Although most of US electronic industry has converted to a ROHS-compliant manufacturing, up until now there was no a legal requirement in US to meet ROHS regulations except for the state of California. The electronic manufacturers switched to ROHS-compliant products primarily in order to sell them to Europe, Japan, and some other countries, and because many customers were requesting ROHS compliance. However, when a product is not shipped to the geographical areas where ROHS or similar regulations are enforced by a law, and the compliance is not requested by a customer, it is basically up to the manufacturer to choose the components and the soldering technology.
Now there is a possibility a ROHS compliance would soon become a federal law. A legislation have been recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that imposes restrictions on the use of lead, mercury and other materials in many types of electrical products and equipment.
The proposed legislation, designated H.R. 2420 and referred to as Environmental Design of Electrical Equipment Act (EDEE), would amend the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to provide national regulatory standards for the use of some potentially hazardous substances. According to the bill, ‘electroindustry products’ manufactured after July 1, 2010 must not contain lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and cadmium in the concentration levels that are consistent with EU's RoHS Directive.
The bill particularly states: "It is the purpose of this Act to enhance the economic, environmental, and social well-being of the people of the United States in the global marketplace".
Well, I wonder how for example mandating a lead-free solder technology that is known to have potential long-term reliability issues, whose implementation requires extra spending, and which is not driven by free market forces, would enhance our economic well-being?
I also wonder, how come for example mercury is not OK in electronics, but OK in your mouth? It is interesting that currently in the US and in most European countries there is no restriction on the use of dental mercury amalgam fillings. So far only Sweden, Denmark and Norway ban mercury use in dental fillings, while all members of EU restrict its use in electronics devices. Of course, mercury, lead and other toxic substances in electronic devices present a health threat only if you have a habit of chewing printed circuit boards. Contrary to this, mercury in your mouth presents a much more probable health issue. According to some studies, amalgam fillings leach mercury into the mouth and mercury vapor can be inhaled during the fillings removal, although FDA disputes the effects of this exposure.
The state of California is a bit more consistent with the toxic substances issue. It at least mandates the following notice: "Notice to Patients, Proposition 65: Warning on dental amalgams, used in many dental fillings, causes exposure to mercury, a chemical known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. Root canal treatments and restorations including fillings, crowns and bridges, use chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has studied the situation and approved for use all dental restorative materials. Consult your dentist to determine which materials are appropriate for your treatment. "
However, currently neither CA, or federal laws restrict mercury use in dental fillings. Apparently, for our lawmakers mercury is hazardous only in landfills but not in your mouth.
June 10, 2009
Power Supply Efficiency Compliance Calculator
I previously wrote about various US and international regulations related to an external power supply efficiency. Power Integrations came up with a nice free online tool that let you quickly check whether your charger or an adapter complies with the energy-efficiency regulations. You just enter your power supply's nameplate wattage, no-load power consumption and the efficiency in the active mode at various load levels. The calculator then tells you whether you meet various worldwide standards and actually displays the required no-load input wattage and required efficiency you need for the compliance.
The calculator currently checks for compliance to the following standards for PSU below 250W:
• ENERGY STAR (version 2.0), a voluntary standard sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the EPA;
• EISA 2007 section 301, a mandatory U.S. efficiency standard, based on the California Energy Commission’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations;
• European Commission Code of Conduct (version 4) issued in April 2009;
• European Eco-design Directive: The Commission’s Eco-design Directive for external power supplies, which aligns with the EISA 2007 standard for Tier 1 and ENERGY STAR (version 2) for Tier 2;
• China USB Charger Specification (YD/T 1591-2006) for mobile telecommunication terminal equipment power supplies;
• EC Integrated Product Policy (IPP) for mobile phone adapters/chargers.
Hopefully, PI will be promptly updating their calculator when the applicable standards change.
The calculator currently checks for compliance to the following standards for PSU below 250W:
• ENERGY STAR (version 2.0), a voluntary standard sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the EPA;
• EISA 2007 section 301, a mandatory U.S. efficiency standard, based on the California Energy Commission’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations;
• European Commission Code of Conduct (version 4) issued in April 2009;
• European Eco-design Directive: The Commission’s Eco-design Directive for external power supplies, which aligns with the EISA 2007 standard for Tier 1 and ENERGY STAR (version 2) for Tier 2;
• China USB Charger Specification (YD/T 1591-2006) for mobile telecommunication terminal equipment power supplies;
• EC Integrated Product Policy (IPP) for mobile phone adapters/chargers.
Hopefully, PI will be promptly updating their calculator when the applicable standards change.
April 23, 2009
CFL (Compact Fluorescent Bulbs) Pros and Cons
Speaking on April's 22 Earth Day about his energy plan, President Obama reportedly called on every American to replace one incandescent light bulb with one compact fluorescent (CFL).
Well, like all other devices CFL has pros and cons. For reference, compact fluorescent bulbs use up to 75 percent less energy then traditional incandescent lamps. However, they do present potential health and environmental hazards. I wonder if the president's advisers fully informed him of all the impacts of using these bulbs?
Last year a research by UK's Health Protection Agency has shown that CFL bulbs can emit unhealthy levels of ultraviolet radiation when they are in close proximity to people. They said that the UV levels can be equivalent to that experienced outside on a sunny day in the summer and some precaution is warranted. The Agency's chief has suggested: "We are advising people to avoid using the open light bulbs for prolonged close work until the problem is sorted out and to use encapsulated bulbs instead." Hmm... Maybe we should use at home sunscreen and sunglasses with UV protection to protect ourself from these "green" energy-efficient politically correct bulbs?
Of course, many of us are not concerned of prolong sunlight exposure and would spend long time under the sun. Nevertheless, this WHO's warning should be taken seriously: "Prolonged human exposure to solar UV radiation may result in acute and chronic health effects on the skin, eye and immune system... Over the longer term, UV radiation induces degenerative changes in cells of the skin, fibrous tissue and blood vessels leading to premature skin aging, photodermatoses and actinic keratoses. Another long-term effect is an inflammatory reaction of the eye. In the most serious cases, skin cancer and cataracts can occur."
And although the above HPA's report says that when the CFL is further then 1 foot, the UV level is less than being outside on a sunny day in winter, for me it is not good enough. I personally don't want to subject my family to UV radiation [even a low-level one] for the sake of saving a few bucks, or helping a utility company, or because of anyone's political agenda.
Besides being a source of UV radiation, all CFLs contain mercury, a toxin that can cause kidney and brain damage (how come the state of California is not requiring the appropriate warning label?) Based on a research by Stanford University, the amount of mercury in one CFL bulb can contaminate more than 1,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels. Now, raise your hands: who will bother bringing a burnt bulb to a special recycling place [if you can find one in your area] rather then throwing it in the trash?
And what if you broke the CFL? The EPA has a whole page of the clean-up instructions, which include the following sections:
Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room;
Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces;
Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug;
Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding and Other Soft Materials;
Disposal of Clean-up Materials;
Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming.
Hey, how about just staying with good old incandescent bulbs until a safe alternative will be developed? By the way, today's CFLs have a lousy power factor. For now a PF doesn't affect the residential electricity bills, but it does affect the utilities. Speaking about a safe alternative. If you are interested in $10 million cash, the US Dept. of Energy is offering this prize to create a solid-state screw-in replacement for the 60W bulb. If you can develop sufficiently bright LEDs and handle the packaging, give me a buzz- I would handle the AC-DC part of it, and we'll split the prize :-)
Well, like all other devices CFL has pros and cons. For reference, compact fluorescent bulbs use up to 75 percent less energy then traditional incandescent lamps. However, they do present potential health and environmental hazards. I wonder if the president's advisers fully informed him of all the impacts of using these bulbs?
Last year a research by UK's Health Protection Agency has shown that CFL bulbs can emit unhealthy levels of ultraviolet radiation when they are in close proximity to people. They said that the UV levels can be equivalent to that experienced outside on a sunny day in the summer and some precaution is warranted. The Agency's chief has suggested: "We are advising people to avoid using the open light bulbs for prolonged close work until the problem is sorted out and to use encapsulated bulbs instead." Hmm... Maybe we should use at home sunscreen and sunglasses with UV protection to protect ourself from these "green" energy-efficient politically correct bulbs?
Of course, many of us are not concerned of prolong sunlight exposure and would spend long time under the sun. Nevertheless, this WHO's warning should be taken seriously: "Prolonged human exposure to solar UV radiation may result in acute and chronic health effects on the skin, eye and immune system... Over the longer term, UV radiation induces degenerative changes in cells of the skin, fibrous tissue and blood vessels leading to premature skin aging, photodermatoses and actinic keratoses. Another long-term effect is an inflammatory reaction of the eye. In the most serious cases, skin cancer and cataracts can occur."
And although the above HPA's report says that when the CFL is further then 1 foot, the UV level is less than being outside on a sunny day in winter, for me it is not good enough. I personally don't want to subject my family to UV radiation [even a low-level one] for the sake of saving a few bucks, or helping a utility company, or because of anyone's political agenda.
Besides being a source of UV radiation, all CFLs contain mercury, a toxin that can cause kidney and brain damage (how come the state of California is not requiring the appropriate warning label?) Based on a research by Stanford University, the amount of mercury in one CFL bulb can contaminate more than 1,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels. Now, raise your hands: who will bother bringing a burnt bulb to a special recycling place [if you can find one in your area] rather then throwing it in the trash?
And what if you broke the CFL? The EPA has a whole page of the clean-up instructions, which include the following sections:
Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room;
Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces;
Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug;
Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding and Other Soft Materials;
Disposal of Clean-up Materials;
Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming.
Hey, how about just staying with good old incandescent bulbs until a safe alternative will be developed? By the way, today's CFLs have a lousy power factor. For now a PF doesn't affect the residential electricity bills, but it does affect the utilities. Speaking about a safe alternative. If you are interested in $10 million cash, the US Dept. of Energy is offering this prize to create a solid-state screw-in replacement for the 60W bulb. If you can develop sufficiently bright LEDs and handle the packaging, give me a buzz- I would handle the AC-DC part of it, and we'll split the prize :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
