• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Science education disaster

Ziggurat

Penultimate Amazing
Ziggurat
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
61,641
So there's a new threat to science education in this country. This time, it's not from religious nuts or new-age woos, but from do-gooders who want to keep children safe from lead.

Remember the scare about lead in toys from China? Remember how Congress decided it would rescue the public from this scourge? Thus was the Consumer Protection Safety Improvement Act born. If it's got lead in it, it can't be sold to children. Sounds noble, right?

Small problem. Trace amounts of lead find their way into the vinyl wire insulation on pretty much anything with wires. This lead is not a threat in any way (unless you eat large quantities of the vinyl), but it is nonetheless illegal under the CPSIA if it's intended for use by children. So say goodbye to educational products like the Potato Clock, schools won't be purchasing any in the future. Lots of products fall into the category of items which pose zero health risk for children, but are still banned.
 
Apparently there is trace quantities of lead in the ink in old books, too.
 
Ziggurat said:
So there's a new threat to science education in this country. This time, it's not from religious nuts or new-age woos, but from do-gooders who want to keep children safe from lead.

Remember the scare about lead in toys from China? Remember how Congress decided it would rescue the public from this scourge? Thus was the Consumer Protection Safety Improvement Act born. If it's got lead in it, it can't be sold to children. Sounds noble, right?

Small problem. Trace amounts of lead find their way into the vinyl wire insulation on pretty much anything with wires. This lead is not a threat in any way (unless you eat large quantities of the vinyl), but it is nonetheless illegal under the CPSIA if it's intended for use by children. So say goodbye to educational products like the Potato Clock, schools won't be purchasing any in the future. Lots of products fall into the category of items which pose zero health risk for children, but are still banned.
Click to expand...

Like any potentially dangerous material it is all about quantities and how you handle it, meaning exposure. We have to use a specific solder for certain connections where I work. Apparently no one was aware of the lead content in this solder until I insisted on the MSDS and sure enough it was the old 60 40 lead tin solder. Everyone now uses gloves and a respirator when using this solder. It also reminds me of when I was working with aluminum extrusion and conductors back in the 80‘s and early 90‘s. Suddenly you started seeing these warning tags on the aluminum products listing the dangers of aluminum ‘exposure‘. Most of us were taking precautions anyway just because you don’t want to be breathing or exposing yourself to anything you can avoid. You know you have a dirty job when you have to wash your hands before you take a leak.
 
It's a "disaster" Zig? Or an unintended consequence that can be fixed with subsequent legislation?

Maybe there are good and bad outcomes from the legislation but the net is on the good side. Did you look into that possibility?

Finally, from your first link:

Unfortunately, safety is the least of anyone's concerns under the CPSIA.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole much? Makes your and the link's credibility a tad weak.
 
SezMe said:
It's a "disaster" Zig? Or an unintended consequence that can be fixed with subsequent legislation?
Click to expand...

It will probably eventually get fixed, but it's doing damage right now.

Maybe there are good and bad outcomes from the legislation but the net is on the good side. Did you look into that possibility?
Click to expand...

Yes. But I see zero evidence that it's actually protected anyone from any real threats. The harm done? That's already evident.

Hyperbole much? Makes your and the link's credibility a tad weak.
Click to expand...

That's not hyperbole, it's the truth: safety isn't the real concern under the CPSIA, liability is. And that includes liability even for items that are perfectly safe, as the case of preemptive recalls mentioned in the story illustrates. In fact, the CPSIA is likely to decrease safety in certain areas. The CPSIA bans items based upon lead content, not upon the amount of lead any child will actually be exposed to. That's not safety.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's not hyperbole, it's the truth: safety isn't the real concern under the CPSIA, liability is.
Click to expand...
I won't argue with you about what the "real" concern is...you may be right. But the quote that caused me to call hyperbole said it was the "least" concern of "anyone". I'll stand by my hyperbole call.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
If it's got lead in it, it can't be sold to children. Sounds noble, right?

Small problem. Trace amounts of lead find their way into the vinyl wire insulation on pretty much anything with wires.
Click to expand...


How do you think the wires are attached to the components on either end of them? How do you think components are attached to circuit boards. What do you think it is that holds nearly every electronic device together?

If there is lead in the vinyl insulation on wires, it is nothing compared to the lead in the solder being used to hold the whole thing together. And even that is not enough to pose any measurable safety hazard to anyone who isn't actually eating electronics devices on a regular basis.



This discussion reminds me of California's “Proposition 65”, which I refer to as “The Law that cried ‘Wolf!’” I have to think that it was put forth, not out of any genuine interest in safety, but as a way of showing how amazingly gullible the public can be in being duped into supporting a policy that seems good on its face, but which any amount of rational thought would reveal to be ineffective at best, and very likely detrimental to the very purpose it claims to serve.

The concept is simple and obvious. If there is a chemical present that could harm me, I ought to know about it, right? So Proposition 65 requires California to maintain a list of chemicals “known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm”, and for prominent notices to be posted wherever any such chemicals are present. No consideration is made at all as to whether the chemical may be present in a form which poses any actual possibility of being exposed to it in a manner that has any possibility of causing any harm. It is the mere presence of the chemical that requires a notice to be posted.

As a consequence, we in California are now so used to these notices being posted everywhere about entirely nonexistent threats, that where any genuine chemical hazard might actually exist, there is no way to warn us of it that we would take seriously.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom