[Ian Bell]

If you are interesting in gaining an exemption to the European ROHS
directive for solder then check out Exemption 15 in this url:

http://tinyurl.com/y3p2dc

then click on this one to add your official support.

http://tinyurl.com/yya4ua

Cheers

Ian

[Engnrguy]

Maybe, with enough exemptions, they will get rid of the RoHS directive
altogether!

Something tells me they will be less than enthralled by Gemini's
request to have Pro-audio equipment be except from RoHS directives.

[GregS]

In article .com, "Engnrguy" wrote:
Maybe, with enough exemptions, they will get rid of the RoHS directive
altogether!

Something tells me they will be less than enthralled by Gemini's
request to have Pro-audio equipment be except from RoHS directives.

The real need is to never throw leaded components in the trash. its
going to take a long time before we don't have to do this.

greg

[Scott Dorsey]

Engnrguy wrote:
Maybe, with enough exemptions, they will get rid of the RoHS directive
altogether!

Something tells me they will be less than enthralled by Gemini's
request to have Pro-audio equipment be except from RoHS directives.

The thing is, the RoHS directives exist because there is a huge amount of
disposable consumer electronics junk being thrown away, and it is going into
landfills.

It was really never intended to apply to anything else. In the case of
commercial and industrial gear, it's a huge issue because the high temperature
solders used make board rework expensive or impossible. As a result, gear
that would have been repaired will be thrown away. This has the exact opposite
result that the original authors of the directives desired.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Ian Bell" wrote in message
news:45812bfb.0@entanet...
If you are interesting in gaining an exemption to the European ROHS
directive for solder then check out Exemption 15 in this url:

http://tinyurl.com/y3p2dc

then click on this one to add your official support.

http://tinyurl.com/yya4ua

Alas, the major damage may already be done. All the component
manufacturers are already converting over to ROHS lead-free (or
are already there). We are already hearing reports of un-solderable
ROHS components because the shelf-life of the lead-free products
has already been exceeded.

The Romans, et.al. have been using pure lead pipes, etc. for thousands
of years, but those wacky European Unionists are apparently smarter
than everyone else. :-(

[[email protected]]

Richard Crowley wrote:

The Romans, et.al. have been using pure lead pipes, etc. for thousands
of years,


The negative effects of the Romans' use of lead are pretty well
documented.

[jwvm]

On Dec 14, 12:25 pm, wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
The Romans, et.al. have been using pure lead pipes, etc. for thousands
of years,The negative effects of the Romans' use of lead are pretty well
documented.

Actually the big problem was that the Roman elite drank their wine out
of lead vessels. The net result was that the ruling class suffered
significant neurological problems that some claim resulted in the fall
of the Roman Empire.

How hazardous the presence of lead in electronics is may be greatly
overblown. Consider, for example

http://skeptically.org/env/id2.html

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16819

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...n-fatuity.html

This could very well be another case of politicians' total lack of
understanding technology and risk assessment. What is interesting of
course is that CRTs contain significant amounts of lead but
manufacturers have an exemption here. It is pretty obvious that almost
any type of electronic equipment that contains a CRT will not be any
less hazardous because lead-free solder was used.

[Engnrguy]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
The thing is, the RoHS directives exist because there is a huge amount of
disposable consumer electronics junk being thrown away, and it is going into
landfills.

This is indeed true but all the information I have seen tells me that
the amount of lead in consumer electronics is so minor its not even
worth the effort. Think about it guys like TI and kemet have been
producing parts without a SnPb lead finish for years.

It was really never intended to apply to anything else. In the case of
commercial and industrial gear, it's a huge issue because the high temperature
solders used make board rework expensive or impossible. As a result, gear
that would have been repaired will be thrown away. This has the exact opposite
result that the original authors of the directives desired.

If anyone is or knows someone who is throwing away gear that needs
rework I will happily take it off your hands.

[Engnrguy]

Richard Crowley wrote:
Alas, the major damage may already be done. All the component
manufacturers are already converting over to ROHS lead-free (or
are already there). We are already hearing reports of un-solderable
ROHS components because the shelf-life of the lead-free products
has already been exceeded.

We haven't seen any issues yet. We are building a completely Pb-free
board, not RoHS compliant since we have the excemption but the parts
were only available in Pb-free version. Our biggest challenege was/is
the BGA devices. The surface mount stuff like chip caps, or SOIC
devices aren't a problem.

We did have a wierd issue with the solder on a RoHS thru-hole connector
not wiking up through the hole but my suspicion is that it's something
other than the Pb-free finish.

[Ben Bradley]

On 14 Dec 2006 10:31:32 -0800, "jwvm" wrote:



On Dec 14, 12:25 pm, wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
The Romans, et.al. have been using pure lead pipes, etc. for thousands
of years,The negative effects of the Romans' use of lead are pretty well
documented.

Actually the big problem was that the Roman elite drank their wine out
of lead vessels. The net result was that the ruling class suffered
significant neurological problems that some claim resulted in the fall
of the Roman Empire.

How hazardous the presence of lead in electronics is may be greatly
overblown. Consider, for example

http://skeptically.org/env/id2.html

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16819

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...n-fatuity.html

This could very well be another case of politicians' total lack of
understanding technology and risk assessment. What is interesting of
course is that CRTs contain significant amounts of lead but
manufacturers have an exemption here. It is pretty obvious that almost
any type of electronic equipment that contains a CRT will not be any
less hazardous because lead-free solder was used.

There's a lot of lead rolling around roadways that's definitely
hazardous (when it falls off, which is plenty often enough), and it's
easily and cheaply replaced with a much safer, non-toxic metal. The
exact problem and solutions discussed he

http://www.leadfreewheels.org/
Click on "What is the problem with lead wheel weights?" on the left.

I first read a letter-to-the-editor in EE Times about picking up
these weights off the road about ten years ago, perhaps in response to
the first mentions of Europe starting this lead-free solder thing.

A quick glance at the three pages referenced above shows no mention
of wheel weights.

[Scott Dorsey]

Engnrguy wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
The thing is, the RoHS directives exist because there is a huge amount of
disposable consumer electronics junk being thrown away, and it is going into
landfills.

This is indeed true but all the information I have seen tells me that
the amount of lead in consumer electronics is so minor its not even
worth the effort. Think about it guys like TI and kemet have been
producing parts without a SnPb lead finish for years.

Right, but they are still wave-soldered onto a PC board, and that solder
is the main thing they are trying to replace.

If anyone is or knows someone who is throwing away gear that needs
rework I will happily take it off your hands.

Sadly, a customer of mine has boxes of PC motherboards with bad through-hole
electrolytics, and nobody can get the damn things out without damaging the
board because the temperature required to melt the solder is so high. I
tried Chipquik and it helps but there isn't enough clearance for it to get
into the holes properly. And these are all delicate four and six layer
boards so I am reluctant to pump too much heat in there.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Engnrguy wrote:
We did have a wierd issue with the solder on a RoHS thru-hole connector
not wiking up through the hole but my suspicion is that it's something
other than the Pb-free finish.

What kind of solder are you using? Is it copper-bearing or a cadmium type?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eeyore]

Richard Crowley wrote:

"Ian Bell" wrote

If you are interesting in gaining an exemption to the European ROHS
directive for solder then check out Exemption 15 in this url:

http://tinyurl.com/y3p2dc

then click on this one to add your official support.

http://tinyurl.com/yya4ua

Alas, the major damage may already be done. All the component
manufacturers are already converting over to ROHS lead-free (or
are already there). We are already hearing reports of un-solderable
ROHS components because the shelf-life of the lead-free products
has already been exceeded.

The Romans, et.al. have been using pure lead pipes, etc. for thousands
of years, but those wacky European Unionists are apparently smarter
than everyone else. :-(

It's the bureaucrats in Brussels who don't have to answer to anybody who are the
problem.

Graham

[Eeyore]

wrote:

Richard Crowley wrote:

The Romans, et.al. have been using pure lead pipes, etc. for thousands
of years,

The negative effects of the Romans' use of lead are pretty well
documented.

We no longer drink hot wine from lead drinking vessels though !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Ben Bradley wrote:

On 14 Dec 2006 10:31:32 -0800, "jwvm" wrote:
On Dec 14, 12:25 pm, wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
The Romans, et.al. have been using pure lead pipes, etc. for thousands
of years,The negative effects of the Romans' use of lead are pretty well
documented.

Actually the big problem was that the Roman elite drank their wine out
of lead vessels. The net result was that the ruling class suffered
significant neurological problems that some claim resulted in the fall
of the Roman Empire.

How hazardous the presence of lead in electronics is may be greatly
overblown. Consider, for example

http://skeptically.org/env/id2.html

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16819

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...n-fatuity.html

This could very well be another case of politicians' total lack of
understanding technology and risk assessment. What is interesting of
course is that CRTs contain significant amounts of lead but
manufacturers have an exemption here. It is pretty obvious that almost
any type of electronic equipment that contains a CRT will not be any
less hazardous because lead-free solder was used.

There's a lot of lead rolling around roadways that's definitely
hazardous (when it falls off, which is plenty often enough), and it's
easily and cheaply replaced with a much safer, non-toxic metal. The
exact problem and solutions discussed he

http://www.leadfreewheels.org/
Click on "What is the problem with lead wheel weights?" on the left.

I first read a letter-to-the-editor in EE Times about picking up
these weights off the road about ten years ago, perhaps in response to
the first mentions of Europe starting this lead-free solder thing.

A quick glance at the three pages referenced above shows no mention
of wheel weights.

Or the use of lead on roofs AFAICT.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Engnrguy wrote:

We did have a wierd issue with the solder on a RoHS thru-hole connector
not wiking up through the hole but my suspicion is that it's something
other than the Pb-free finish.

It's the solder.

You need decent suraface tension for wicking and lead-free doesn't have it.

I'm surprised you weren't aware of that.

Try using solder wick on lead-free too !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Engnrguy wrote:
We did have a wierd issue with the solder on a RoHS thru-hole connector
not wiking up through the hole but my suspicion is that it's something
other than the Pb-free finish.

What kind of solder are you using? Is it copper-bearing or a cadmium type?

LOL.

Cadmium's not allowed either.

Graham

[William Sommerwerck]

The real need is to never throw leaded components in the trash.
It's going to take a long time before we don't have to do this.

This is the fundamental issue, not the lead solder. Every year, tens, if not
hundreds, of millions of obsolete electronic products are discarded in
landfills. If we could find a practical way to recycle them (eg, grind up
the circuit boards and extract the lead, tin, and copper), there'd be no
problem.

[Rob Reedijk]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
The real need is to never throw leaded components in the trash.
It's going to take a long time before we don't have to do this.

This is the fundamental issue, not the lead solder. Every year, tens, if not
hundreds, of millions of obsolete electronic products are discarded in
landfills.

Yes---if only we could get people to stop buy products from ART,
Behringer, Digitech, and Line 6.

If only...

Rob R.

[Eeyore]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

The real need is to never throw leaded components in the trash.
It's going to take a long time before we don't have to do this.

This is the fundamental issue, not the lead solder. Every year, tens, if not
hundreds, of millions of obsolete electronic products are discarded in
landfills. If we could find a practical way to recycle them (eg, grind up
the circuit boards and extract the lead, tin, and copper), there'd be no
problem.

The simple fact is that recycling is not only uneconomic but also may be more
environmentally damaging than just 'leaving them be'.

Graham

[ty]

Eeyore wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:


The real need is to never throw leaded components in the trash.
It's going to take a long time before we don't have to do this.

This is the fundamental issue, not the lead solder. Every year, tens, if not
hundreds, of millions of obsolete electronic products are discarded in
landfills. If we could find a practical way to recycle them (eg, grind up
the circuit boards and extract the lead, tin, and copper), there'd be no
problem.


The simple fact is that recycling is not only uneconomic but also may be more
environmentally damaging than just 'leaving them be'.

Graham


exactly - about the only economically feasible recycled products are
aluminum and copper - the rest comsume more resources and produce more
polluting waste products with fewer usable end products than the pc
crowd would have you believe - remember, lead is a naturally occuring
substance, mined from (GASP!) the ground in the first place...

ty

[Mark]

A quick glance at the three pages referenced above shows no mention
of wheel weights.

Or the use of lead on roofs AFAICT.

Graham

Consider also CAR BATTERIES!
Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

In article om,
Mark wrote:

A quick glance at the three pages referenced above shows no mention
of wheel weights.

Or the use of lead on roofs AFAICT.

Graham

Consider also CAR BATTERIES!

Car batteries are the big exception, because they get recycled. A lot of
places charge you a deposit on batteries, in fact, which you get back when
returning the old one.

I will say, though, that when I was just out of college, I interviewed for
an EE job at a battery plant in Alabama, and it was scary. Everything in
the whole town smelled of lead... you could see people getting stupid when
you got into the area near the plant. I got as far away from that place as
I could.

Some of the most notorious hazmat sites on the Mexican border, though, are
battery recycling or former battery recycling plants. So recycling is not
necessarily the solution unless it's done cleanly.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote...
The real need is to never throw leaded components in the trash.
It's going to take a long time before we don't have to do this.

This is the fundamental issue, not the lead solder. Every year, tens,
if not
hundreds, of millions of obsolete electronic products are discarded in
landfills. If we could find a practical way to recycle them (eg, grind
up
the circuit boards and extract the lead, tin, and copper), there'd be
no
problem.

I've never seen scientifically unbiased, non-political
evidence that there is a "problem" now. I'd sooner
believe a used-car salesman than a politician about
anything.

[Ben Bradley]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:56:06 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Ben Bradley wrote:

On 14 Dec 2006 10:31:32 -0800, "jwvm" wrote:
On Dec 14, 12:25 pm, wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
The Romans, et.al. have been using pure lead pipes, etc. for thousands
of years,The negative effects of the Romans' use of lead are pretty well
documented.

Actually the big problem was that the Roman elite drank their wine out
of lead vessels. The net result was that the ruling class suffered
significant neurological problems that some claim resulted in the fall
of the Roman Empire.

How hazardous the presence of lead in electronics is may be greatly
overblown. Consider, for example

http://skeptically.org/env/id2.html

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16819

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...n-fatuity.html

This could very well be another case of politicians' total lack of
understanding technology and risk assessment. What is interesting of
course is that CRTs contain significant amounts of lead but
manufacturers have an exemption here. It is pretty obvious that almost
any type of electronic equipment that contains a CRT will not be any
less hazardous because lead-free solder was used.

There's a lot of lead rolling around roadways that's definitely
hazardous (when it falls off, which is plenty often enough), and it's
easily and cheaply replaced with a much safer, non-toxic metal. The
exact problem and solutions discussed he

http://www.leadfreewheels.org/
Click on "What is the problem with lead wheel weights?" on the left.

I first read a letter-to-the-editor in EE Times about picking up
these weights off the road about ten years ago, perhaps in response to
the first mentions of Europe starting this lead-free solder thing.

A quick glance at the three pages referenced above shows no mention
of wheel weights.

Or the use of lead on roofs AFAICT.

You're absolutely right, those writers show no desire to look for
actions that significantly reduce lead exposure, they just want to
complain about something that claims to do so but for the most part
doesn't, and overall does more harm than good.

Graham

[Engnrguy]

Eeyore wrote:
It's the solder.

You need decent suraface tension for wicking and lead-free doesn't have it.

I'm surprised you weren't aware of that.

Try using solder wick on lead-free too !

That is a good thought but not it. pb-free solder actually isn't as bad
as you might think, it wicks nicely...depending on your conditions. We
haven't had any problems with the pb-free boards we are building now,
in a led free process. It actually wasn't pb-free solder. It was
standard solder but the part had a pb-free finish, which these days is
usually matte tin over nickel. (Which has been common for a while now
since chip devices have been ob-free since prior to 2002)

We have tried a few different "brews" of solder for our process. We are
using the wildly popular SAC 305 (Tin Silver Copper). (Although there
are three main variations of this) There are alot of good articles
about this in circuits assembly magazine.

[Engnrguy]

Eeyore wrote:
It's the solder.

You need decent suraface tension for wicking and lead-free doesn't have it.

I'm surprised you weren't aware of that.

Try using solder wick on lead-free too !

That is a good thought but not it. pb-free solder actually isn't as bad
as you might think, it wicks nicely...depending on your conditions. We
haven't had any problems with the pb-free boards we are building now,
in a led free process. It actually wasn't pb-free solder. It was
standard solder but the part had a pb-free finish, which these days is
usually matte tin over nickel. (Which has been common for a while now
since chip devices have been ob-free since prior to 2002)

We have tried a few different "brews" of solder for our process. We are
using the wildly popular SAC 305 (Tin Silver Copper). (Although there
are three main variations of this) There are alot of good articles
about this in circuits assembly magazine.

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:41:20 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

The Romans, et.al. have been using pure lead pipes, etc. for thousands
of years, but those wacky European Unionists are apparently smarter
than everyone else. :-(

What an amazing argument! Even with a smiley!

[Eeyore]

Engnrguy wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
It's the solder.

You need decent suraface tension for wicking and lead-free doesn't have it.

I'm surprised you weren't aware of that.

Try using solder wick on lead-free too !

That is a good thought but not it. pb-free solder actually isn't as bad
as you might think, it wicks nicely...depending on your conditions. We
haven't had any problems with the pb-free boards we are building now,
in a led free process. It actually wasn't pb-free solder. It was
standard solder but the part had a pb-free finish, which these days is
usually matte tin over nickel.

If it's not lead-free why did you mention it


(Which has been common for a while now
since chip devices have been ob-free since prior to 2002)

We have tried a few different "brews" of solder for our process. We are
using the wildly popular SAC 305 (Tin Silver Copper). (Although there
are three main variations of this) There are alot of good articles
about this in circuits assembly magazine.

I gather there are now concerns about silver toxicity too !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

Ian Bell wrote:
If you are interesting in gaining an exemption to the European ROHS
directive for solder then check out Exemption 15 in this url:

http://tinyurl.com/y3p2dc

then click on this one to add your official support.

http://tinyurl.com/yya4ua

I ran into a Brit today and we discussed the BNP. I told him they
should invent a cartoon groundhog as a symbol and name it Buck Frussels.

Wouldn't mean anything.

We don't have groundhogs here.

Graham

[Gidney N. Cloyd]

Eeyore wrote:

... invent a cartoon groundhog ... and name it Buck Frussels.
Wouldn't mean anything. We don't have groundhogs here.

Try a woodchuck then, or even a marmot.

[Eeyore]

"Gidney N. Cloyd" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

... invent a cartoon groundhog ... and name it Buck Frussels.
Wouldn't mean anything. We don't have groundhogs here.

Try a woodchuck then, or even a marmot.

We don't have those either. Well... maybe a few marmots but I doubt most ppl
have come across them or know what they are.

What exactly would it be meant to represent ?

Graham

[William Sommerwerck]

exactly - about the only economically feasible recycled products are
aluminum and copper - the rest comsume more resources and produce
more polluting waste products with fewer usable end products than the
PC crowd would have you believe - remember, lead is a naturally occuring
substance, mined from (GASP!) the ground in the first place...

You're trying to confuse the issue. Lead _is_ a toxin, and we want to keep
it out of food and the water supply.

Will switching to lead-free solder reduce the amount in the water supply
from land-fill leaching? Maybe. But I'd like to see the reasoning...

[William Sommerwerck]

Consider also CAR BATTERIES!

But car batteries are commonly recycled. And the lead (actually lead
compounds) are inside a case that keeps them away from "the environment".

[William Sommerwerck]

I've never seen scientifically unbiased, non-political
evidence that there is a "problem" now. I'd sooner
believe a used-car salesman than a politician about
anything.

ALL "waste" is a problem.

[Adrian Tuddenham]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

exactly - about the only economically feasible recycled products are
aluminum and copper - the rest comsume more resources and produce
more polluting waste products with fewer usable end products than the
PC crowd would have you believe - remember, lead is a naturally occuring
substance, mined from (GASP!) the ground in the first place...

You're trying to confuse the issue. Lead _is_ a toxin, and we want to keep
it out of food and the water supply.

Will switching to lead-free solder reduce the amount in the water supply
from land-fill leaching? Maybe. But I'd like to see the reasoning...

1) Is there any proof that lead from electronic assemblies in landfill
sites actually is leaching into the water supply?

2) Will lead-free electronics significantly reduce the total amount of
lead released into the environment without increasing the release of
other toxins?

I suspect the answer to both of those questions is "No". I have never
seen any proof and I have not heard of anyoine else who has. Surely by
now, if there were any the studies which confirmed 1) and 2), they ought
to be common knowledge. Unfounded assertions are a bad basis for
legislation.

If there really does turn out to be a problem, burying lead-containing
electronics assemblies in old lead workings would be a very simple way
of ensuring that there was no overall increase in the lead entering the
environment. It would also concentrate the waste so that it was easily
accessible if better recovery methods became viable in future.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[[email protected]]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

It was really never intended to apply to anything else. In the case
of commercial and industrial gear, it's a huge issue because the
high temperature solders used make board rework expensive or
impossible. As a result, gear that would have been repaired will be
thrown away. This has the exact opposite result that the original
authors of the directives desired.

There is also another `unexpected consequence'. Many of the new alloy
use Bismuth. Now guess where that comes from. As a trace, about 1% in
raw lead. So to produce the Bi thats needed, they now have a **** load
of Pb they can't unload. So it is now being dumped at firesale prices
of African fuel refineries who are now cranking out ever increasing
qualtities of leaded fuel...

As Londoners have discovered, PbBi mixes have other uses as well.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

[[email protected]]

"jwvm" writes:

Actually the big problem was that the Roman elite drank their wine
out of lead vessels. The net result was that the ruling class
suffered significant neurological problems that some claim resulted
in the fall of the Roman Empire.

They also used `White Spirits of Wine' as a sweetener for wine.

If you think Cyclamates are bad, try Lead Acetate!

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

[Peter Larsen]

Eeyore wrote:

This is the fundamental issue, not the lead solder. Every year,
tens, if not hundreds, of millions of obsolete electronic products
are discarded in landfills.

Which is absolutely silly.

If we could find a practical way to recycle them (eg, grind up
the circuit boards and extract the lead, tin, and copper),
there'd be no problem.

Exists, I had a job at a recycling yard dismembering computers for a
couple of months early this year. Computer type PCB's in one box,
general PCB's in another, etc. ... all of ends up in a shredder. Cables
etc. in other boxes for their copper. The company charges pr. kilogram
of received scrap and concentrates the debris types. We got a lot of
excess flat screen cables from installations .... very lucrative.

The simple fact is that recycling is not only uneconomic

Not at all.

but also may be more environmentally damaging than just
'leaving them be'.

It is - literally - a gold mine. It may be that some types of scrap are
too diluted to pay for themselves now, but diluting them further by
putting them in landfills is idioticø

Putting waste in landfills generally seems t obe short sighted anyway,
if not for any other reason then to protect the ground water. Burning it
is actually not all that bad from a CO2 point of view, and selling the
heat for building heating is a good concept that leads to overall
cleaner city air.

Graham

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen]

Mark wrote:

Consider also CAR BATTERIES!

Their lead pays its own way back to the battery maker. Don't you guys
have any kind of sensible waste handling wherever you live?

Mark


Peter Larsen