Talk:Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive

RoHS-compliant Producers and Distributors

Eastern Applied Research - RoHS Compliance Testing [1]

Newark InOne - distributor (Newark is pushing for a U.S. RoHS law:[2]

Fischer Technology [3]

rohs

So, let me get this straight. If we can't find common ground we're still supposeto trust our industry to make products that will be used to help regulate the bits and parts and peices that can help keep us alive? Can any one say MEDTRONIC? Our choices seem to be self truncating. All for now. DPANYD

Article Section 3.1 Labeling and Documentation - History

In section 3.1 of the RoHS article, Labeling and Documentation - History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoHS_Compliant#History), is the statement, "In addition, the closely related WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive) trash-can logo with an "X" through it is an indicator that the product may be compliant.", which is followed by the in-line template, "[Dubious - Discuss]".

I am unable to find said discussion here on the article's Talk page. As I am reading the questionable sentence, it says that products which contain the WEEE's X'd trashcan logo are safe to throw in the regular garbage. However, I've always assumed just the opposite, that items which carry this logo are required to be properly disposed/recycled, and should not be just thrown away with the regular garbage.

If the said [Dubious - Discuss] template as mentioned is directing to a section in this Talk article, could someone reply to my comment here with the link so that I can read the discussion? If not, then could this discrepancy be addressed (WEEE's X'd trashcan logo means un/safe to throw away in regular garbage)?

Thank you for your time/assistance whomever replies.
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi DeNoel,

The WEEE logo is as you describe, it's meant to discourage disposing of high-tech electronic devices into the trash and encourage recycling or re-use. I'd like to see the dubious template removed, because WEEE and RoHS are directly related. My intent was to relate that products that fall under WEEE also generally fall under the RoHS regulations as far as I know, and so they go hand-in-hand. Prosecreator (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliability concerns unfounded

No, not realy. In fact that statement is faaar from true.

In document called "RoHS - 10 year later" (avilable at https://www.circuitinsight.com/programs/55274.html) we could read: ″From 2006 to 2008, the number of corrosion-related failures of IT/datacom equipment directly attributable to lead-free manufacturing regulations – by conservative estimates – increased by upwards of 250%.″ and also ″Between 2009 and 2011, as manufacturers began to replace silver with other materials, the failure rate stabilized and showed a slight decline, but failures were still above pre-RoHS levels.″ So no, reliability concerns were definitely not "unfounded"

In that section we could also read that "RoHS printed circuit board finishing technologies are surpassing traditional formulations in fabrication thermal shock, solder paste printability, contact resistance, and aluminium wire bonding performance and nearing their performance in other attributes." but in attached link we could found only: ″Is the board performance affected with RoHS processing? Although we cannot address new RoHS compliant components, the characteristics of the material used in building the RoHS compliant laminate do not vary significantly from laminate that is less temperature resistant; therefore we would not expect a significant change in the performance of the board.″ So what phrase on linked website support statement that RoHS "surpassed" anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.113.32.126 (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)