Nothing I say represents the opinions or policies of my employer. I am not a scientist, so tend to be rather practical and use models that are known to work. I am not a writer of the likes of Clarke, DeCamp, Asimov, Bruner, et al; so I am not an adroit thinker of future possibilities or trends. I am a low-rent redneck in search of better ale. I am limited to (simplistic) analysis of empirical data. So the best that most of us can do is to attempt to match published scientific theory to reported observations. Regulatory affects should be measurable. If element X is disallowed by law, I expect to see a correlation in tabulated containment data for X. After five years of RoHS, the scientists should be able to provide a data set to the engineering community that is indicative of regulatory affectivity.
Others have commented on conditions of the previous 100 years - the London environment was at its nadir in the 19th century and had been steadily improving until the 1952 coal smog; but it does continue to improve. The emissions of chemical and mechanical pollutants in the industrial midwest of America was at its nadir in the 1970s, but industrial waste in this area is seldom a significant contributor to environmental degradation in century 21 due to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. RoHS can be an anti-motif for the compliance community in general and standards writers in particular. Demand to see the data prior to more regulations. For *ALL* regulatory standards. For EMC. For safety. To the members of TCs and WGs - you are engineers, so 'think empirical'; let the scientists and futurists think theoretical. respectfully, Brian -----Original Message----- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 1:09 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [***] Re: [PSES] Lead-free article In message <1330140074.60947.yahoomail...@web39606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, dated Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Bill Owsley <wdows...@yahoo.com> writes: >In all, we are moving in the right direction, and can move further, >with careful consideration. >The fear mongers among us can tip the balance back to the dark ages if >we are not attentive. >A point to note is that we survived a dreadful time of pollution during >the '50's, '60's, '70's >and are now in a much better place than those times. >And we can improve!!! This is my point, too, especially about the fear-mongers. In Britain we have people describing food that contains any amount of fat at all as 'unhealthy'. Activists vie with one another to become more and more zealous. That's no trouble if politicians disregard the most extreme views, but now we have politicians who are themselves zealots. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If 'QWERTY' is an English keyboard, what language is 'WYSIWYG' for? - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <emcp...@radiusnorth.net> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
