harm outside of self inflicted (i.e. suicide
attempts)

But it *is* dangerous stuff, and should have adequate warnings,
shouldn't it?

There's my magnitude issue. I'm in no way implying that there be no
warning on the bottles. I am implying that it is a useful product, and
legislating it out of existence, or just making it too much trouble for
a company to produce is not a good thing.

Something just occurred to me.

We don't *know* that Strip-X was discontinued because of health/safety/
environmental/"do-gooder" issues. That's pure speculation.

It's quite possible - in fact, probable - that the reason Strip-X was
discontinued was lack of sales. After all, the *professionals* use
solder pots, not chemicals. Amateurs who are in the know use solder
pots, or a solder blob.

I suspect that the market for Strip-X was so small it wasn't worth
producing any more.

We do have a system that is pretty good. The MSDS reports are pretty
slick and non-sensational.

Of course, they won't fit on that little bottle! 8^)

And folks have to read them and understand them.

I'd rather read that than something about what "The state of California
knows" you know, those strange postings beside gasoline pumps? This
product is know to the State of California as a carcinogen" type stuff.

I wonder how many people called up the state of California to talk about
that?

bwaahaahaaa

What does "do-gooder done did too much with all those warnings and
attempts to protect us all from everything."
really mean? Are there too many warnings on dangerous chemicals?

I don't mind the warnings too much as long as they are not stupid
warnings. What I do mind is when a useful product goes away.

But as I wrote, we don't *know* that such things got rid of Strip-X. I
say it was solder pots.

More important, do we really *know* that Strip-X isn't going to cause
anyone harm unless intentionally abused?

Or salted codfish for that matter? I know that sounds a little
sarcastic, but the point is that there is a statistical correlation
between large consumption of salted and smoked fish with stomach cancer.

Correlation isn't causation. Unless a controlled study is done that
eliminates other variables, a causation is not proven. For example, it
could be that those who eat lots of salted and smoked fish also tend
to eat lots of something else, and it's the something else which is
the real cause.

The "known to California" jargon means such controlled studies have
been done.

Did every user of the stuff do so in a "well-ventilated area"? I think
not.

One can only give guidelines, not enforce them.

Of course. And people have to read them!

Once upon a time, cars had single main hydraulic brake systems. The
master cylinder had one pump that fed all four wheel cylinders.

It was simple and effective, but a failure anywhere in the system
(wheel cylinder, master cylinder, brake lines, etc.) meant total
hydraulic brake system failure.

Then the "do-gooders" pushed for dual brake systems, on the theory
that most single failures would leave half the brake system working,
plus a warning system.

Critics said that the cost and complexity were too much, and that
complete brake failure was very rare in then-modern cars with single
systems.
The "do-gooders" won, and dual brake systems with warnings became the
standard.

Was that excessive? I guess it depends on whether you've ever had the
brake pedal go right to the floor at a critical moment.

For me at least, the comparison of mechanical with chemical issues is a
little hard to work.

Why? It's the same concept: reduction of avoidable risk.

The point is that the *professionals* who made the cars resisted
safety improvements that we now take for granted.

I have long advocated such radical technology as
strong roll cages, 5 point seat belts and fire suppression systems on
automobiles if we want to get serious about safety.

A roll cage isn't needed if the car structure is built strong enough
(roof won't collapse if car rolls over)

True harnesses are a good idea, as is fire suppression.

On the other hand, I've silvered my telescope mirrors in my garage. This
involves a litany of nasty stuff, from Silver nitrate to Â*potassium
hydroxide to nitric acid. (now that stuff is scary) And oddly enough,
sucrose and citric acid. I'd hate to be not allowed to do such things
because someone thought I might get hurt.

Hydroflouric acid is *really* nasty.

The Big Issue IMHO is whether a dangerous process can be made safer.
Is there a safer way to silver a telescope mirror?

There *is* a safer way to remove enamel from wire, and you get the
added bonus of a tinned wire. Why use a chemical at all?

---

Related topic:

The EU has regs that are essentially outlawing lead solder in
electronics. Because the EU is such a big market, most electronics
makers are following along, and rather than deal with both lead and no-
lead solders, they're going all-no-lead. With all the problems lead-
free electronic solders bring along.

But IMHO the whole thing is wrong-headed. Lead in the environment is a
problem, but the solution is recycling, not banning lead.

How ironic is it that a major rework of a car's electronics will be
done to eliminate a few ounces of lead-tin solder, while the car's
battery contains many pounds of lead and acid?

73 de Jim, N2EY

The EU has regs that are essentially outlawing lead solder in
electronics. Because the EU is such a big market, most electronics
makers are following along, and rather than deal with both lead and no-
lead solders, they're going all-no-lead. With all the problems lead-
free electronic solders bring along.

But IMHO the whole thing is wrong-headed. Lead in the environment is a
problem, but the solution is recycling, not banning lead.

How ironic is it that a major rework of a car's electronics will be
done to eliminate a few ounces of lead-tin solder, while the car's
battery contains many pounds of lead and acid?
============================================


Indeed ,lead free solder does not flow that well even at elevated
temperatures ,
so I have stocked up on leaded solder (possibly sufficiently for the
rest of my home brewing life).

But the point is that electronic equipment having printed circuit boards
contain a very low percentage (weight wise) of solder. If that solder
contains lead any recycling effort to recover/isolate the lead will be
exceedingly costly. In the past printed circuit boards were pulverised
to recover the gold on 'contact fingers' through a chemical process ,
but apparently that is no longer viable.

So although there is very little lead in electronic equipment
manufactured with 60/40 or 63/37 leaded solder ,when equipment ends up
in a land fill the cumulative effect is bad ,poisoning ground water.

So it does make sense to go for lead free solder.

BTW : In the UK leaded solder is still available ,although no longer
from High Street retail outlets like Maplin Electronics .

Lead Acid Batteries have a large percentage of lead (weight wise) ,hence
recycling is commercially viable .


Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

"Highland Ham" wrote in message
...

exceedingly costly. In the past printed circuit boards were pulverised to
recover the gold on 'contact fingers' through a chemical process , but
apparently that is no longer viable.

We have been seeing signs all over for people buying gold jewelry. This
past weekend my wife knocked some talk out of one of these guys, and they
said they still do recover gold from PCBs, but right now, buying old jewelry
does result in a source of gold for about 1/3 the market price.

...

Highland Ham wrote:
The EU has regs that are essentially outlawing lead solder in
electronics. Because the EU is such a big market, most electronics
makers are following along, and rather than deal with both lead and no-
lead solders, they're going all-no-lead. With all the problems lead-
free electronic solders bring along.

But IMHO the whole thing is wrong-headed. Lead in the environment is a
problem, but the solution is recycling, not banning lead.

How ironic is it that a major rework of a car's electronics will be
done to eliminate a few ounces of lead-tin solder, while the car's
battery contains many pounds of lead and acid?
============================================


Indeed ,lead free solder does not flow that well even at elevated
temperatures ,
so I have stocked up on leaded solder (possibly sufficiently for the
rest of my home brewing life).

But the point is that electronic equipment having printed circuit boards
contain a very low percentage (weight wise) of solder. If that solder
contains lead any recycling effort to recover/isolate the lead will be
exceedingly costly.

I think that machinery can be developed to handle lead removal, we
already have ways of getting the solder onto those boards in rapid fashion.

I think we aren't looking at it in the right way. Changing over is going
to cost - probably big time. We are going to have to put up with
increased failure rates, whether through solder joint failure, or
reduced component life due to added heat stress.

After all, if lead free solders were the best way to go, that's what we
would be using. So we'll be retooling and spending that money for an
inferior product. Maybe Devo was right!


And, we're saying that this new lead free solder is going to be safe to
dump in landfills. M'kay, if they say so.....

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Jun 5, 1:32�am, Highland Ham
wrote:
(N2EY wrote):
The EU has regs that are essentially outlawing lead solder in
electronics. Because the EU is such a big market, most electronics
makers are following along, and rather than deal with both lead and no-
lead solders, they're going all-no-lead. With all the problems lead-
free electronic solders bring along.

But IMHO the whole thing is wrong-headed. Lead in the environment is a
problem, but the solution is recycling, not banning lead.

How ironic is it that a major rework of a car's electronics will be
done to eliminate a few ounces of lead-tin solder, while the car's
battery contains many pounds of lead and acid?

============================================

Indeed ,lead free solder does not flow that well even at elevated
temperatures ,
so I have stocked up on leaded solder (possibly sufficiently for the
rest of my home brewing life).

I think a lot of electronics folks have done the same.

But the point is that electronic equipment having printed circuit boards
contain a very low percentage (weight wise) of solder. If that solder
contains lead any recycling effort to recover/isolate the lead will be
exceedingly costly. In the past printed circuit boards were pulverised
to recover the gold on 'contact fingers' through a chemical process ,
but apparently that is no longer viable.

Whether it's viable depends on the rules. Here in the USA, a number of
states require a deposit (usually five cents) on beverage containers.
That deposit is typically far more than the intrinsic worth of the
metal, glass or plasti in the container, but that's not the point.
Instead, the deposit makes it worthwhile to collect and recycle the
containers, keeping them out of the trash stream and reducing litter.
Why couldn't there be such a deposit on electronics?

So although there is very little lead in electronic equipment
manufactured with 60/40 or 63/37 leaded solder ,when equipment ends up
in a land fill the cumulative effect is bad ,poisoning ground water.

All sorts of things wind up in landfills that are far worse than the
small amount of lead solder in electronics. Are the metals in lead-
free solder all benign?

So it does make sense to go for lead free solder.

I think there are better ways to keep lead out of the trash.

BTW : In the UK leaded solder is still available ,although no longer
from High Street retail outlets like Maplin Electronics .

Lead Acid Batteries have a large percentage of lead (weight wise) ,hence
recycling is commercially viable .

But does that guarantee no lead or cadmium containing batteries of any
kind wind up in landfills? Just one car battery in a stream is far
more contamination than a very large number of PC boards.

IMHO, the big problem is that electronics of all kinds is becoming a
throw-away item, with short useful lifespan, but recycling lags far
behind. The problems of lead-free solder may make the lifespan
shorter, and so the disposal problem worse.

73 de Jim, N2EY