Slashdot Mirror


VIA Announces Lead-Free Motherboard

linuxprox writes "VIA announced today that their AS-1210 motherboard will be the world's first lead-free motherboard. 'The transition to 'green' manufacturing for VIA has been very smooth and we have been able to ship lead-free processors and chipsets since the end of last year,' said Richard Brown, Vice President of Marketing, VIA Technologies, Inc. 'The AS-1210 clearly demonstrates the technology leadership of VIA and Yamashita in being the first to market with a lead-free motherboard that meets the requirements of the international market.'"

347 comments

  1. more to read by tedtimmons · · Score: 5, Informative
    I was trying to figure out what the lead was used for (traces, solder, and capacitors was my best bet). The following link from Intel is a press release, but contains a good overview of lead use:
    http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20 040407tech.htm

    And more from Intel:
    http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/leadfree.htm

    And more information from AMD:
    http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResou rces/0,,30_182_4040,00.html

    Disclosure: I don't work for, or own stock in AMD or Intel. I haven't purchased an Intel chip since the Pentium came out.

    -ted

  2. Dammit.. foiled.. by brxndxn · · Score: 5, Funny

    All my plans of turning worthless motherboards into precious pencils has failed!!

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
    1. Re:Dammit.. foiled.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. I know you're joking but just pointing out to everybody else that it's graphite in pencil lead :)

    2. Re:Dammit.. foiled.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, but it USED to be lead in pencil lead. Just because pencils use graphic, doesn't mean you can't make a lead pencil. Unfortunately, with lead pencils, you have to lick the lead before you use it, and consequently you may very well get lead poisoning. But such is life.

    3. Re:Dammit.. foiled.. by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      Not to be pedantic or anything but pencils use graphite, not lead.

    4. Re:Dammit.. foiled.. by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      That's how we used to weed out the weak kids.

      Now we baby them so much that the sissies make it to adulthood, mate with other sissies, and spawn yet more sissies.

    5. Re:Dammit.. foiled.. by Mateito · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Now we baby them so much that the sissies make it to adulthood,
      > mate with other sissies, and spawn yet more sissies.

      And without them, we wouldn't have Slashdot.

    6. Re:Dammit.. foiled.. by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Hey, the joke is much funnier now that you've explained it. Thanks.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    7. Re:Dammit.. foiled.. by Spudley · · Score: 1

      Not to be pedantic or anything but pencils use graphite, not lead.

      In this case, would that be pendantic? :)

      --
      (Spudley Strikes Again!)
    8. Re:Dammit.. foiled.. by Mr_Dyqik · · Score: 1

      Nope, pencils have always used graphite. They were invented when shepherds started using lumps of graphite found in the Lake District, UK, to mark their sheep.

  3. Green Computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    VIA Green Computing page

    It's too bad they don't do monitors. Those CRTs are the biggest source of lead in computers. Of course, I don't like electrons being shot at my face, so it's not all bad, but still. They are a pain to dispose of.

    Cross your fingers for affordable OLEDs. (fp?)

    1. Re:Green Computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny
      What are you talking about?

      Just throw them in a dumpster.

    2. Re:Green Computing by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      CRTs are a pain to dispose of?

      I put two to four of them at a time out there and the trashman hauls them away. For our regular $15 per month trash pickup.

      You probably just live in the wrong locality. I buy lots of used computers and scrap out a lot of stuff.

      --
      resigned
    3. Re:Green Computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not really the electrons you should be worried about, they don't make it past the glass - it is what happens when they are suddenly stopped... it is just like an x-ray tube.

      But now I really don't know where they put the lead in CRTs. Is it in the glass? It seems reasonable except that when you slam electrons into a high Z material, you tend to make more x-rays.

    4. Re:Green Computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He meant to say they are a pain to dispose of without being a retard.

    5. Re:Green Computing by BetaJim · · Score: 2, Informative

      CRT's don't fire any electrons at you. They would never make is out of the glass envelope (lead-free glass or not). The lead is there to shield you from the low energy x-rays produced by the electrons striking the phospher, glass and other parts of the screen.

      --

      "Drug related crime" is a misnomer, "prohibition related crime" is the more accurate and correct phrase.

    6. Re:Green Computing by greenhide · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Technically, you're not suppposed to do this. Components like this, along with things like batteries, aren't supposed to go to the normal dump. They're supposed to be hauled to a special sectioned off part of the dump, and the days during which you can do this are limited. This is true where I live, at least (Central Virginia).

      Plus, my understanding is that outside of the States, regulations are even stricter. Of course, I've heard that in some countries, a recycling tax is added to items like computers, and the companies are thus responsible for the costs of safely disposing of/recycling the computers. Anyone who knows more about this care to share?

      --
      Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
    7. Re:Green Computing by HermanAB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, at least the lead in the CRTs is inside the glass, in the form of a complex crystal, so it ain't goin nowhere...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    8. Re:Green Computing by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the trash hauler who I employ don't do the seperating out for me? The name of the company is "Southern Scavenger Service."

      Why are the 'days you can do this limited'?? So people will dump stuff on vacant lots instead?

      --
      resigned
    9. Re:Green Computing by shawb · · Score: 1

      And for a second I thought you meant that the ELECTRONS were a pain to dispose of. D'oh.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    10. Re:Green Computing by adpowers · · Score: 1

      Where I live, Seattle (which is fairly green), they have collection days for hazardous/oversize things. You bring them your batteries, TVs/monitors, refrigerators, etc. and they will dispose of them appropriately. It costs a little bit of money, though. They only do this occasionally so they can get a critical mass. If they had the collections open all the time, they would probably lose money (since the people working there would be idle most of the time).

      I don't believe the garbage/recycling workers here will take these kinds of things.

    11. Re:Green Computing by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      Yes we have such a tax in the Netherlands, also for consumers. When you buy a household appliance there is a fixed tax for each type of appliance (fridge, tv, radio, computer, whatever) that is paid.
      Of course it just goes on the big pile of the state budget, it is unclear what this is really spent on.
      (just as road tax, gas tax, sigarette tax, etc)

      But, every city has one or more waste recycling facilities where you bring your old stuff and it is neatly separated in many different portions, electronics/computers being one of them.
      For consumer use and small amounts this is "free" (paid from taxes), but when you want to dump a large amount of monitors or computers there is an extra charge for that.

    12. Re:Green Computing by muttoj · · Score: 1

      I work for Dell EMEA. We use two different prices for the Netherlands and Belgium. At every order that goes to Belgium I have to raise a certain amount of enviroment tax. The Tax of CRT screens is much higher then of flatpanels. 1,65 EUR for a laptop 2,48 EUR for the processor 4,96 EUR for a flatpanel 6,61 EUR for a CRT screen

  4. Green? by Unnngh! · · Score: 5, Funny
    'The transition to 'green' manufacturing for VIA

    Aren't most Printed Circuit Boards already green?

    Ah, nevermind...

    1. Re:Green? by Steamhead · · Score: 1

      Not all, all PowerMacs from MDD + are blue.

    2. Re:Green? by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, they make some red and blue ones that they sell to the people that put windows on the side of their towers.

      I wish I was joking.

    3. Re:Green? by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      MSI makes red ones

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
  5. VIA is reliable by SquireCD · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I've had a VIA board on an old i386 and it's never given me problems. Because of this I've bought nothing but VIA boards sine about 1996. I'm sure this board will live up to the VIA reputation.

    1. Re:VIA is reliable by Kenja · · Score: 1, Interesting
      "I'm sure this board will live up to the VIA reputation."

      VIAs reputation is poor at best. The last VIA board I owned (KT133) wouldn't post if you had a SCSI card and a PS/2 mouse hooked up at the same time. Search around on Google, most of the VIA chipsets are rife with problems.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:VIA is reliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      • Off topic
      • Wrong
    3. Re:VIA is reliable by cojsl · · Score: 2, Informative

      Granted the KT133 was a stinker, and largely the reason early Athlons were percieved as unreliable, but since then they've been solid. I'm posting from a KT600 box, just finished a KM266 econo box, and have build dozens of other VIA based boxes including my VIA EPIA based Car Computer!

    4. Re:VIA is reliable by UnassumingLocalGuy · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. In my experience, the second revision chipsets (for example, the KT266A I'm running in my box) are solid as a rock. This one has been up for 23 days straight. Very *nix-friendly, too; and I have never had any weird hardware flukes. But yes, I have heard plenty regarding VIA in some of their early-revisions having silly problems. There are quite a few VIA-specific hacks in the Linux kernel, and a lot of people have reported that you can't run a nVidia GPU on several VIA boards at 4x mode (though I do just fine without problems).

      --
      "Hu, ho, ho-ah-oh-oh-oh. Hu, ho ho-ah-oh-oh-oh. Mario Paint! Whoaaa!"
    5. Re:VIA is reliable by Kenja · · Score: 1

      It all depends on what the system is being used for. I tend to load my computers up (RAID, Gigabit, Fireware etc). I expect all the PCI slots to be usable, VIA seems to think that 2-3 out of 5 of them are just for show. ACPI, IRQ and other resource sharing just seem to no work well on them.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    6. Re:VIA is reliable by cft_128 · · Score: 1
      23 days is ok but not fantastic (wait - unless of course this is windows, then you need a bottle of champagne). Yesterday I had a linux machine that went down after 55 days and I was upset about the short uptime (previous reboot was related to a power outage). It didn't crash entirely but needed a reboot to bring back a RAID controller (&@*!"# aacraid driver).

      Having said all this, I have no VIA experience so I cannot vouch for or criticize them.

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

  6. Way to get the lead out! by shakamojo · · Score: 1, Funny

    Ok, I know, it's not punny. Sorry.

    1. Re:Way to get the lead out! by Kenja · · Score: 2
      "Ok, I know, it's not punny. Sorry."

      You should be punnished for that. Still, at least it wasn't a pun about German sausages, eh? They're the wurst.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Way to get the lead out! by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2, Funny

      You don't know how lucky you are - if this was 500 years ago, you'd receive the medieval punishment for telling bad puns.

      You'd be drawn and quoted.

      Weaselmancer

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
  7. New lead free motherboard... by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 5, Funny

    New lead free motherboard*

    *Supply your own solder.

    1. Re:New lead free motherboard... by dwave · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't need to. There are plenty of alternatives that aren't around just since yesterday.
      But I'll stock up my supply of Pp-based solder before it is banned in Europe in 2006/2007.

    2. Re:New lead free motherboard... by cfuse · · Score: 1
      New lead free motherboard*

      *Supply your own solder.

      I want the one with the springs as contacts.

  8. Oh lordy by boomgopher · · Score: 3, Funny

    So I shouldn't have been eating my old motherboards all these years?

    Please confirm my Slashdot friends! Woe is me...

    --
    Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
  9. Whoopie! by SCSi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I can let my toddler chew on motherboards without worrying about that pesky lead!
    Thanks VIA!

    1. Re:Whoopie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already tried it this morning, it doesn't work. :(

    2. Re:Whoopie! by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      Of course you know this is more about ground water seepage and the future of the world.

      If NVIDIA has not caught up, my next MB will be a dreaded VIA just to support this move. Boy I really dont look forward to VIA drivers again...

  10. A nice start, but... by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 5, Informative
    This is really more of a touchy feel-good move than a substantive move in cutting back on the more dangerous parts of the motherboard.

    This doesn't do a thing about the lethal levels of sheel negceba that go through most boards, not to mention the chemicals used in most non-paper capacitors, which are not only lethal poisons, but as tasty as anti-freeze to most animals.

    Add to this the PCBs in the transformer that go with their power supply, and you've pretty much only addressed the fourth worst problem. The real problems have several orders of magnitude more impact on the environtment and worse -- solutions already exist to solve all three for prices only 5-10% higher than what they pay for existing chemicals!

    1. Re:A nice start, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative
      Well, everybody knows what lead is and how bad it is.

      Not everybody has rot13, so they don't know what sheel negceba is.

    2. Re:A nice start, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Paper capacitors and PCBs ? Geez, we're not talking about ENIAC's motherboard here. :-)

      Capacitors on modern surface mount motherboards are either ceramic (aluminum oxide) with metal (silver, palladium, tin) layers or "dry" tantalum caps. The ones you're thinking of are probably the "wet" tantalum caps which were wetted with sulfuric acid, which is certainly unpleasant although I wouldn't call it a lethal poison.

      You won't find any PCBs in the power supply transformer, either. Except in some very specialized high voltage applications, they've been banned for at least 20 years.

      I have no idea what "sheel negceba" is.

      Most of the lead in the environment comes from depleted lead-acid batteries, but there's no practical alternatives to those yet so tin-lead solder gets promoted to the top of the list.

      The biggest concern with lead-free solders is the higher temperatures they require to make them melt. Since all of the components on the board are also subject to this higher temperature, there can be negative effects on reliability.

    3. Re:A nice start, but... by Johnno74 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, I used a script, and came up with the same thing. "furry artpron"... WTF? /me is confused.

    4. Re:A nice start, but... by op51n · · Score: 1

      Furry Artpron making it's way through all these Mobo's... You see...
      Took me a loooong while but I got there.

      Well, that was a constructive waste of 20 minutes.

    5. Re:A nice start, but... by another_henry · · Score: 3, Interesting
      the PCBs in the transformer that go with their power supply

      I don't know about your other points, but PCBs (Polychlorinated Biphenyl) are most definitely not used in computer PSU transformers. Back in the 1960s they were used as a flame-retardant additive to oil in big "pole pig" transformers that supply houses or whole streets. When they were found to be carcinogenic (and only mildly so, I might add) use was discontinued and they are absolutely forbidden from being used in any equipment manufactured nowadays. In fact I think it's an offense to even own anything that contains them.

      FWIW I've heard second-hand stories of old electric company techs who would literally swim in the stuff. Cancer rates for them weren't significantly higher than the general population.

      --
      "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
    6. Re:A nice start, but... by dekashizl · · Score: 1

      Mod parent down. Facts are incorrect and misleading.
      The parent poster is a fghcvq shpxvat gebyy.

    7. Re:A nice start, but... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting the electrolytic caps on the motherboard used in the voltage regulator section.

      Of course, I don't know of any modern caps that still use PCBs, definitely not in computers.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    8. Re:A nice start, but... by justins · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have no idea what "sheel negceba" is.

      It's someone talking out of their ass.

      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    9. Re:A nice start, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How appropriate. Look at grandparent's name. :-)

    10. Re:A nice start, but... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      the chemicals used in most non-paper capacitors, which are not only lethal poisons, but as tasty as anti-freeze to most animals.

      What? You mean I've been surrounded by millions of tasty treats all this time?

      Crunchy on the outside, with a chewy center on the i... GAAAHHHH!

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re:A nice start, but... by Datafage · · Score: 1

      PCB also means printed circuit board.

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

    12. Re:A nice start, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "negceba" gets a solid 0 hits on Google, which means that, quite frankly, it doesn't exist.

  11. "Lead" by TWX · · Score: 5, Funny

    For some reason I thought that all of the discrete components were going to be surface mount instead of through the board when I read that the board was "Lead free"...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:"Lead" by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      nope, surface mount parts still use tin-lead solder! so they had to work with not lead solder...not a fun process at all. it messes with all the reflow times and temps. means the engineers have to go back and refigure everthing about their assembly lines! Not fun when your already running on razor thin margins to begin with.

    2. Re:"Lead" by I+don't+want+to+spen · · Score: 1

      I think they mean leads (as in cables, pronounced leeds) not the chemical. I read it that way at first too! (That's read as in red, not reed...)

      --
      Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
  12. Graphite... by Thinkit4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...is in pencils--a form of carbon. Won't get that past here.

    --
    -I am an elective eunuch.
    1. Re:Graphite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop feeding trolls.

  13. its good to see... by hellmarch · · Score: 0

    ...something good come out of a VIA motherboard. the lead even though VIA sucks this is still a step in the right direction.

  14. Lead-Free Mobo's by Carlos+Silva · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course i didn't RTFA but .. are they too expensive? I fail to see the consumer advantage on this kind of thing.. maybe they'll do some kind of special ad campaign.. Marketing guys just love to be able to say thing like "We're environment friendly" :-)

    1. Re:Lead-Free Mobo's by Chilliwilli · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe it's called Corporate Responsibility, it's been suggested that as corporations power and reach overtakes that of most governments they will need to take on the governments responsibilities to sustain a health market place. You can look at it from another point of view if we all die or get fat or whatever) who's going to be around to buy mobo/burgers/stuff's then?

      --
      Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
    2. Re:Lead-Free Mobo's by dustmite · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No such thing as self-regulating "corporate responsibility". "Corporate responsibility" comes from a big (government) stick. The sudden move to lead-free is forced onto manufacturers by new regulations (EU regulations IIRC). You don't honestly think corporations came up with this all by themselves do you? Sure, I can picture it now, in a board meeting: "hey, let's raise our manufacturing costs by voluntarily reducing some of the polluntants in our products". Uh, riiiight. Now, back to the real world. Here is roughly the order of things: (1) companies make products that pollute, (2) government passes new regulations, (3) companies protest until they're forced to accept regulations, (4) companies produce product with fewer pollutants, (5) PR department puts a "we care for the environment" spin on the company's (forced) compliance, and issues press releases that give the impression the move was voluntary. Name ten real-world examples where companies moved directly to step 4 voluntarily. Heck, name one.

      Admittedly if products start really killing large sectors of the populace, then some companies are sure to start making voluntary moves. But I'm willing to bet that government regulation WILL appear long before the voluntary self-regulation even in that case.

  15. Not the first lead free mobo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Nec PowerMate eco computer, released in 2002 supposedly has lead free solder on the motherboard. To quote a press release, "The unit also contains a motherboard made with lead-free solder, which protects both the individuals involved in reclamation, and the ground water in case of disposal". I assume this means that there is no lead in the motherboard? Unless capacitors or other parts have lead?

  16. No lead but... by valkraider · · Score: 4, Funny

    50% more mercury...

    :)

    It's a joke people...

    1. Re:No lead but... by Junta · · Score: 1

      No no, they wouldn't do something that horrible.

      BTW I heard VIA discovered good solder could be derived from anthrax, I'm sure its unrelated...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  17. Green means.... by DigiShaman · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...living in a thatched hut eating berries and grass. God forbid that you actually take part in synthetic meterials not of nature *gasp*

    Death to Humans!! We are but a plague to mother earth!

    Yes folks, this is the most extreme wacko impersonation of the green-peace movement I can come up with. But the sad thing about it, is these wackos exist in real life. Shocking...I know.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Green means.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of those type of people around this place. PETA people who try to anthropomorphize creatures like fish are part of the same crowd, except the eco-nazis try to anthropomorphize a hunk of rock that we call earth. They're usually young kids who get indoctrinated by socialist professors at college.

    2. Re:Green means.... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Just so you will know, I think people that damange the environment on such a drastic scale and do it knowlingly should be sent to the Alaskan wilderness to spend the rest of their live make big rocks turn into small ones.

    3. Re:Green means.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naa. Let's just have them drill for oil. It's more resourcefull with our human resources.

    4. Re:Green means.... by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Why are you so afraid of anything that appears to be "pro-environment", or at least towards maintaining an environment capable of sustaining us in the long-term? You seem more "radicalised" (rabid anti-environmentalist) than the extremists you're mocking.

      It's as if you're as allergic to anything "green" as they are to anything "un-green".

      The existence of extremists does not mean we shouldn't be in favour of long-term sustainable management of the environment. I mean, come on, THINK! Or, wait, is that "uncool", sorry.

    5. Re:Green means.... by SideshowBob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What in the hell? Green does NOT mean living in a thatched hut eating berries. If 6 billion people reverted to hunter/gatherer the planet would be stripped bare in less than a year. No green wants that.

      For F's Sake people, use your brains and quit spouting propaganda at each other.

      Green means finding a technological solution to the fossil fuel problem (finite supply, source of pollutants). There is absolutely no reason to think that a hydrogen powered SUV is in any way a step backwards.

      Green means putting solar on your roof and becoming energy self sufficient. Maybe even sell surplus back to the grid. (yes I am aware of the pollutants that solar manufacturing potentially represents, however a) its localized and controllable, b) advances over time will lead to reductions in the pollutants, as scale of economy increases)

      Green means finding a technology solution to feeding our children without destroying the land that we grow it on (or perhaps you think that the Dust Bowl was good for our moral fiber?) The answer here is not patented genetically modified foods, which can't be seeded from the previous year's crop and require exorbitant licensing fees to biotech companies.

      Green means encouraging/funding zero population growth (i.e. replacement births). Yes this is "family planning". In most nations of the world family planning means just that, planning how many children to conceive - or rather how many NOT to conceive. But to bass ackward U.S. conservatives all they see is 'abortion' when they hear family planning. Sheesh.

      Green means smart progress, yet people like you spout your bullsh*t anytime you are confronted by the idea that change can be good. No no! Protect my comfortable status quo! Never mind that even if we did nothing, eventually it will be changed for us by the laws of physics!

      Sorry for the rant, mods do with me what you will..

    6. Re:Green means.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes folks, this is the most extreme wacko impersonation of the green-peace movement I can come up with. But the sad thing about it, is these wackos exist in real life. Shocking...I know.

      I know too. I've seen "Mad, Mad House". That Avocado is such a bastard!

      Now do your impersonation of an NRA member, perhaps one of those militia types from Idaho.

      Anything can be exaggerated. All that means is that people have imagination.

    7. Re:Green means.... by ezzewezza · · Score: 1

      bravo! encore!

      good to read someone with more than two braincells in their head.

    8. Re:Green means.... by dschl · · Score: 1
      But to bass ackward U.S. conservatives all they see is 'abortion' when they hear family planning.
      Hmm, perhaps that is something to do with the abortionists whitewashing their murderous agenda behind gentler, friendlier names - ones like "Planned Parenthood", and "Pro-Choice Movement". I would say that it is less a function of "bass ackward"-ness, and more to do with the inherent deception in the above names. Their branding worked - small wonder that people associate "family planning" with "Planned Parenthood".

      Also, I believe you misunderstand the difference between conservative support for "family planning" prior to conception (which is generally strong, apart from Catholics), with conservative disgust with "Planned Parenthood" after conception.

      --
      Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
  18. Pay a premium for the board by GPLDAN · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Read all about the way that Monsanto decimated an entire area with PCBs, maiming entire generations of people. Some quite horrifically. Get your water tested for lead levels. It makes the Erin Brockovich story look like a day at the carnival.

    Help out, be green. Pay a few extra bucks for a green mobo. Pay 25% more. Lead products in landfills do amazingly nasty things to water supplies.

    1. Re:Pay a premium for the board by BillyBlaze · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In that article, PCBs refers to polychlorinated biphenyls, a poison, not printed circuit boards. I'm not aware of any connection between the two.

    2. Re:Pay a premium for the board by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's PCBs as in transformer dielectric.

      And yes, they are fucking nasty.

    3. Re:Pay a premium for the board by freeweed · · Score: 1

      1. PCBs do not contain lead.

      2. The story you linked has no mention whatsoever of "entire generations of people" being "maimed". Other than a casual mention of personal injury and property damage lawsuits, there is not a single hint that anyone's actually been hurt.

      Wow, if you're representative of people in the environmental movement, no wonder you're all viewed as being crackpots.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    4. Re:Pay a premium for the board by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Not a single human being has ever died as a result of PCB ingestion. ONE solatary lonely person has gotten ill from it and he recovered. If you would drink motor car oil, then you would get ill too...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
  19. you insensitive clod, by pangloss · · Score: 5, Funny

    my pre-1963 computer only takes leaded!

  20. What they don't tell you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is their replacement for lead is made from baby seal spinal cords.

    1. Re:What they don't tell you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, it's an amalgam of giraffe Adam's apple and panda claws...

    2. Re:What they don't tell you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is their replacement for lead is made from baby seal spinal cords.

      A non-polluting, bio-degradable, renewable resource. Excellent!

  21. Correct. by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just like how coal plants release more radition and heavy metals into the environment that nuclear plants. But which ones to the 'enviros' target the most, the nuke plants because it gets them more press.

    1. Re:Correct. by ewhenn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When you state that "coal plants release more radition and heavy metals into the environment than nuclear plants", do you mean as a whole, or per output unit. Surely there are MANY more coal fired plants than nuclear plants thus it might be easier to surpass the gross output. What we REALLY should be concerned with is Units of heavy metals per KWH (kilo watt hr) produced.

    2. Re:Correct. by nomadic · · Score: 1

      By that insane logic a glassful of cyanide is safer than a glassful of ocean water, because the ocean has more net cyanide in it than the glass does. What makes nuclear waste dangerous is it's concentration.

    3. Re:Correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Per unit of electricity produced.

    4. Re:Correct. by Shurhaian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that A) nuclear plants don't release massive amounts of heavy metals and greenhouse gases(not nearly so much as coal, for sure) and B) the fact that the waste can be(well, is) concentrated makes it easier to deal with than the same waste being vented into the atmosphere.

      --
      NB: YMMV. IANAL. Take the above with a grain of salt.
    5. Re:Correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh. That isn't a good comparison and I beg to differ. But since you like that format:

      "That's like saying a sealed container with cyanide concentrated inside is less safe than an aerosol mist of cyanide in the air."

      Using random comparisons like that is useless because you can make them say anything.

    6. Re:Correct. by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Informative

      Per KwH.

      They also release a lot of heavy metals, so much so that warning about fish from lakes around most of the coal plants in East Texas have been issued due to their high levels of heavy metals.

    7. Re:Correct. by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      No that is what makes it safe. To continue your analogy you can have all your cyanide in one place where it is easy to control and prevent others from getting or you can spread it all over every surface in your house. Which form would you rather have?

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    8. Re:Correct. by calica · · Score: 1

      But the difference is in radioactive density (made up term). With coal all that radiation is dumped into the air slowly. With nuclear power, we have a very dense very toxic radioactive waste that we don't know what to do with.

      Arguably, coal is the equivalent of making a dirty bomb with that waste and blowing it up in the upper atmosphere.

    9. Re:Correct. by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 0
      Just like how coal plants release more radition and heavy metals into the environment that nuclear plants.

      If and only if nothing ever goes wrong at even the worst managed of hundreds of independent sites around the world.

      (And spare me the standard "modern designs can't fail" line. Sabotage, theft and diversion into illicit nuclear weapons programs are already far larger risks than technical mishaps, and they aren't addressed by reactor design.)

    10. Re:Correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Which is also stupid, because most of the "waste" that comes from nuclear plants is in the form of clothing, and other consumables not directly related to the operation of the reactor (but contaminated nonetheless).

      I had the opportunity to see some of the stuff that went into the big casques that go to Nevada. Pretty lame stuff. I was expecting 55 gallon barrels with glowing fluid coming out (not really, but it's more fun that way).

      Not only that, but 95% of the stuff produced (yes, produced) by our fission reactors can be recycled, and reused as fuel. The rest of the 5% is in such incredible demand from academia and industry (for research) that it could make a fortune alone. Except our country is too fucking stupid (and paranoid) to recycle spent fuel.

    11. Re:Correct. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      They coal plants burn coal.
      The coal contains heavy metals and radioactive materials.
      They enter the air.

      Nothing has to go wrong, it is just the way it works. Or are you telling me the heavy metal in fish warnings are just made up?

    12. Re:Correct. by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To continue your analogy you can have all your cyanide in one place where it is easy to control and prevent others from getting or you can spread it all over every surface in your house. Which form would you rather have?

      Well my analogy already showed how cyanide in the ocean isn't dangerous because it's so dilute, so you don't need to extend the analogy at all. And it falls apart at the point you're trying to make because it's extremely difficult to store it safely, unlike cyanide.

      There are several general responses to this assertion. The first is that we can just put it in a large, specially-made storage facility like Yuca mountain. Unfortunately not only is that still dangerous (and the danger is compounded by having so much of the material in one place), it's also very expensive and these things WILL fill up. We already have way too much waste now that we can't get rid of, so it boggles the mind how so many people here are arguing that we should increase the amount of waste a hundredfold by opening up many, many new plants.

      Another common solution brought up is to dump it into ocean trenches and let the earth's convective system draw it down and out of harms way. It's an interesting idea, but you can't just drop it at the ocean's surface over a trench and assume it will fall right where it needs to go. And the depths involved pose serious challenges to large scale movement of the waste down to the right place. Plus it is somewhat risky to just toss this stuff down there and assume it won't come back out until it's not radioactive anymore.

      I know it's geek chic to assume everyone against increased nuclear use is against it "just because they see the word nuclear", but it's just not true. I think nuclear plants can operate safely (with intense government oversight and regulation--no, this is not something that you want "the market to decide"), but I don't think it's a smart idea to put more into operation until we figure out something to do with the waste that's more clueful than sticking it in a hole in the ground.

    13. Re:Correct. by tenco · · Score: 1

      nope. that has nothing to do with the press. nuclear power is alot more dangerous. Just think about this four (two of them are obvious) facts:

      1) the half-life period of uranium is ~4000 years.
      2) the nuclear fuel elements must be replaced when they're empty (but even then, they still radiate)
      3) there is not only 1 (one) dump, safe enough for this radiating shit, on this planet.
      4) when you use the nuclear fuel elements with fast breeder reactors, you get plutonium (capable of being used in nuclear weapons) as a "by-product".

    14. Re:Correct. by AJWM · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's per unit of power. In fact, were the extraction process easy, we'd get more energy out of coal by using its thorium content in a nuclear reactor than we do by burning the carbon. As it is, the thorium ends up as part of the coal ash (and the flue gases).

      Per KWH, coal plants are far dirtier than nuke plants -- in all senses of the word "dirtier".

      --
      -- Alastair
    15. Re:Correct. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      But all you listed is still better than injecting large amounts of heavy metals into the air and food supply.

    16. Re:Correct. by confused+one · · Score: 1

      coal fired plants release more radioactivity into the environment PER KWH than nuclear power plants.

    17. Re:Correct. by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Synroc looks like one possibility, although it still needs development.

      The wikipedia node on radioactive waste has some more interesting information.

    18. Re:Correct. by Junta · · Score: 1

      All we need is cold fusion.... then we'd be set....

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    19. Re:Correct. by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      I know it's geek chic to assume everyone against increased nuclear use is against it "just because they see the word nuclear", but it's just not true.

      Thank you! I'm also on the fence when it comes to nuclear power; even though it may be "cleaner" it's not like we're going to allow Afghanistan and what not to start using it, so let's stick with coal/oil until the nuclear genie is fully out of the bottle, and mabye by then we can figure out, realistically, what to do with the waste. Just my 2 cents.

    20. Re:Correct. by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1
      I think nuclear plants can operate safely (with intense government oversight and regulation--no, this is not something that you want "the market to decide"), but I don't think it's a smart idea to put more into operation until we figure out something to do with the waste that's more clueful than sticking it in a hole in the ground.
      Recycle, like the eco-nuts tell us to do with all our other waste; with long-term storage costs for radioactive stuff this might even be economical. Split out the dangerous (radioactive) parts and put them through the reactor again. What idiot decided it was too dangerous to do this, anyway?

      Tim

    21. Re:Correct. by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The difference being that, with a fossil-fuel-burning plant, the waste must be released into the atmosphere, while the nuclear plants very carefully control the waste products, and make sure they are not released into the environment. They are very good at doing it, BTW.

      So, to correct your analogy, you have a sealed-glass full of cyanide that you are nowhere near, and several hundred gallons of polluted ocean water that you are forced to drink. Which would you prefer?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    22. Re:Correct. by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Per KWH, coal plants are far dirtier than nuke plants -- in all senses of the word "dirtier".

      All senses of the word? Do coal plants make obscene gestures?
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    23. Re:Correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget "thermal pollution". It doesn't leave chemicals anywhere but it can have an impact on ocean/river ecosystems.

    24. Re:Correct. by parksie · · Score: 1

      There is a limited amount of the radioactive waste from a reactor, and we know exactly where it is. It's in that absurdly solid container over there, as opposed to billowing out into the environment to be "forgotten" about.

    25. Re:Correct. by TwistedSpring · · Score: 1
      Except our country is too fucking stupid (and paranoid) to recycle spent fuel
      I think it's more to do with the fact that recycling spent fuel costs a freakin' bomb and takes ages. Recycling it provides absolutely no cost saving advantages, so may as well just dump it.
    26. Re:Correct. by TwistedSpring · · Score: 1

      You retard. You can't use power plant fuel to make a nuclear bomb. The U-235 content of any fuel used in nuclear reactors is hopeless for creating any kind of bang. It needs to be enriched in an extremely expensive and difficult process before it'd be any use. What you want is Plutonium-239 if you're serious. To get your plutonium you have to already own a nuclear reactor, and have a supply of U-238 obtained from the original enrichment process that also yielded the U-235. There's plenty of U-238 yield from uranium enrichment, but like i said, the enrichment process is extremely difficult and costs an insane amount of money.

      U-238 is depleted uranium -- it's pretty much useless because it's non fissile. However, you can jack it up to military Pu-239 using a nuclear reactor. When exposed to loose neutrons inside the reactor, U-238 atoms gain extra neutrons to become Pu-239 atoms. The process is known as "breeding". This takes ages, and once complete, you still have to seperate the Pu-239 from the remaining U-238, which costs (you guessed) an insane amount of money and a huge chemical plant.

      So, simply put your claims are retarded. It takes an intense amount of effort to make a nuclear reactor go critical, theft is not a problem, about the only way to reasonably use the waste spat out by nuclear reactors is to make dirty bombs, which just blow highly radioactive material around. The only real threat from a dirty bomb is a small increase in the risk of cancer, due to the fast dispersion of the nuclear particles into the air, the concentration decreases very rapidly. However, those close to the blast site (and the site itself) would have to be decontaminated. Of course, you could spend millions on refining the waste into Pu-239 in your huge chemical plant that costs millions of dollars, but you're a tiny scummbag terrorist organisation, not a government of an extremely rich nuclear-capable country, so you probably wouldn't choose to do that. Go nuclear.

    27. Re:Correct. by slittle · · Score: 2, Interesting
      With coal all that radiation is dumped into the air slowly.
      Quoth Dans Data:
      Of course, what power costs you, the consumer, isn't what it costs, full stop. There's greenhouse gas emissions and other power plant exhaust pollution, depletion of resources, destruction of wilderness by mines and their associated infrastructure, and more.

      Most of Australia's electricity is generated by coal-fired power plants, which emit an awful lot of carbon dioxide. And coal plant fly ash contains radioactive uranium and thorium in surprising amounts. Even if the ash is effectively caught by filters, something still has to be done with it.

      Not that fly ash scraped out of a filter and dropped into a bucket is actually amazingly dangerous stuff, but waste of similar levels of activity that happens to come from nuclear power plants is treated like pure megadeathium. You certainly can't get away with burying it in dams .

      --
      Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
    28. Re:Correct. by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      Maybe the retard is the one who makes assumptions that weren't in the original statement.

      So, simply put your claims are retarded. It takes an intense amount of effort to make a nuclear reactor go critical, theft is not a problem,

      I never claimed that people were going to steal nuclear waste to get a critical mass for making bombs. A dirty bomb may not be the worst scenario, but it would release more radioactivity than quite a bit of coal, which was the original point.

      However, I did mention diversion of nuclear materials into an illicit weapons program by a 2-bit country. Don't say it can't hapen; it has already happened several times, and our president is currently flummoxed trying to defuse the latest case of that in North Korea. If there were no nuclear power generation here or abroad, then these countries would have a far harder time hiding or justifying the kind of activities that go into developing nuclear weapons.

      You also ignored the threat of sabotage or commando-style attack. The specific worst case is attacking the spent fuel storage pond, which can hold more radioactivity than the reactor itself, and which is seldom shielded, and which may spontaneously ignite if its cooling system is disabled.

    29. Re:Correct. by tormentae+agent · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      In my country it would be kWh.

      We do it thusly, and until your assertion, I thought this was pretty much standard SI.

      Prefixes indicating order of magnitude: lowercase
      Units based on improper nouns: lowercase.
      Units based on names: UPPERCASE

      Of course, if name-based units are written out in full, the initial letter is in lowercase, to avoid any possibility of confusion between the unit and the person.

      Some examples,
      kg, kilogram
      mW, milliwatt
      W, watt, named after Mr. Watt
      Nm, newtonmeter

      If this is not standard SI that I'm presenting, please flame me to hell and inform me what the standard is. ...

      Shit...I'm in sales, I should just be quiet about these things and say something about added value.

    30. Re:Correct. by AJWM · · Score: 1

      All senses of the word? Do coal plants make obscene gestures?

      More than nuke plants do, anyway. Ever notice how that smokestack looks like a raised middle finger?

      --
      -- Alastair
    31. Re:Correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Recycle, like the eco-nuts tell us to do with all our other waste; ... What idiot decided it was too dangerous to do this, anyway?
      The "ash" from fission reactors contains lots of light radioactive elements, which tend to emit lots of gamma rays as they decay. Building a nuclear bomb out of that stuff would be technically difficult (radiation zaps the electronics, detonators, and explosives), and operationally hazardous (how do you store and deliver a bomb that kills you if you stand near it?). By leaving it together, bomb proliferation and security risks are reduced, kind of like denaturing grain alcohol so people can't drink it.
    32. Re:Correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So, to correct your analogy, you have a sealed-glass full of cyanide that you are nowhere near, and several hundred gallons of polluted ocean water that you are forced to drink.
      The whole cyanide analogy is dumb. Cyanide has a safety threshold: below a certain concentration it causes very little harm. (Like all of the small molecule poisons. Plants make them all, so the body has to be able to handle a little.) Radionuclides, on the other hand, cause damage proportional to their activity, and the damage is cumulative.
    33. Re:Correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is totally off topic, but if you're ever driving into Abilene, Texas, from the east, you can see the chapel and bell tower of Abilene Christian University giving you the finger. This Google image search has a picture of the two buildings from a bad angle, but you can probably imagine rotating the view to see what I mean. :)

    34. Re:Correct. by doom · · Score: 1
      Qrlx wrote:
      I know it's geek chic to assume everyone against increased nuclear use is against it "just because they see the word nuclear", but it's just not true.
      Thank you! I'm also on the fence when it comes to nuclear power; even though it may be "cleaner" it's not like we're going to allow Afghanistan and what not to start using it, so let's stick with coal/oil until the nuclear genie is fully out of the bottle, and mabye by then we can figure out, realistically, what to do with the waste. Just my 2 cents.
      And that's about what it's worth.

      On the one hand, we have the coal industry, which spews large quantities of toxic crap into the air, and on the other hand, we have the nuclear industry, which produces a much smaller quantity of highly concentrated waste. But you don't want to go with nukes, because you're afraid the holes in the ground might leak. It's obviously much better to keep spewing the toxic crap into the air, and continue killing thousands of people a year in the US alone... Not to mention the global warming issue.

      Oops, sorry, I missed that remark about "Afghanastan": you're one of the guys who likes the "nuclear proliferation" argument. Your point is that the US should keep killing it's own citizens with coal power, in order to convince Afghanistan to kill it's citizen's in the same way. Unfortunately, if we're trying to "set a good example", there's the slight problem that we're not about to give up our own nuclear weapons, and this point is not exactly lost on the Afghanastans of the world: it isn't going to convince them to stop buying nuclear material from Pakistan.

      So what I'm trying to get at here is that while I sympathize with your worries about nuclear armed tin-pot dictators, killing American citizens with coal effluvia doesn't strike me as an effective means of supressing the problem.

      (By the way... are you in favor of bombing the shit out of any country that announces it has plans for nuclear power generation? Interesting ethical stance, that...)

    35. Re:Correct. by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      dude, I agree with you. My point is: The long rant about "tin-pot dictators" and an oppressive United States, continuing to go about things the wrong way, is THE WAY THE WORLD ACTUALLY WORKS.

      You're not going to get nuclear to replace coal and oil, at least not in the next fifty years. There will always be the example of Israel blowing up Iran's nuclear program in the 80s for fear of getting nuked by crazy towel-heads. That fear is as strong now as ever.

      Have we ever thought about just reducing our energy consumption? No. Because that, as well, is NOT how the world works. (And it's definitely not how America works.)

      Sorry but you sound like one of those libertarians who knows the world would be great, if we could just roll back the past 150 years of history and get America back to what the Founders had in mind. Guess what. That option isn't available, sorry. We have to make do with what we've got, and the way things look right now, it's a "terrorist act" for North Korea and Iran to try to produce nuclear power. And changing the man behind the curtain in November isn't going to change that.

      Fact is, Japan and France are already pretty amped up on nuclear power. So they've proven they can manage it responsibly, we hope.

      The thing about the waste, it's the same sort of psychology that makes a plane crash news, but a car crash just an everyday event. People fixate on spectacular failures. When you just spew the junk into the air, slowly killing us all, that might be a spectacular public health failure but there's no "money shot" for the evening news. The details will be buried in some 500-page bueraucratic report. And that's a failure of management and politicians.

      Again, I'm not saying fossil fuel is the answer. I'm saying it's the reality, and the seas are not changing soon.

    36. Re:Correct. by doom · · Score: 1
      Qrlx wrote:

      dude, I agree with you. My point is: The long rant about "tin-pot dictators" and an oppressive United States, continuing to go about things the wrong way, is THE WAY THE WORLD ACTUALLY WORKS.

      I'm confused here, is your point that you *are* in favor of bombing the hell out of anyone with a nuclear power program? This strikes you as hard-headed, pragmatic realpolitik? Or is your point that you don't *really* like it, but there's nothing you can do about it? (I don't know how much I care myself, it's something of a side-issue to what I'm talking about.)

      (And... "long rant"? Three short paragraphs? You need to look at usenet someday...)

      You're not going to get nuclear to replace coal and oil, at least not in the next fifty years.

      Fifty years is an insanely long time-span to make technical predictions. I would offer to bet you, but in 50 years nukes may be regarded as irrelvant because of solar power satellites.

      There will always be the example of Israel blowing up Iran's nuclear program in the 80s for fear of getting nuked by crazy towel-heads. That fear is as strong now as ever.

      The actual point that I made, is that the US decisions about how the US generates it's own power internally, has *nothing* to do with how some other country does it. Do you think it's impossible for the US to be pro-nuke internally and anti-nuke externally? That hardly exhausts the range of our hypocrisy -- excuse me, pragmatic realpolitik.

      Have we ever thought about just reducing our energy consumption? No. Because that, as well, is NOT how the world works. (And it's definitely not how America works.)

      Some people think about it. I'm willing to listen. There's a lot of room for efficiency improvements, e.g. in transportation; communications; computers, etc. The hard part is pumping heat around.

      It's not clear to me why we need to think about it as a whole... this is the kind of technical improvements you're supposed to expect from the free market if you charge what the energy costs.

      Note, now *that* was a remark that could be construed as "libertarian". I have no clue what you're going on about here:

      Sorry but you sound like one of those libertarians who knows the world would be great, if we could just roll back the past 150 years of history and get America back to what the Founders had in mind. Guess what. That option isn't available, sorry.

      Libertarian? I'm speaking in favor of the highly regulated nuclear industry.

      Fact is, Japan and France are already pretty amped up on nuclear power. So they've proven they can manage it responsibly, we hope.

      No shit. Notably we're not planning on bombing them for it. Or China. Or even Pakistan. If we can explain away this inconsistency, I imagine we could explain away a new American commitment to nuclear power at home.

      Do you get it yet? I'll try and repeat the point, very, very, simply: There is no connection between American nuclear power and "nuclear proliferation" abroad. That argument does not work, even from the point of view of public relations, or maintaining a consistent policy or something, because we don't bother with consistency. I don't know, maybe it's not feasible to be consistent, whatever: that's a different subject.

      The thing about the waste, it's the same sort of psychology that makes a plane crash news, but a car crash just an everyday event. People fixate on spectacular failures. When you just spew the junk into the air, slowly killing us all, that might be a spectacular public health failure but there's no "money shot" for the evening news. The details will be buried in some 500-page bueraucratic report. And that's a failure of management and politicians.

      Yes, exactly. And your point is that we just have to live with the fact that the American de

    37. Re:Correct. by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      Well, what do you propose we do? Spend billions to convince Joe Farmer that new-q-ler power plant over yonder isn't going to make his dick turn green and his sister grow an extra titty? I mean, hasn't nuclear power pretty much been tried, sentenced, and executed in the court of public opinion? There hasn't been a new nuclear plant brought on line in this country in what, 10 years? 20?

      Even if we do move away from coal, which seems unimaginable considering how much we're sitting on, and that we already have the infrastructure in place, but let's say we do move away from it. We'll still have all those trucks and cars burning oil, unless we're gonna convert them to electric, which again would require a significant re-tooling of industry.

      Not that these things can't/wont eventually happen, but money talks and bullshit walks. Right now, coal, despite its shortcomings, is the "terrorist-proof" way to power America. Again I don't agree with or believe in that, but as an avid opponent of the death penalty, I know some battles just aren't worth fighting right now.

      I think nuclear power is effectively dead in the USA, based on the reactions I've gotten from anybody who's not on Slashdot. We'd be better off pouring money into those solar satellites you were talking about, or maybe fusion.

      Beta was better than VHS, too, but lets just move on, at least while we've got Big Oil in the White House and terrorists hiding in every public library.

      You know what I want? I want Ed Begley's electic powered car, which he powers by hopping on an exercycle which charges up the batteries. Something like that to power my computer would not only reduce my consumption, it would get me some damn exercise too!

      I am truly worried when our Preisdent says "We cannot conserve our way to energy self sufficiency." Maybe we can't, but we should at least give it a try!

    38. Re:Correct. by doom · · Score: 1
      Qrlx wrote:
      Well, what do you propose we do? Spend billions to convince Joe Farmer that new-q-ler power plant over yonder isn't going to make his dick turn green and his sister grow an extra titty?
      Okay, so now you're saying the problem is *soley* with "Joe Farmer", and not with you? Because you're the guy I'm talking to right now. You are the guy who said this, right?
      let's stick with coal/oil until the nuclear genie is fully out of the bottle, and mabye by then we can figure out, realistically, what to do with the waste.
      So you've changed your mind in the last couple of posts?
      I mean, hasn't nuclear power pretty much been tried, sentenced, and executed in the court of public opinion? There hasn't been a new nuclear plant brought on line in this country in what, 10 years? 20?
      Energy Providers Seek Grant as Step to Build Nuclear Plant
      Even if we do move away from coal, which seems unimaginable considering how much we're sitting on, and that we already have the infrastructure in place, but let's say we do move away from it. We'll still have all those trucks and cars burning oil, unless we're gonna convert them to electric, which again would require a significant re-tooling of industry.
      Gas burning internal combustion engines are not exactly my favorite technology, but they are squeaky clean compared to coal burning.

      The environmental movement has *completely* screwed up in the last three decades by not picking their battles based on the actual damage done by the technologies in play.

  22. How much before? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
    I find a lot of environmentally friendly announcements get filed in my "so what?" category.

    Compared with negatives like chopping down rainforests, and people driving 4l SUVs to go and pick up the shopping, how much of a + is this?

    1. Re:How much before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and people driving 4l SUVs to go and pick up the shopping

      My SUV is 5.6l you insensative clod!

    2. Re:How much before? by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lead is on of the problems in many landfill sites with contamination of ground water, and also increasing the cost of reuse of the land after the dump has stopped operating, as inevitable some lead has found its way there, the old common culprit being car batteries and the like.

      Computers and other electrical goods are a lesser but probably more common concern these days as it makes up a large volume of waste, I think most people know to dispose of car batteries and other things with large amounts of lead and other heavy metals properly now or at least the shop that changed it does and the high concentration of lead makes extraction and recycling practical.

    3. Re:How much before? by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      I can understand using lead-free fuel is rendable.

      The Earth became covered in a thin layer of lead, and lead is toxic to many living things (including humans).

      But don't you think the amount of lead in a motherboard is nihil?

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    4. Re:How much before? by Plammox · · Score: 1

      I would look at it from a slightly different perspective. Take a look at assembly plants with a huge throughput of electronic devices. They might use several tons of lead per year, maybe.

      In order to properly enforce a ban, you also need to have simlpe rules. Either you ban all lead in electronics or you don't.

      Since motherboards run in such high volume worldwide, it's a natural place to start imposing the use of Pb-free materials.

  23. No leads? by pyrrhonist · · Score: 5, Funny

    How do you connect peripherals? Oh wait...

    --
    Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    1. Re:No leads? by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1
      How do you connect peripherals?
      It has sockets instead.

      Tim

  24. Re:I had no idea this was a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mobos don't just suddenly dematerialise when you're through with them. Instead they sit in land fills and get rained on and leech lead into the groundwater.

  25. Man... by Carlos+Silva · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Get the lead out! Bad joke, i know :)

    1. Re:Man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another bad joke: the guy's name is Richard Brown.

      Dick Brown.

      I'd feel sorry for all the teasing he got in school, if not for the fact that he's rich now. I guess that he must have learned to spin things very well, hence his current career in marketing.

  26. Earth Day.. by NivenHuH · · Score: 1

    It shows that VIA care's about the Earth.. (and conviently released this info on Earth Day).. What other companies are working toward's being 'green' so I know what to buy in the future?

    --
    Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
    1. Re:Earth Day.. by Carlos+Silva · · Score: 1

      Well.. I'm no smartass.. but to me it looks like a major PR stunt..
      What are the REAL advantages of having a lead-free motherboard against having some other regular one?

    2. Re:Earth Day.. by NivenHuH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, obviously, it's not putting lead out into the environment when you trash your old MOBO.. I guess it doesn't help that there are still other harmful materials in PCB's, but, every little bit counts. You have to work your way around one problem before you can focus on the next..

      --
      Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
    3. Re:Earth Day.. by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      My employer, for one. See this here Lead free packaging schedule. We're not completely in production yet, but are making our way there.

    4. Re:Earth Day.. by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      You know, if people didn't go out and by new mobos every six months because they're substituting for diminished manhoods, then they wouldn't be trashing their old mobos every six months. This race to get the biggest and fasted CPU and GPU on the block is much more dangerous than the lead in a mobo that's being used past its planned obsolescence date.

      I'm old enough to remember the conservation movement. It was about not wasting stuff. Then it got replaced by the environmentalism movement and suddenly people think it's perfectly fine to waste stuff, so long as they recycle what they waste. Common sense was replaced with a religion. Madness.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    5. Re:Earth Day.. by NivenHuH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Interesting.. I can completely see where you're coming from, as society today seems to be about 'consuming', which in turn boosts our economy.. which gives $$ to producers to influnce consumers into consuming even more.. A perpetual problem really..

      While I don't see the conservation movement returning (well, unless we run into a problem of a shortage or we overflow ourselves with unrecyclable wastes), I do see working towards 'green' solutions as a compromise for conservation.

      It would be nice to buy one MOBO, and use it for years, however not only would this be unfeasable for the manufacturer (.. they have to make $$ of the next-latest & greatest), but it's unfeasable for technology in general.. If we didn't have faster and faster machines, then we wouldn't be able to accomplish the problems we've solved with bigger and badder machines.. and if we didn't purchase the next-generation technologies in each product cycle, there would be no reason for technology to increase..

      It's sad, but it's reality.. =/

      --
      Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
    6. Re:Earth Day.. by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, if people didn't go out and by new mobos every six months because they're substituting for diminished manhoods, then they wouldn't be trashing their old mobos every six months. This race to get the biggest and fasted CPU and GPU on the block is much more dangerous than the lead in a mobo that's being used past its planned obsolescence date.

      I think this just depends on what you do with the old mobo. Perhaps I am alone in this, but I rarely throw away working electronics. I can usually either find some use for them, or find someone who wants them. My last computer was given to my girlfriend who doesn't feel the need to upgrade as often as I do. I have given coutless parts to friends and family, because I had replaced them, and they could use them. About the only thing I have considered throwing away is my old 486, which I haven't been able to find a good home for. I haven't brought myself to do it yet, mostly because I am a pack-rat, that and the fact that it was still working perfectly the last time I fired it up (though I did put newer hard drive in it, to get it there). Even that, I would rather give to someone who will use it than put it in a land-fill. I've considered a school, but I think its too old for even them.
      I guess my point is, it isn't the upgrade cycle that is causing the problem, its the idiots who throw out perfectly good hardware. Sure, it won't run the latest games well, but it might do well for someone's over-glorified typewriter.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
  27. Not because of our blue eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    They don't do this out of altruism, they have to if they want to sell their products on the EU market, since from 2006, all electronic products will have to be lead free.

    1. Re:Not because of our blue eyes by molo · · Score: 0

      Question, does this include leaded crystal, as in fine glassware and such?

      Just curious.

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    2. Re:Not because of our blue eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if the 'EU' still exists in it's present form in 2006.

    3. Re:Not because of our blue eyes by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      Since when is glassware electronic?

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    4. Re:Not because of our blue eyes by molo · · Score: 1

      Hrm, I guess I missed the electronics part.. but why single out electronics? In California, leaded glassware has a notice saying that one can be exposed to lead by using them.

      The whole thing seems a bit odd.

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    5. Re:Not because of our blue eyes by another_henry · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Is there a reference for that? Because making all electronic products lead-free is a really massive undertaking. I have no idea what they'll do for shielding in CRTs, for a start.

      --
      "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
    6. Re:Not because of our blue eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iirc it's just solder

      lead in plumbing solder has been banned for a while here in the uk

    7. Re:Not because of our blue eyes by jet_silver · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The environmental "issue" is a smokescreen. The rule is a ploy by the EU to raise trade barriers against non-EU suppliers. The way the EU regs are written, if a non-EU company ships a lead-bearing PCBA to the EU and gets caught, that company can get -banned- from supplying to EU countries thenceforth; while if a EU company does the same thing its Minister of Trade has to stand up at the Hague and sing "I'm a Little Teapot".

      All the rule does for the rest of the world is eviscerate forty years' worth of reliability development in electronics assembly. I will wait five years before purchasing any electronics, in the hope that by then the processes will be fixed or assembly reverts to lead-based solder.

    8. Re:Not because of our blue eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes the source is google :).

      The directives have a couple of exceptions[1]; I'm currently aware of 'lead in glass, tubes etc.' and 'high temperature soldering'.

      So no, lead containing CRT etc. and products alike are still being allowed be sold in EU after 1th of July 2006.

      [1] I know there are more, but I still haven't managed to track down the official document (WEEE and RHS).

    9. Re:Not because of our blue eyes by Garak · · Score: 1

      Simple don't produce any new CRT's. LCD technology is comming of age.

      --
      God, root, what is the difference?
    10. Re:Not because of our blue eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "rm, I guess I missed the electronics part.. but why single out electronics? In California, leaded glassware has a notice saying that one can be exposed to lead by using them.

      The whole thing seems a bit odd."

      The whole california issue is a joke. I bought a Garmin e-trax here in Europe (with the native manual and all) and it contained a small plastic sticker to prevent scratches on the screen which is to be removed before use.

      That included the choice words that "lead is known in the state california to cause cancer etc".

      Well, I am not in california! I am not even on the same continent! And secondly, is it in all other places "not known to cause cancer"? One wonders...

      But here it is not much better. The green people wanted to ban all lead and so imposed strict allowanced f.i. for cars. However, they later found out that fiber channel lines (as used in car bus systems to carry information etc) contain lead (although it's glas! You can't get it out!) and since these are relatively heavy, this would have meant they would have to replace one of these fiber channels with either a lot of wires (eek!) or use plastic (which doesn't work, because it doesn't transmit light so good, meaning you need more fibers (eek again!).

      Silly silly laws done without research...

      Lets ban all lead! (oops)

      Cheers!

  28. Sheel negceba?? by bcore · · Score: 0, Troll

    You know you can't just make up words, right?

    1. Re:Sheel negceba?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rot13

    2. Re:Sheel negceba?? by bcore · · Score: 1

      My bad.

  29. Troll, WTF? by boomgopher · · Score: 1

    Stupid, yes. But how exactly is that a troll?

    --
    Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
  30. Some Quotes... by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Informative

    "[T]he campaign of fear now being waged against genetic modification is based largely on fantasy
    and a complete lack of respect for science and logic."
    Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore.

    "Solar power and windmills are not a realistic way out. Nuclear energy is the only real and practical solution, but there has been such a hysterical reaction to it."
    James Lovelock, developer of the Gaia Hypothesis.

    "Extreme weather events are definitely on the decline over the last 40 years."
    Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a meteorologist with 25 years experience at Environment Canada.

    "They have cheated the case and I am angry about that, because that will come to our account. They use bad data, as well as for the Brent Spar as for the French nuclear tests. I am against nuclear tests, but one should use scientific, sound arguments ... Greenpeace has harmed the environmental case."
    Paul Crutzen, Nobel Prize winner for his work on the ozone layer, who cancelled his Greenpeace membership.

    "In truth, what the environmental community has become is a money machine"
    Alfred Runte, environmental historian, board member of the National Parks Conservation Association from 1993 to 1997 and author of Yosemite, The Embattled Wilderness.

    "In 2000, say World Health Organization and other studies, malaria infected over 300 million people. It killed nearly 2,000,000 - most of them in sub-Saharan Africa.
    [...]
    "[these deaths] are due in large part to near-global restrictions on the production, export and use of DDT.
    [...]
    "Where DDT is used, malaria deaths plummet. "
    Paul Driessen, author of Eco-Imperialism - Green Power. Black Death. - "A former member of the Sierra Club and Zero Population Growth, he abandoned their cause when he recognized that the environmental movement had become intolerant in its views, inflexible in its demands, unwilling to recognize our tremendous strides in protecting the environment, and insensitive to the needs of billions of people who lack the food, electricity, safe water, healthcare and other basic necessities that we take for granted."

    "Greenpeace is lobbying against industry plans to exclude products such as DDT from a POPs [persistent organic pollutants] phase-out."
    Greenpeace annual report, 1999)

    1. Re:Some Quotes... by pesc · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting collection of quotes about nuclear power and genetic engineering, but how does that relate to VIA reducing the amount of lead in motherboards?

      Are you trying to say that we shouldn't care and dumping lead in our waste is OK?

      --

      )9TSS
    2. Re:Some Quotes... by NivenHuH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I don't believe in the Greenpeace's message, I do believe that we, as humans, need to do what we can to lessen our impact on our environment. If we can find 'green'-alternative ways to fuel our power plants, then we should, reguardless of how much $$ it might cost to develop the technology. It's kinda the same idea as taxing the rich.. If our country gave you the means to become rich, then you should have to pay out a little more in taxes.. If our environment gave you the means to build a product, then you should at least do what you need to do to preserve our environment.. Unfortunately, with most businesses, it's not about ethic; it's about profit.

      --
      Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
    3. Re:Some Quotes... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      It relates to the post I was responding to. More so than your response does.

    4. Re:Some Quotes... by Brandybuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We should definitely lessen our impact on our environment. The first step is to abandon this "green" religion that's been pushed on it. It prevents any sort of rational thought on the matter.

      The green way is to recycle aluminum cans, which involves significant energy and chemical expenditure for the recycling. The old fashioned way, before the greenies took over, was to use returnable bottles. It was called "conservation". People didn't waste resources simply because it was wasteful. Nowadays we can waste as much as we want so long as we separate our waste into the proper waste containers first.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    5. Re:Some Quotes... by LS · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Moderators, yes, you should mod this guy down. It has no relevance to the story.

      How long did you have to scrape around to find these quotes. Sure, there are scientific and logical fallicies made by the environmental community, as well as all groups. But I bet you could come up with a list literally 10,000 times as long of SCIENTIFICALLY validated evidence of environmental damage done by irresponsible or ignorant humans.

      LS

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    6. Re:Some Quotes... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      It took about 47 seconds on google.

      It may not be 100% relevant to this story, but it is revelent to some of the theams behind this story and also is revelent to the post that I responded to.

      I did not post this as a main thread of the story, I responded to a subthread. And you calling for me to be modded off the face of the planet, if followed thru by the modes, would be a total violation of what mods are susposed to do.

    7. Re:Some Quotes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of compelling quotes in there. But I just think it is important to realize that despite the unfortunate fact that the more publicized heads of the 'green' movement have really lost sight of their goal and have rather drifted away from reality or reason, we should not dismiss everything that has 'environment' attached to it whole handedly.

      There are still a lot of good goals to work for, and a lot of smart, reasonable people (like the ones you quoted) that despite distancing themselves from the organizations, that are still working towards them.

      Environmentalists, even ZPG activists are not anti-humanity. In fact, it is very much the opposite for many. They want to ensure that they, their children and decedents have a safe, clean place to live. Overpopulation and environmental problems only weaken the human race as a whole.

    8. Re:Some Quotes... by StateOfTheUnion · · Score: 1
      I can't resist . . . I feel like I got trolled, but this is just too easy . . . where to begin:

      "[T]he campaign of fear now being waged against genetic modification is based largely on fantasy and a complete lack of respect for science and logic." Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore.

      I hardly think that the co-founder of Greenpeace is someone to take advice from on Genetic modification. I would trust the Union of concerned Scientists ,

      The Union of Concerned Scientists today released a groundbreaking pilot study that found genetically engineered DNA is contaminating traditional seeds of three major U.S. crops. Seed contamination, if left unchecked, could disrupt agricultural trade, unfairly burden the organic industry, and allow hazardous materials into the food supply.

      I think that the Union of Concerned Scientists are much better informed on genetic modification than the head of Greenpeace.

      On the subject of nuclear energy, there are less nuclear reserves available on the planet than fossil fuels. If the planet relied on Nuclear Energy for all electricity, estimates are that we would run out in about 80 years. See Energy at the Crossroads : Global Perspectives and Uncertainties"

      "In truth, what the environmental community has become is a money machine"

      What is the relevence of this quote? Does money somehow make enviromental action less important, less relevant or less beneficial? This quote has nothing to do with enviromental progress . . . it is a comment that may be true, but it does not in any way comment on the value of enviromental activism on the environment.

      DDT is toxic and malaria is bad . . . but malaria is preventable by other means. DDT gets into the ecosystem and is nearly impossible to remove. Should you like to spray your backyard with DDT, I refer you to a less politically charged and more factual reference. An MSDS for DDT which I quote:

      A serious environmental hazard due to bioaccumulation and transport up the food chain. Concentrations in animals near the top of the food chain (such as predatory birds) may become high enough in areas in which DDT has been heavily used, to have devastating effects upon reproductive ability. Degrades extremely slowly in the environment and is removed very slowly from animal tissue.

      The most humorous part of your post is that you cite a doxilogically open set of quotes which undermines your argument . . . you use quotes from former and current activists/activist groups to support you postulate (in particular the cofounder of Greenpeace), then you attack activists with other quotes (The Alfred Runte quote). This appears to be a mishmash of quotes pulled out of the net through the "misuse" of internet tools like Google. Either activists have credibility or not, but you can't have it both ways and expect to make a credible point.

    9. Re:Some Quotes... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      It is the result of one link from a google search.

      http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablutio n/ 2003/12/eminent_environ.html

      Just be happy I didn't post the quotes from the crazies that think they human race should be killed off to save the planet.

    10. Re:Some Quotes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It took about 47 seconds on google.

      It may not be 100% relevant to this story, but it is revelent to some of the theams behind this story and also is revelent to the post that I responded to.


      Actually, given that there is no analysis or thought at all in your post, and that anyone could have found those quotes in "47 seconds on Google", I have to ask what the value of your post is at all?

      Are you really trying to suggest that environmentalist groups are worse than, say, the coal-burning plants which they fight? Even if both sides were in just it for the money, which side causes cancer?

      It's just amazing how some people think that any little flaw in the other guy's argument, or even the _suggestion_ of a flaw in the other guy's argument, makes it okay to ignore the gaping holes in their own point of view ("pointing out the sliver in anothers' eye while ignoring the log in their own"?)

    11. Re:Some Quotes... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Both sides cause cancer. Large companies by they methonds they use and Env's who fight against better tech because it isn't perfect. Then Env's would rather wait for perfectly clean tech than replace poluting tech with less poluting tech, even if the less poluting tech saves lives.

    12. Re:Some Quotes... by m.koch · · Score: 1, Insightful
      It took about 47 seconds on google.

      I don't believe you. Whithin 47 seconds you just had time to find a compilation of quotes and to copy & paste it. Without checking, without reasoning, without thinking.
      Regarding your posting history, you can do better than that.

    13. Re:Some Quotes... by CthuluElder · · Score: 1

      Sure DDT kills mosqitoes. It's also a persistant endocrine disruptor, interfering with the reproduction of all animals it comes in contact with, including humans.
      Malria is bad but birth are worse IMO.

      Just because a product is good at it's intende use doesn't mean we should disregard all other effects of its use.

      Reduction of the amuont of lead in our products is a win from all sides, in my opinion.
      (except for lead miners)
      Less lead in the factory process is the major benefit that I see.

    14. Re:Some Quotes... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      They do know DDT makes everybody sterile right?

    15. Re:Some Quotes... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Please support what you said. 100% sterility is a serious charge and need to be backed up with proof.

    16. Re:Some Quotes... by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      Amen. When I was in grade school I remember hearing about how they got Pepsi in Russia. They took a big bottle to the Pepsi plant and it got filled up there. I remember thinking: That sure would reduce waste.

      It's because we are so rich, and manufacturing is so cheap, that we've moved into a disposable society. It makes economic sense, sure, but is it any surprise that a company like WAL*MART, "your source for cheap plastic crap" views its employees to be disposable goods as well?

      You get what you pay for. What we've got is a society that's learned to cut corners and put a rush on everything if that will pad the bottom line next quarter.

    17. Re:Some Quotes... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      "Solar power and windmills are not a realistic way out. Nuclear energy is the only real and practical solution, but there has been such a hysterical reaction to it."
      James Lovelock, developer of the Gaia Hypothesis.

      Your other quotes are very good. This one, however, is true, and insightful.

      Solar and wind power do not provide enough electricity to meet demand, and certainly not cheaply enough to be competitive. Nuclear power, however, is very effective, provides a lot of power, and does so without burning fossil fuels, without forming green-house gases, etc.

      The safety issues have been overblown. Caution is reasonable, but people now have a completely irrational fear of them. Churnobyl is not something that could happen, due to the inherent designs of American nuclear power plants.

      Now as for spent fuel rods, there are appropriate ways to dispose of them. Again, it's something that has to be approached with caution, but it is being worked on already.

      Okay, the standard disclaimer. I am not, nor have I ever been, employed by, or associated with any company with direct or indirect interest in nuclear technology. I am also not a Republican.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    18. Re:Some Quotes... by joib · · Score: 1


      On the subject of nuclear energy, there are less nuclear reserves available on the planet than fossil fuels. If the planet relied on Nuclear Energy for all electricity, estimates are that we would run out in about 80 years.

      IMHO, it's quite naive to assume that the scenario above would ever happen. A sharp increase in the use of nuclear energy would bring about the commercialization of breeder reactors. The technology already exists, but with current fuel prices traditional reactors are cheaper. With breeders current uranium reserves last something like 7000 years.

    19. Re:Some Quotes... by StateOfTheUnion · · Score: 1

      That is predicated on the assumption that nuclear weapons proliferation issues will be resolved. With the current state of affairs in the world, it will be difficult to convince the US that plutonium producing (breeder) reactors would be a reasonable and safe energy source. I can't imagine the US not trying to block breeder reactor technology from reaching semi-stable, totalitarian governments. And breeder reactors are already illegal in the US.

  31. Wrong headline! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should be: VIA Announces LED-Free Motherboard

    They just dropped the blinking POST diags to save a few pennies.

    1. Re:Wrong headline! by Carlos+Silva · · Score: 1

      Maybe they can also do a *BSD troll-free /. ...

  32. So, what is in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hmmm... they don't say much about what is in it as a replacement. Can someone explain? I presume it is a change in the composition of the solder, but what are they using in place of the lead? More tin?

    1. Re:So, what is in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a biodegradable compond called Soylent Gray.

    2. Re:So, what is in there? by JET+666 · · Score: 1

      http://www.kester.com

      --
      De sig boss de sig
    3. Re:So, what is in there? by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      I just bought a new reel of solder and it is 99.3% Tin, 0.7% Copper.

      --

    4. Re:So, what is in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was involved with mfg., the solder fountains (not wave solder) used a lead-free alloy of tin and indium. This was primarily to use lower temps when replacing parts. Due to expense, I doubt they are using an indium alloy.

    5. Re:So, what is in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There have been lead-free solder alloys available for some time. The early ones were based on bismuth, but the melting temperature was so high it tended to fry all the components on the board and even cause the boards themselves to delaminate.

      The current favorites are the tin/silver/copper alloys, such as this: http://www.alphametals.com/products/solderpaste/om 338.html

      Their melting ("reflow") temperature is only about 20C above the standard 63/37 tin-lead solders, so it's not too hard on the boards or components.

      Believe it or not, there's a lot of science that goes into putting all those little parts on the board, melting the solder and cleaning up !

    6. Re:So, what is in there? by Animats · · Score: 1

      Tried soldering with it yet? That's not one of the low-temperature alloys.

    7. Re:So, what is in there? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't happen to know the lowest temperature eutectic alloy of Indium and/or Bismuth and/or tin?

      Or maybe a book about alloys that I could afford?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    8. Re:So, what is in there? by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      Not yet; it turned out I had enough olde fashioned Pb/Sn solder for the repair I bought it for.

      My soldering iron does go to 300 or 400 deg. C, though, so I might be OK. That said, I've heard that the switch to non-Pb solder industry-wide has resulted in a higher rate of dry joints (and other soldering defects) which in turn results in a higher rate of failure, which in turn results in more landfill. :(

      Unanticipated consequential effects are a bitch, eh?

      --

  33. I think I will wait a year by G4from128k · · Score: 1

    I really do wonder if they have got all the kinks worked out. You never know when some odd interaction of materials, manufacturing processes, and customer environments won't create reliability problems.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  34. Thanks EU! by taped2thedesk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Interesting to see a company that is succeeding with lead-free... They are requiring the phase-out of lead-free components by 2006, and now a lot of companies are scrambling to change their product designs and processes to make this possible. I haven't heard of much success in this area.

    I think electronic components have a blanket exemption for now, but this exemption is coming up for review soon. Just to be safe, most companies (including mine, which is part of an exempted industry) are trying to come up with lead-free products.

    Not sure how much of an effect this will have... I remember reading that on average, electric components are less than 1% lead. In addition, the substitutes being explored to replace lead solder (silver and antimony) may actually cause more groundwater pollution, because they are more soluble. Doesn't seem like it's much more than a feel-good measure.

  35. A telling story by dc_dog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The House Small Business Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight held a hearing today on "Green Gazelles." The term is used to describe a fast growing business that utilizes environmentally friendly processes in its operations. Look for this trend to contine as a niche market for consumers who are willing to pay more for "green" products. Of course, there is no official certification to determine whether your business is "green" or not so feel free to turn off some lights in your store and advertise away!

  36. Lead by GaussianInteger · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, the earliest pencils WERE made from lead, until graphite was found to be a much better substititute. I wouldn't nitpick, but I think the above nitpicking gives me more than ample justification =). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead

    1. Re:Lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks very much. Even if it wasn't ever used in pencils - I just hate these nitpicking wankers all the time even though it's soooo clear the OP was a joke.

    2. Re:Lead by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      graphite was found to be a much better substititute.

      Just a note for posterity: "Plastic lead" was used on Mylar for drafting purposes for a few years before CAD became dominant for engineering drawings. It did not smudge.

  37. PC has met motherboards by mj2k · · Score: 0, Troll

    political correctness has met the IT sector once again. For gosh sakes, what's the problem? I don't plan to eat my motherboard - you might argue "it's thrown away one day", but some miniscule trace of lead found in the solder isn't going to hurt anything - more goes into the environment when i lose a sinker fishing than when I throw away a dozen motherboards.

    1. Re:PC has met motherboards by another_henry · · Score: 5, Informative
      Actually solder is usually 40% lead, so it's not really a miniscule trace. I'd wager there really is quite a lot of it in motherboards and other circuit boards. I know that in the average CRT there's a kilogram or so, used to shield the user from xrays.

      I'm not qualified to say how this can be safely disposed of, or whether it really needs to, but an awful lot of old electronics do end up in public landfills and other locations where they could potentially leach(sp?) into groundwater. It's something worth considering when people are upgrading their electronics and computers annually.

      --
      "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
    2. Re:PC has met motherboards by madcow_ucsb · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it doesn't mean much for you or me, but when you start moving millions of pieces, the lead starts to add up. Yea lots of other nasties are used in the fab process, but hey, why make it worse than it needs to be?

      The semiconductor company I work for has pretty high volume (nowhere near intel though...) and we went lead-free not too long ago. Customers demanded it, so we gave it to em.

    3. Re:PC has met motherboards by 0racle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Miniscule traces perhaps, but miniscule traces from hundreds of thousands of components is a whole hell of a lot. Besides, I'm sure the plants that produces these parts are a lot cleaner, environmentally.

      So quit your whining, cleaner components are good, whether your talking traces or massive amounts. For everything that happens there's always someone whining about it.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    4. Re:PC has met motherboards by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      political correctness has met the IT sector once again. For gosh sakes, what's the problem? I don't plan to eat my motherboard - you might argue "it's thrown away one day", but some miniscule trace of lead found in the solder isn't going to hurt anything - more goes into the environment when i lose a sinker fishing than when I throw away a dozen motherboards.

      There's a reason why my State banned the sale of lead sinkers. For gosh sakes, what's the problem with trying to be more environmentality friendly? If VIA can sell a lead-free motherboard that works well at a decent price and make a profit while doing so why is this political correctness? It's being a good corporate citizen. Why is this a bad thing?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:PC has met motherboards by phraktyl · · Score: 1, Funny

      What exactly is this "kilogram" you speak of?

      --
      Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
    6. Re:PC has met motherboards by scdeimos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The mix of tin and lead in solder varies somewhat depending on the application, with 60/40 and 70/30 being common. I was curious myself about the claim of "Lead-Free" since every solder joint in the system would have to have lead, right? From VIA's Lead-Free Manufacturing page:

      ...and the solder balls now consist of a tin, silver and copper composite.

      Of course, I don't know what everyone's got against lead. If all the claims you hear were true then my old man (who breathes in solder fumes for up to 80 hours a week) should have died of lead poisioning forty years ago. He reckons milk is the answer. :)

    7. Re:PC has met motherboards by canajin56 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know about milk, but apparently cilantro (coriander / Chinese parsley) can help. When patients are given soup with plenty of cilantro juice in it, their levels dropped much faster than those who are receiving normal treatment only. Of course, this isn't scientific evidence, and they have no idea if it works on its own, or just as an aid to conventional chelation. Still, it is something to keep in mind.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    8. Re:PC has met motherboards by Jorkapp · · Score: 0

      I know that in the average CRT there's a kilogram or so, used to shield the user from xrays.

      Actually, CRT's do not use XRays. An XRay is similar to Gamma radiation (an energy wavelength). CRT's actually use Beta Radiation (electrons).

      If a CRT did use XRays/Gamma Radiation, it would take more than a phosphor screen and a thin coating of lead to stop it.

      Fortunately, flying electrons are easily stopped and turned into useful things (ahh the warm glow of a CRT at night... so peaceful).

      --
      Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
    9. Re:PC has met motherboards by GigsVT · · Score: 3, Insightful

      CRT there's a kilogram or so, used to shield the user from xrays.

      Yeah, but that's mixed in the glass, and isn't going anywhere for the next several millenia or more. In several hundred million years when that glass gets subducted under the mantle and remelts, I doubt humans will be around to worry.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    10. Re:PC has met motherboards by descentr · · Score: 2, Informative

      CRTs do not "use" X-rays, but they certainly produce them. In fact, Roentgen discovered X-rays specifically using a CRT. The X-rays are produced when the cathode ray strikes the glass wall or the screen itself.

    11. Re:PC has met motherboards by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Go ask anyone who's got a child who's eaten lead-based paint and is now sick forever if lead is safe. This is a GOOD thing. If we kept our components forever no one would care, but people in countries like China are disposing of all that US waste - and killing themselves by doing so. It's deplorable. I'll be looking into this.

    12. Re:PC has met motherboards by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful
      printf ("Jorkapp is a Programmer");

      Stick to programming. Your physics isn't all that hot. ;)
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    13. Re:PC has met motherboards by stuffman64 · · Score: 1

      [leach is the proper spelling; leech is the organism.]

      But yeah, lead is very dangerous, even in a compound like solder. With rain and acids (like the flux used in soldering, and other environmental sources), it is quite easy to see how the lead could dissociate and run off, contaminating the groudwater.

      --
      --- At my sig, unleash hell.
    14. Re:PC has met motherboards by scdeimos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ok, that begs the question: how many parents are feeding lead-based paint to their children?

      Seriously, though, people aren't generally in direct contact with the lead contained in their motherboards, cards, hard disks, etc. The problem is supposed to occur at disposal time when it is alleged that lead and other heavy metals leach out of the refuse and in to the water table, and hence into the local water supply/food chain. With recycling companies breaking-up computers and other electronic devices into their constituent materials and reselling "raw" materials this should become less and less of an issue.

      I'm not convinced of the lead problem myself. There isn't anything in this world today where everyone says it's good for you and nobody is saying it will kill you - just look at diets and mobile phones. One well-known atmospheric scientist who is a big proponent of global warming at the moment was pushing the coming of an ice age in the 1960's and 70's. His excuse? He was "wrong" back then. So, who's right and who can you believe?

      If you were to look at this from an anti-Lead-Free point of view, one could wonder whether Lead-Free petrol has benefited the environment or not, since Lead-Free petrol has caused increases in SO2 emissions which cause H2SO4 acid rain and decimation of forests in Sweden and Norway as well as damage to old and ancient structures in France, Italy and Greece.

    15. Re:PC has met motherboards by calethix · · Score: 2, Funny

      What exactly is this "kilogram" you speak of? I think it might just exist in the same alternate universe where people get to upgrade their computers annualy.

    16. Re:PC has met motherboards by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      The pollution isn't appreciable at your consumer (and disposer) end - the critical mass is in manufacturing. And in the landfills loaded with your neighbors disposed boards. Every one of us does our part, whether we notice or not. The same might be said for your lost sinkers, but the scale is too small and diffuse to matter (yet).

      Capitalism eats away at the communistic principle of hiding production costs where the Party collects its dues, the factory, obscuring the full costs including disposal and even occasional cleanup. So corporations with a sustainable strategy are getting out from under their eventual liability by moving to cleaner production. Intel is one of the most forward-strategic corporations on the planet, and Via is their competition, with a longterm survival attitude. You might drop this "political correctness" kneejerk and get with the program for a livable future, like the rest of us.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    17. Re:PC has met motherboards by tftp · · Score: 4, Informative
      The X-rays are indeed produced when electrons are stopped. The energy has to go somewhere... some into phosphor, some emitted as X-rays.

      However, Roentgen tubes use much higher voltages (100 kV at least) than CRTs (about 25 kV), and so the intensity of X rays is much lower. The screen itself, made of thick glass with a trace amount of lead, is sufficient to stop them. I tried to measure the radiation at the screen with a dosimeter, and got nothing except the usual ambient radiation (10 micro Roentgen / hour or so).

    18. Re:PC has met motherboards by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      > whether Lead-Free petrol has benefited the environment or not, since Lead-Free petrol has caused increases in SO2 emissions which cause H2SO4 acid rain and decimation of forests in Sweden and Norway as well as damage to old and ancient structures in France, Italy and Greece.

      It was necessary for the introduction of the catalytic converter to switch to lead-free petrol as the lead deactivates the main catalysator.
      The cat was necessary to reduce acid rain by NOx-reduction (Transportation accounts for 43percent, industry 32percent, natural 5percent of overall emissions (1993) )
      For SO2: Overall, 69.4 percent of sulfur dioxide is produced by industrial combustion. Only 3.7 percent is caused by transportation. And now there is another solution: sulphur-free gasoline.

      > His excuse? He was "wrong" back then. So, who's right and who can you believe?

      Ignoring that you are sufficiently vague, (What is an athmospheric scientist? Who was it? When did he expect the coming Ice Age? What did he really say?), and ignoring that a theory has to be tested on its facts and reasoning and not on its proponents, I'd rather believe someone who admits his mistakes and learns from them as someone who claims to be always be right and stays by his theory ignoring more recent data.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    19. Re:PC has met motherboards by parksie · · Score: 1

      Shame the programming isn't all that hot either...

    20. Re:PC has met motherboards by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      Sorry for getting further off-topic... Atmospheric Scientist == Climatologist in this case.

      Testifying before a Senate Committee for Global Warming as late as October last year, I've called him Dr. X in this transcript extract from Channel 4's (Britain) "The Greenhouse Conspiracy":

      INTERVIEWER: You do accept that ten to fifteen years ago people were talking about global cooling, not warming?

      DR. X: Not everybody - I was one who was not sure.

      INTERVIEWER: You say you didn't believe in global cooling but in your first book you said, "I have cited many examples of recent climatic variability and repeated the warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in, perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age." Well, that was just fourteen years ago.

      DR. X: I said that because at the time it was true. But you've got to be honest, you've got to tell things the way they are. I don't mind people quoting what I said in the 1970s.

      INTERVIEWER: Doesn't all of that add up to saying that you're asking governments to spend billions of dollars on a view which is different from one you held a decade ago?

      DR. X: I don't see any problem in saying that people learn. I'm not embarrassed about a view I held a decade ago.

      Anyone who's sufficiently interested can find the source and proceed from there. It's not just this one program singling him out, there are various sources both on and off the Internet discussing the conversion from The Little Ice Age to Global Warming.

      I have no problem with someone learning from their mistakes. But I do wonder about such a change of viewpoint, especially when people in the same industry are skeptical or express concern about such a change in this individual. It makes me take the whole issue just a little less seriously. If many people assess it similarly then that can't be good for any cause.

    21. Re:PC has met motherboards by Grab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Correctly rated as "troll". But to enlighten you...

      One mobo is not a big problem. But the zillions of circuit boards thrown away every year, when they're all taken together, *are* a problem. It's the same as smokeless zones - one campfire is not a problem, but an entire city with coal fires screws up the air.

      You don't plan eating your mobo, but wherever they're shipped to (usually China) for "recycling", this shit dissolves out of the piles of boards and seeps into the water supplies. So people over there are *literally* eating and drinking the metals out of your mobo. Life expectancy in those areas is pretty damn short, due to poisoning from lead, cadmium, arsenic and other nasties.

      Grab.

    22. Re:PC has met motherboards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For gosh sakes, what's the problem with trying to be more environmentality friendly?

      Government interference in the market maybe? It's just a short step away from godless communism.

      9 out of 10 times people will vote with their wallet. I mean, look at all the conservative-leaning consumers filling their SUV gas tanks with Wahhabist saudi oil. If brainless fascists don't support each other, who will??

    23. Re:PC has met motherboards by tormentae+agent · · Score: 1

      Sorry, this is one of those sit/set, sitzen/setzen, lernen/lehren pairs from Germanic languages.

      Leach is a transitive verb meaning to suck/drain something out of something else.

      Leak is an intransitive word meaning to spill out of something. The substance itself is the agent.

      So a leech leaches the blood out of you, but if there's a leak in your oil pan, the oil leaks out all by itself.

      Kind regards,
      tormenta,
      -Teaching native English speakers their own language since 1997

    24. Re:PC has met motherboards by HokieJP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There isn't anything in this world today where everyone says it's good for you and nobody is saying it will kill you - just look at diets and mobile phones.

      Yeah, but there are many things that everyone says are bad for you, and no one thinks are good. Lead is one.

      With recycling companies breaking-up computers and other electronic devices into their constituent materials and reselling "raw" materials this should become less and less of an issue.

      BTW, How many computer recycling companies are accepting computers from your area? Maybe I'm just uninformed, but I haven't heard of any that would take my old computer parts.

  38. How about..... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No water needed for making? What was it? 150 gallons of water just to make memory sticks?

    --
    1. Re:How about..... by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      How much water does it take to make a baby? How about a tree? Perhaps we should start keeping track.

      --
      resigned
    2. Re:How about..... by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      GREENPEACE:

      Half the use of water for creating memory sticks; double the memory size per stick.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    3. Re:How about..... by Sexual+Ass+Gerbil · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is how much water is needed just to make one fish stick so we can all panic about how much water humanity is wasting.

    4. Re:How about..... by rtaylor · · Score: 2, Funny

      And poof, that water was gone. You cannot get it back, it has been obliterated.

      The only way to get that water back when an ice comet crashes into the earth, and you don't want that to happen.

      We're all going to dehydrate because of RAM!

      --
      Rod Taylor
    5. Re:How about..... by Garak · · Score: 1

      Dose that include the water that the employees drink?

      --
      God, root, what is the difference?
    6. Re:How about..... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Nope, I just wanted mod points.

      --
  39. Won't help me by zackeller · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I plan on using it forever!!! No dumpster for me!

    1. Re:Won't help me by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      Like using it for running a distributed-thingy for finding an alternative for lead on a motherboard.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  40. Re:I had no idea this was a problem by Mateito · · Score: 1

    > Mobos don't just suddenly dematerialise when you're through with them.

    No, they evolve into Linux Routers and ... dare I mention it on slashdot... Beowulf cluster nodes.

  41. Lead Free is nice but... by irrelative83 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    there are more important issues regarding PCs and the evironment. Why don't PC manufacturers make computers that use less power? Nvidia's new graphic card needs a 450 watt power supply - so what if the mobo is lead free? The thing still draws enough power to burn twice as much oil as needed.

    1. Re:Lead Free is nice but... by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Informative

      Which means dick in the big picture.

      Do you know how many watts a 200HP car engine produces in theory?

      Over 149 thousand watts. Generated by a relatively inefficient small engine. Burning gasoline.

      So before you go apeshit over a video card that uses 100 piddly watts, get some perspective.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Lead Free is nice but... by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      Damn. Stright.

      Motherboard makers,
      Please bring back the turbo button, I would be quite happy to be chugging along at 500mhz when I leave my computer downloading overnight or when I'm word processing, I only need the 2.4ghz when I am playing games.

      A Consumer.

    3. Re:Lead Free is nice but... by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      Get something along the lines of CPUIdle.

      I notice a definite change in pitch on my system fans when I go from low to 100% CPU now.
      That and the fact that I dropped 10 degrees C on my CPU and mobo temps has to help.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    4. Re:Lead Free is nice but... by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Many OS's have Halt idling built in. You havent neccesarily needed separate software since win98.

    5. Re:Lead Free is nice but... by cerulean · · Score: 1

      Quoting the Fine Article:

      "Now entering mass production, the AS-1210 Micro-ATX mainboard integrates the fanless VIA Eden ESP processor..."

      In this case, fanless probably means that the CPU is dissipating less than 10 Watts.

      I'm quite impressed by VIA's offerings for low power, quiet desktop computing lately. My next computer will almost certainly be something of theirs.

      --
      -------------------- the list is long. dirac angestung gesept
    6. Re:Lead Free is nice but... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      there are more important issues regarding PCs and the evironment.

      Look, I'm getting REALLY tired of hearing this same old bullshit argument on every subject.

      Just because one thing may be more significant than the other, does NOT mean that the lesser one should be ignored.

      Also, the fact that somebody is working on the lesser issue, does not mean that there is a lack of resources being devoted to the more significant issue.

      Now please, let's not hear this again. Whether the issue is security, environmental, financial, whatever. The argument is a stupid one, rehashed constantly, and always BS for the same reason.

      Thank you. </RANT>
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:Lead Free is nice but... by hankwang · · Score: 1
      Do you know how many watts a 200HP car engine produces in theory? ... So before you go apeshit over a video card that uses 100 piddly watts, get some perspective.

      And how many hours in a week do you typically drive that car with the gas pedal all the way down?

  42. props by IggDawg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's cool that they're getting into the push for lead-free electronics. It's certainly not easy or cheap to validate lead-free components. I work in acoustic micro imaging, so I look at the insides of ICs, MEMS, and other electronics all day. we get a lot of work from companies doing moisture sensitivity level testing for lead vs. lead free parts. The lead free parts have to go through a hotter solder reflow profile, so any moisture will cause even more damage. The insides of most of the parts look like someone set a bomb off. it takes them a long while and many iterations before they can pull it off right.

    So, props to them for getting with it.

    disclaimer - I don't work for these guys, nor do I buy their products. I'm just a concerned scientist :P.

    1. Re:props by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like they are not properly baking the parts and maintaining the packaging before placement. When I was still involved with mfg., certain parts had a much shorter out of package exposure time than most and had to be placed back in the bake oven if they set on the line too long.

    2. Re:props by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      So, props to them for getting with it.

      Click, click, click, understand.

      Oh, you meant, "respect".

      That's just, like, totally sick! And by, "sick" I mean "cool". But not "cool" is in "not hot", "cool" as in interesting and pop culture-worthy.

  43. I Think This is a Great First Step... by Tsian · · Score: 0, Troll

    But, in many ways, there are more serious problems to worry about. The fabrication of just ONE computer uses tons of dihydrogen monoxide -- a substance used in nuclear plants and in the production of styrofoam! It has even begun seeping into our rivers and streams!

    Please, if you care about the enviroment, write AMD and Intel and VIA and ask them to stop their wanton use of dihydrogen monoxide.

    Come to think of it, if you actually do write them, it might be equally beneficial to society to ensure that you, yourself, cease and decist from consuming this nasty, nasty compound! :p

    1. Re:I Think This is a Great First Step... by Meneudo · · Score: 1

      Heh... water. Can be a serious problem when it becomes polluted... but whatever.

      A problem: you named it wrong. It should be dihydrogen oxide. not monoxide. Need to brush up on your chemistry, eh? :)

      --
      ...
    2. Re:I Think This is a Great First Step... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The first element has no mono if it is singular, the second does.

      Example: Carbon Monoxide.

      Back to class, bitch.

    3. Re:I Think This is a Great First Step... by bhmit1 · · Score: 1

      Old news/joke: City officials almost ban foam cups
      Funny yes, original no.

    4. Re:I Think This is a Great First Step... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn... pwned!!! Shit... lack of chem classes...

  44. Nice quotes... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    However, it's too bad reasonable voices like these are being ignored. And organizations like Greenpeace, PETA, the Sierra Club are being taken over by crazies. The Sierra Club in particular used to be a club for hunters and outdoorsmen, but has turned into an eco-nazi propaganda organization.

    I agree that DDT and nuclear power would do quite a lot of good for the world, by the way.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
    1. Re:Nice quotes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      However, it's too bad reasonable voices like these are being ignored. And organizations like Greenpeace, PETA, the Sierra Club are being taken over by crazies. The Sierra Club in particular used to be a club for hunters and outdoorsmen, but has turned into an eco-nazi propaganda organization.

      How is this insightful? It's just namecalling which got modded up by sympathetic admins.

      Worse than that, it's actually propaganda itself. PETA and Greenpeace were always full of "crazies" by most people's standards. :) Therein the propaganda: "If only they'd go back to the way they were", spoken as if this guy knew "how it used to be" and has good cause to believe that things have gotten worse. He doesn't.

      And of course the Sierra Club still does plenty of "outdoorsman" stuff. Hell, it's half travel agency. But I guess if you're far enough to the right, everyone looks like a "left-wing nutcase".

    2. Re:Nice quotes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, it's too bad reasonable voices like these are being ignored.

      Yeah, no kidding. If only President Bush would listen to these guys instead of all those other scientists!

      Oh, wait...

    3. Re:Nice quotes... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      The old 'crazies' at those orgs wanted to change things for the better.

      It appears that the new 'crazies' just wish to get more power and money. Why else to most of them fight so hard against incremental changes that help the env?

  45. Lead free? by Spudley · · Score: 2, Funny

    A lead-free motherboard? No leads? How am I going to plug anything into it?

    Or do they mean no lead-time...? it gets delivered as soon as you order it. Now that would be nice.

    --
    (Spudley Strikes Again!)
  46. Just wondering... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How is lead bad for the environment? I know its bad for us, and IIRC ducks, but how does it harm the environment? All the plants i buy for my fishtank come with lead clips around them, the guy at the fish store said lead is one of the few metals you can use in a fishtank. How could lead use in mobos(i assume the solder, so they're using straight tin or what?) be bad for the environment. Or is this just something from marketing, since people see stuff on the news about kids getting retarted from eating lead paint chips and think lead == bad.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:Just wondering... by DarkMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      The origin of the problems is typical heavy metal toxicity - lead has many available electron orbitals that can form weak bonds with proteins. At the active sites of enzymes, where there are many ligands on the protein, the heavy metal can sit in there, and bind tighter than the intended species. This essentially blocks the action of those affected enzymes. Different heavy metals have different affinities for different enzymes [0], so have different effects, but that's the general mechanism for heavy metal poisioning.

      The next problem is that because the metals bind to proteins, they stay there, so that as each plant or animal is consumed, there is a concentrating action as you move up the food chain. Thus, for example, herbivourus fish might collect a small quantiy of mercury, the fish that eat them have more, and the tuna that eat those have even more. Ok, that's not lead, but I can't reacall a specific example for lead at the moment - the principle still holds. It's worth noting that the typical human diet puts them at the top of the food chain.

      There is a difference between lead as a metal, and lead in a compound. It should be clear that the lead that is the problem is bioavailable lead - a solid lump of the metal might not be the biggest source of lead - although I suspect that chewing on a block of lead would be as bad, or worse than the paint.

      With lead in a fish tank, I suspect that the lead forms a thin layer of an oxide or similar, that reduces the rate the metal dissolves at. This is similar to aluminum and chromium, but I think it's less efective. The small lead released would probably be less damaging to the fish that the effect of other metals (for example, iron would make the tank acidic, aluminium would make it alkaline, and so on). That's a case of minisming hard (although I'd suggest that a plastic would probably be better).

      [0] Non enzyme proteins tend not have that many bindable sites, and those that do generally don't suffer much. It's principly enzyme blocking that's a problem, in general.

    2. Re:Just wondering... by sholden · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that the typical human diet puts them at the top of the food chain.

      Even vegetarians tend not to be eaten by anything else and hence ahave nothing above them and hence are at "a" top. Ignoring worms and all those things that eat us after we die - since that's the loop in the chain making the idea of "top" silly.

    3. Re:Just wondering... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      The heavy metal your thinking of in your fish example is probably mercury. At least thats what comes to mind when thinking of heavy metal accumulating in an aquatic foodchain.

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  47. Re:I had no idea this was a problem by Carlos+Silva · · Score: 1

    Well.. I guess you can always incinerate them... or better yet.. shove them up Darl's ass.

  48. How to desolder the capacitors? by Ark42 · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Without lead, am I going to be able to desolder the exploding tawain capacitors in order to replace them with good ones, or do I just have to buy a new computer every 6 months now?

    (note to mods: if you still havn't heard of the capacitor problem, go google about it before modding)

    1. Re:How to desolder the capacitors? by GigsVT · · Score: 3, Informative

      What, you think they'll weld them into place with copper or something?

      No lead just means using a silver/tin or such solder instead of lead/tin. You can still use normal soldering equipment.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  49. Suspect found: by Tribbin · · Score: 2, Funny

    http://computerfan.de/fun/HP_Gabon.jpg

    --
    If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  50. Great news kids! by whovian · · Score: 2, Funny

    I will feel soooo much better when my son pulls chips off his motherboards and sticks them in his mouth! Thanks VIA!!!!

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  51. Oooo shiney by mog007 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The article has a site load meter... and it's not entirely red yet... what's the matter with us fellow /.ers? Have we become weakened?

  52. Lead is endangered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Maybe the EPA should protect lead because it's going extinct, and not just in motherboards. I guess if someone is going to get shot, better to do it in an environmentally sound way?

    ---------
    Mobile porn

  53. sources of environmentalism by feelyoda · · Score: 4, Interesting
    just thought I'd give pause to all those that think they are fighting the pig capitalisms in their green efforts.

    If you view environmental concerns as a luxury good, it makes sense that people only addressed such issues after the average person in society accumulated a fair ammount of wealth.

    to quote the Cato Institute here:

    President Bush today commemorated Earth Day in Maine, where he is touting his environmental policy and highlighting his plan to restore wetlands in the United States.

    "Earth Day is traditionally a day for the Left -- a celebration of government's ability to deliver the environmental goods and for threats about the parade of horribles that will descend upon us lest we rededicate ourselves to federal regulators and public land managers," writes Jerry Taylor, Cato Institute director of natural resource studies, in "Happy Earth Day? Thank Capitalism." He argues that businessmen, not bureaucrats, "deserve most of the credit for the environmental gains over the past century."

    "Indeed, we wouldn't even have environmentalists in our midst were it not for capitalism," Taylor writes. "Environmental amenities, after all, are luxury goods. America -- like much of the Third World today -- had no environmental movement to speak of until living standards rose sufficiently so that we could turn our attention from simply providing for food, shelter, and a reasonable education to higher 'quality of life' issues. The richer you are, the more likely you are to be an environmentalist. And people wouldn't be rich without capitalism."
    And to say that without capitalism there wouldn't be polution to begin with, is to say that it is bad that technology that allows humans to look beyond the brutish nature of the world.

    Happy Industrial Revolution Day!
    http://while-true.blogspot.com/
    --

    Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
    1. Re:sources of environmentalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Eh, go choke in a cloud of smog why don't you. See how you like it.

      Oh, what's that, you're going to be living in domed cities with filtered and controlled air supplies? What a bastard.

    2. Re:sources of environmentalism by feelyoda · · Score: 1

      steps to enlightenment:

      1) close your eyes
      2) extend your hand and point out into space
      3) spin around your room for while
      4) stop
      5) examine what you are pointing at

      6)If you are pointing at:
      a) something made because of (rather than in spite of) government intervention, give yourself a point
      b) something made in spite of government intervention, give me a point

      7) repeat
      8) add up the points, and tell me how much better off we are by giving 30%+ of our money to paper-pusher bureaucrats.

      note: ARPA-net != internet, i.e. seed research money only counts if it made it all the way to production, e.g. Apollo.

      --

      Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
    3. Re:sources of environmentalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you view environmental concerns as a luxury good

      Ironically, an argument that begins with the premise "unleaded groundwater is a luxury good" is most likely to be effective on an audience whose IQ has already been reduced by low level lead poisoning.

    4. Re:sources of environmentalism by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      Wow, what a dumb thing to say. True, there wouldn't be an environmental movement if it weren't for industry. That's about as stunning a revelation as saying you won't seen suntan lotion if you never go outsie.

      You have faith that technology will always find the solution to the problems it creates. I'm not saying that it will or won't, but your adoption of that mantra is very Panglossian.

    5. Re:sources of environmentalism by feelyoda · · Score: 1

      wow... you obviously didn't read my comment carefully, nor the article I linked to. Dumb=ignorant in my book.

      It isn't optimism to say that our wealth is created by free markets; it's a fact.

      I was commenting on the nature of development: we have the ability to look towards finer and finer details (e.g. %lead in gasoline or open-source usability standards, or the lack there of) because of our wealth.

      Finding solutions to problems is an entirely different matter, and perhaps it would make sense for there to be extra-market motivators towards such an end.

      But, I've seen reports from 1900 talking about the hopeless nature of population densisty in urban regions. The problem: with so many horses, how do you take care of the shit?!

      Clearly there are disruptive events which break all models of doom and gloom in due time.

      I suppose in part I'm frustrated because almost all environmental indicators show improvement, and at the same time environazis are somehow claiming things are getting worse. This is ridiculous. Greenhouse gases are the exception, but hockey-stick models of 100 years in the future mean less than nothing.

      --

      Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
    6. Re:sources of environmentalism by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      True, I tend not to read much of what the Cato Institute has to say.

      Clearly there are disruptive events which break all models of doom and gloom in due time.

      I don't think there's really any proof of that. Let's take your horse-shit problem as an example. The horses were replaced by cars, which traded one set of problems for another. Are you telling me that it's a FACT that something will come along and rid us of the new problem? Might not we have somewhere along the way passed a "point of no return?"

      Think of the environment as a buffered system. You can push it pretty hard one way or the other, and not see much change. But cross the line, and the whole house of cards comes down. We're pushing, without knowing how hard we can push. I'm not advocating a return to "simpler times" or anything, but to just say "well, technology will figure this out" seems like a cop-out to me.

      I don't think there's enough data to say that the onward march of technology and industry will solve all the problems that same march has caused.

      (Or to quote Homer Simpson: "Alcohol. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.")

    7. Re:sources of environmentalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "America -- like much of the Third World today -- had no environmental movement to speak of until living standards rose sufficiently..."

      Um... Doesn't the U.S. release a hell of a lot more pollution than all those "third-world" countries combined?

    8. Re:sources of environmentalism by feelyoda · · Score: 1

      True, I tend not to read much of what the Cato Institute has to say.

      Then how do you know what you are missing? Lacking information is key.

      Indeed it is exactly what you are describing with the environment, and it would be hard to disagree that we don't really know what we are doing.

      That said, the debate is not on a serious level, with manipulative movies and PR motivated lets-help-the-mother-earth events. I don't see real science in the world debate.

      In addition, in the political spectrum, we know two things, both of which the enviros have taken opposing views to:

      1) stern environmental regulation of a developing nation will greatly hinder economic progress, which is basically the only indicator as to whether or not that nation will stay in the 3rd world.

      2) The worst polluters are China and India, and no one is paying attention. They are sufficiently developed to be required to follow the same standards we do. China produces more C02 from coal than we do, but we produce 10X as much energy as they do. The reason? money. The methods adopted in America (in large part because of governmental regulation) worked. They haven't even begun there.

      I'm not sure how to proceed.

      Something has already come along which will solve our energy problems. It's called nuclear energy, the anathema holy grail.

      --

      Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
    9. Re:sources of environmentalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With rights - and progress - come responsibilities.

    10. Re:sources of environmentalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's one big straw man you've got there, equating all environmentalism with government regulation, and all government regulation as restriction on legitimate business.

      "Environmental concerns are a luxury"? Jesus.

      Does that mean that it's ok to drink water with industrial solvents in it if you're poor?

      The richer you are, the more likely you are to be an environmentalist.

      And the poorer you are, the more likely you are to be suffering from pollution.

    11. Re:sources of environmentalism by rpillala · · Score: 1

      Amenities? Clean air and water are not amenities. Other less obvious environmental causes are important because they will come back to bite you later.

      Pollution (if I remember from Econ 110) is a market failure. That is, the monetary cost of pollution does not match its actual cost, because the excess is borne by society in general. Who should pay for this excess cost though? Both the buyer and seller. The market's invisible hand won't make them do it, so someone else's hand has to. Or their foot.

      The alternative is for a company like VIA to assume the cost up front to avoid this kind of pollution.

      Ravi
      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    12. Re:sources of environmentalism by feelyoda · · Score: 1

      you're the 4th person that hasn't read my post, or replied to people under me.

      I never said government shouldn't act in all cases. I said that people have the time to think about such matters only because of their wealth, which is derived from free markets. To prove the point, most 3rd world nations are ignoring environmental regulations, and they are right to. It is better to effectively feed and educate your population than worry about the spotted owl. If you disagree, you are anti-human, unless you think some mysterious "third way" exisits...some bullshit sustainable development.

      There is another word for sustainable development: nuclear energy.

      Anyway, read posts before you badger others.

      btw, a better term than market failure is "neighborhood effect". you should read Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" and "Free to Choose".

      In the latter, you will also see a description of the oft ignored "governmental failure", where the costs of governmental action outweigh the benefits of governmental inaction.

      --

      Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
    13. Re:sources of environmentalism by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      China, the "carbon dragon." We were all hoping to dodge that bullet, but now that they have a taste for SUVs, we may have a problem.

      India may be a worse polluter, but then they have quadruple our population. India is kind of a first world/third world country if you ask me. They remind me of America when FDR was president, and the overall standard of living (running water, electricity) was unbelievably low. There are still lots of people who call a sewer pipe home in India.

      Nuclear energy might solve the US's energy problems, but are you ready for nuclear power in Teheran, Islamabad, and Pyongyang? The fear of the "other nuclear" pretty much means that most people don't get to have nuclear power, because they can't be trusted with it. (I'm not saying I feel that way, but policywise that's the world we live in.)

      Cato, I feel like those guys are a bunch of priggish snobs. They probably clinked their glasses of Chardonnay together when we stormed Waco just because they could shit all over Clinton about it later. It's not so much what they have to say, it's their tone. They sound as self-righteous as your average PETA member. But that's just me.

    14. Re:sources of environmentalism by feelyoda · · Score: 1

      The advanced state of economic activity that would require N. Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. to go to nuclear energy to save the environment would not occur under the current regimes.

      Once the governments of Syria, Iran, & Saudi Arabia fall (in that order) from the influence of soon-to-be semi-self sufficient Iraq, we will have less to worry about.

      Everything you say is right, save for the Cato comments. [note: they don't agree with my statements about Iraq- like many they see it as a pipe dream, "it" being democracy in the middle east. Hard: yes. Unachievable: no. Benefit: unimaginably good]

      Folks at Cato are libertarians, not conservatives.

      Waco is a perfect example of what happens when the government tried to stop certain people from exercising their 1st & 2nd amendment rights. From the articles I have read, they always seek a plausible way to go forward to a better government.

      Perhaps the best example is the "6.2% solution" to insolvent Social Security. They are just facing a world with real problems with achievable solutions. It is only self-righteous to deny the truth of our current governmental failings in the hope that our divergence with Jefferson's intentions will go unnoticed.

      --

      Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
    15. Re:sources of environmentalism by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      "Advanced state of economic activity?" What does that mean? They need to ship more stuff to the WAL*MART, people's homes, and then the landfill? Think of all the jobs that would create!!!

      If you're telling me the only way we can "afford" to save the environment with nuclear power is if everybody consumes more, I think the cure is worse than the disease.

      When I lived in Saudi, gas was 30 hilals a litre, or about 25 cents a gallon. If we can extrapolate that, oil prices are also an order of magnitude cheaper than in the US.

      There will never be an economic incentive for the House of Saud to go nuclear. Not in the next fifty years.

      "Libertarians are Republicans who smoke pot"

      And I don't believe that Thomas Jefferson was one of those psychohistorians from Asimov's "Foundation" series. He is certainly worth paying attention to, but he's not freakin' Moses.

    16. Re:sources of environmentalism by feelyoda · · Score: 1

      again you completely misunderstand what I'm saying.

      An increase in economic freedoms will be followed by an increased demand for political freedoms. A wealthy country only comes from open markets which require such freedoms.

      We'll see it soon in China, where the communist party is still trying to suppress as many political dissidents as possible, all the while making movements to increase it's economy.

      China will change soon. It is the only current exception to the premise the economic wealth is derived from economic freedoms, which inevitably spawn demands for political freedoms.

      I suppose what I'm saying is that a free country isn't hostile without reason.

      "Advanced State" is measured in any number of ways...read Thomas L. Friedman's "lexus and the olive tree" for what is lacking in many devloping countries.

      --

      Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
    17. Re:sources of environmentalism by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      Not trying to divert your point, but would you agree that the U.S. supports and bolsters non-free states (such as China, as the obvious example) in order that they will continue to be unable to develop free markets, and thus they will never really be able to compete with us economically?

      Or does a rising tide float all boats equally?

      I do see your point but statements like "A wealthy country only comes from open markets" seem ridiculously oversimplified to me. I guess I'm not sure how a wealthy country is defined, is it per capita, or median income or what? I suppose what I'm asking is: is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia a wealthy country? How about Spain under Franco? Singapore?

    18. Re:sources of environmentalism by feelyoda · · Score: 1

      Purchasing power is a good measure. the diversity of products on the markets, the availability of advanced services (e.g. the quality of health care can be put in plain quantitative terms from infant mortality, life expectancy, and the availability to the masses.

      Singapore is rich. There is a great deal of wealth in Saudi Arabia, but mainly in the hands of a large royal family. This is not an advanced economy; rather, it more resembles a banana republic, where the bananas are actually oil.

      But to your first question, it is very clear that the US "supports and bolsters non-free states" in order for those states to improve economically. The basic misunderstanding about international trade is that it is NOT a zero-sum game. Talk of trade deficits is actually quite meaningless, and represents backward mercantile thinking.

      Out interaction with China is almost purely economical, and we would love for the standard of living to improve. This is the source of the "most favored nation" trading status.

      So it is the exact opposite of your statement. We support bad governments so we can interact (and, yes, compete) economically, because it is in everyone's best interest. Boats in rising tides indeed.

      To prove the point, look to Cuba. America doesn't have much to gain from trading with Cuba, and we would love to see that bastard regime toppled. So we actively crush progress there in the form of sanctions and limitations on immigration, in hopes of a revolution. We can't (or don't want to) afford to do this with China, even if the suppression of the people is worse.

      Now, US's support of other nations is the opposite. Rather than benefit from trade, we wish to keep certain things the same and stable. This is old cold-war thinking, and it should be changing soon. For instance, we tolerate dictatorship in Saudi Arabia because we relish the cheap, abundant oil that comes from there.

      So I guess all policy, though it seems hypocritical at times, is based on money, and our economic security. Actually, the only exception is direct threats to national security, but those events are few and far between, i.e. the war in Iraq takes all our attention, but a war costing $200B and under a few thousand lives every few years isn't that big of a deal, compared to the numbers from WWI&II.

      As for your statement:
      '"A wealthy country only comes from open markets" seems ridiculously oversimplified to me.'

      Give me a single example that contradicts this. Autocratic governments only count if they have command economies. Singapore has free trade, to a huge degree. There is a one-to-one correlation between the amount that a government intervenes into an economy and the poor performance of the economy.

      I assure you the policies of China are no exception. Something needs to change in order for China to match the standard of living in, say, Japan.

      --

      Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
    19. Re:sources of environmentalism by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      Iraq is my counter-example. Iraq was brought into the first world by Saddam, before all this business started with Iran, and then Desert Storm, and of course now he's gone. But Saddam was basically the FDR of Iraq, bringing electricity and plumbing to millions who didn't have it before.

      Have you heard the statistic that it would take six earths to provide the resources for the entire world to enjoy the average American's standard of living? Do you accept that? And what about the fact that, even though we can "afford" environmentalism, America still consumes more resources and pollutes more than anyone else?

      There is one horrific fact you overlooked, earlier in this thread. You stated "It isn't optimism to say that our wealth is created by free markets; it's a fact." What you overlooked is that our enormous wealth stems from our natural resources, which were acquired at gunpoint over the course of two centuries. And let's not forget the contributions of slave labor, that brought us to industrial self-sufficiency. Free markets are not the same thing as free people.

      There is no causal link between a higher standard of living and the emergence of things like democracy, liberty, and a progressive social order. Iraq did fine, with a decent standard of living, under a dictatorship, and Manifest Destiny got America where she is today. And let's not overlook the rise of the West in general. There's Commodore Perry firing on Japan to "open markets." Look, Africa has been divided into 1,000 constantly warring parts by a handful of colonial pillagers. Hey, it's the British Empire, look at them go, bringing freedom to India.

      I think your philosophy was dreamed up by someone who's never had a gun in his face.

      Though, I will grant you that Iraq's standard of living has dropped dramatically owing to the current "government intervention."

      And I'm sure we both agree that a democratic government in a poor country is much more prone to collapse, as the desperation grows. They'd hang you for stealing bread a few hundred years ago in England, but a starving man will take that chance. Law and order, I guess I should say "ethics" are meaningless when everyone lives in a giant shithole.

      Maybe I've misunderstood you completely. I can see the argument you make that environmentalism is something we Americans can afford, since we don't have to worry about starving to death this week. But are you saying that environmentalism actually *is* a luxury good? Only the super-rich (globally speaking) can afford it? Because if that's the case, I think we'll run out of environment before we reach critical mass of environmentalists, who even while "conserving" will use more resources than their "fair share." And that, of course, is the sky that I see falling in the next dozen decades or so.

  54. good, but just a drop in the bucket by mulescent · · Score: 1

    it is a wonderfully progressive step forward - chips with no lead. however, lead in processors accounts for a small fraction of lead used each year. as with so many other environmental problems, the main polluter is the automobile industry. during its lifetime, each car uses about as much lead as would be required to paint a house with lead-containing paint. most of the lead in cars is used in lead-acid batteries. perhaps our environmental r+d dollars could be better spent...

    ~smell my mule~
    1. Re:good, but just a drop in the bucket by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      All the lead in all the computer components ever made would not be 10% of the lead soldered plumbing sill left in use in New York City.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  55. Clarification by Shurhaian · · Score: 1

    Part A is on a per-plant basis. I wouldn't be surprised if the total effect on greenhouse gases is less for all nuke plants combined than for a single or a few coal-burners, but not knowing how much(if any) steam gets vented, I can't make that declaration.

    And I do know that nuclear plants do contribute to algal blooms due to warm water being put back into the waterways. Nuclear plants aren't perfect, and they leave a long-term problem, but they don't toss junk into the upper atmosphere for the whole world to share.

    --
    NB: YMMV. IANAL. Take the above with a grain of salt.
  56. Parent Obviously Trolling by Protoslo · · Score: 1

    I can't understand how the parent can be modded +5 insightful...

    First he makes an odd reference to sheel negceba..."furry artpron", apparently.

    Then, he claims that there are "lethal poisons" in capacitors. In fact, according to the wikipedia, capacitors generally contain fairly harmless boric acid or sulfuric acid at worst. Not to mention, I find it hard to believe that there are animals digging through dumps and eating electrolyic capacitors.

    Finally, PCB electric transformers have been banned since 1977. I think that we can assume that most power supplies in personal computers were manufactured after 1977 :).

    Conclusion: parent is full of it, mod down and ignore.

    1. Re:Parent Obviously Trolling by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 0, Troll

      I bet you're this fun at parties, too.

  57. mod reduntant *now* please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    god do people not read anything before replying.

  58. so, big deal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    nice effort but in the end I don't think eliminating lead from motherboards will make a significant difference except perhaps in cost.

    I understand the prices of tin and silver have been climbing though - with lead free solder now being used in plumbing and now on motherboards...

    but frankly a "lead free", CFC-free, so-called "green" motherboard or computer won't be the deciding factor over what I buy next. It's all about the performance and reliability baby.

  59. It has to be done by j0rd · · Score: 0, Troll

    I, for one, welcome our new Green overlords!

    --
    -- /me out
  60. Re:I had no idea this was a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That green stuff is solder mask, and actually it comes in many colors. It is used to mask off the outer layer conductors in areas that do not need to be soldered to.

  61. Solar Radiation by mishan · · Score: 1

    So, what does this mean in terms of shielding from solar radiation? Word is that currently non-ECC RAM can have an occasional bit flipped about once a month or so at sealevel. As technology gets smaller, especially CPUs, will there be new shielding technology developed? Surely there must be something better than lead..

  62. Some more quotes... by m.koch · · Score: 4, Informative
    "Lead Poisoning is the most common environmentally caused disease in the United States, affecting 4-5% of children nationwide."
    link

    "Lead poisoning is the leading environmentally induced illness in children. At greatest risk are children under the age of six because they are undergoing rapid neurological and physical development."
    link

    "New research suggests that millions more children than previously thought might have lead-linked mental impairment, while another study supports a strong link between lead exposure and juvenile delinquency."
    link

    "Lead is a highly toxic metal that was used for many years in products found in and around our homes. Lead may cause a range of health effects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities, to seizures and death."
    link

    ... and these are just some quotes from google results.

  63. Take your commie trash back to Moscow, Mr. Lenin.

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

  64. Here's your answer by dustmite · · Score: 1

    I fail to see the consumer advantage on this kind of thing

    http://www.yesmagazine.org/29globalhope/grossman.h tm

    They have to.

    And it's a good thing.

  65. The solder problem by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    Modern soldering practice is incredibly sophisticated. Soldering down a ball grid array surface mount package requires very tight control of the temperature and the physical properties of the solder. The components can only take soldering temperature for a short period.

    The trouble with lead free solders is that they all have considerably higher melting points than lead-based solders. The "standard" lead-based solder has a melting point of 183C. The best available lead-free solders have melting points in the 220C range. That's a big jump. All the manufacturing processes have to be reworked. Some components need to be redesigned for higher soldering temperature tolerance. Some components must be repackaged in different plastics. It's not trivial.

    Here's a good summary of the issues.

    1. Re:The solder problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trouble with lead free solders is that they all have considerably higher melting points than lead-based solders. The "standard" lead-based solder has a melting point of 183C. The best available lead-free solders have melting points in the 220C range. That's a big jump. All the manufacturing processes have to be reworked. Some components need to be redesigned for higher soldering temperature tolerance. Some components must be repackaged in different plastics. It's not trivial.

      Back in the 20th century we used sockets. Wonderful things sockets. They typicaly can take really high temps and have no complex parts to cook.

  66. Ahh, mercury. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sweetest of the transition metals.

  67. Finally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like all my letters to VIA saying "Think of the children!" paid off.

  68. Good 1st step, but... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

    ...they should go all the way and make computers out of coconuts and palm fronds like Gilligan and the Professor. Now that would be green.

  69. Second American Revolution... by vudufixit · · Score: 2, Funny

    If it happens, I will make sure NOT to melt down any Via motherboards to cast lead bullets for our muskets.

  70. Expression by wpiman · · Score: 0, Redundant

    God- didn't these guys realize "get the lead out" was just an expression. They didn't get the memo?

  71. My source. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/ 2003/12/eminent_environ.html

    Here is the source of what I posted with supporting links. I have researched quotes like these before, but is is the THIRD response http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=extreme+quotes+environmentalists&spel l=1

    Now fucking appoligize.

    1. Re:My source. by m.koch · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Now fucking appoligize.

      For what? You did just like I said. Besides, do you think that copying from a google search with the keywords extreme, quotes, environmentalists is a deliberate and constructive way to contribute to a discussion?

    2. Re:My source. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      "Without checking, without reasoning, without thinking."

      I wasn't aware that I had to do that again seing as I said that I had already done so. I am not so stupid as to have to rethink everything everytime I see it.

      You just don't like people who disagre with you seeing as how my post is revelvent to the general topic being discussed and greatly revelvent to the post that I was responding to. Your posts, however, add absolutly nothing to the topic at hand.

      But if it makes you feel better, go post in the apple portion of /. the url's to my comments and the apple mods that hate me will take care of it.

    3. Re:My source. by m.koch · · Score: 1
      I wasn't aware that I had to do that again seing as I said that I had already done so. I am not so stupid as to have to rethink everything everytime I see it.

      You have copied some quotes and now you keep repeating that your posts are relevant and others are not. At least show some sign of constructive thinking. Why do these quotes show what? For all your quotes I can find one that says the exact opposite. Or do you think that quoting another person makes your point of view somehow untouchable?
      But if it makes you feel better, go post in the apple portion of /. the url's to my comments and the apple mods that hate me will take care of it.

      I do have moderator points, but I did reply.
    4. Re:My source. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      They are revelent to the parent post which I will post after this message because it appears that you are having a difficult time clicking the parent link in my post.

      I was using the quotes to show that env's just want to bitch (I had other things but I have to get back to work).

      -----

      This is really more of a touchy feel-good move than a substantive move in cutting back on the more dangerous parts of the motherboard.

      This doesn't do a thing about the lethal levels of sheel negceba that go through most boards, not to mention the chemicals used in most non-paper capacitors, which are not only lethal poisons, but as tasty as anti-freeze to most animals.

      Add to this the PCBs in the transformer that go with their power supply, and you've pretty much only addressed the fourth worst problem. The real problems have several orders of magnitude more impact on the environtment and worse -- solutions already exist to solve all three for prices only 5-10% higher than what they pay for existing chemicals!

    5. Re:My source. by m.koch · · Score: 1
      They are revelent to the parent post which I will post after this message because it appears that you are having a difficult time clicking the parent link in my post.

      Sorry, this is the parent post.
      I was using the quotes to show that env's just want to bitch

      I see, you wanted to answer to this post. But face it, it was a troll. "sheel negceba"? Are you kidding? How about slasdot users that want to bitch?
    6. Re:My source. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Opps.

  72. Death to left-wingers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll find their psychotic manifesto at http://www.roadkillbill.com

  73. Re:Woppee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I geuss opinions aren't welcome outside of articles here on /.

  74. They need to stay focused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, via needs to stop worrying about the content of lead, and start worrying about why their chipsets suck so much.

    "No, good thinking via, i have 4 unused irqs, so you probly should put the sound card, nic, video card, and scsi controller all on the same one."

  75. Detox by linzeal · · Score: 1

    I would like to suggest a Detox Tea regimen for anyone that feels that they have been exposed to more than their fair share of toxic materials. My mother; for instance, has been drinking this stuff for years and almost all her major ailments (arthritis, gall stones, and kidney stones) have been alleviated more so than the medicine she was prescribed. I myself take it only sparingly and have noticed a few things, my lung and nose mucus is clear unless I go to the city and a few blackheads I have had for years have dissapeared on my face. I guess I will have to keep drinking it to see if it can get me to lose this last 20 lbs without exercise, heh.

    1. Re:Detox by forlornhope · · Score: 1

      For that 20lbs that are hanging around, try the Hacker's Diet. You can google for it and it is the first result that came up. Not to sound like a comercial or anything, but... "It worked for me!!"(tm)

      --
      "We Don't Need No Truthless Heros!" - Project 86
  76. EU & DOD mandate for future by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    both the EU and US DOD have lead free mandates comming up very quickly. I know 3 years ago when I worked at an electronics contract manufacture it was starting to be a hot topic in the press. It's a huge achivement to finally see a lead free commercial product of any type! All of the lead free alternatives dramatically reduce the solderability of parts...everything takes tighter manfacturing controls. It's a manufacturing productivity and quality nightmare. Not to mention purchasing getting passives [resistors, capacitors, & connectors] that are also tinned with lead free solder!

    good job!

  77. Lead or Lead? by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

    Most new boards are lead free. All the parts use BGA chips so there are no leads sticking out of them. :)

  78. Re:Thanks EU... but no thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lead is used to keep the tin solder from growing whiskers through crystalization. By removing lead, leads will short together when the whiskers grow enough. Consumer electronics manufacturers don't really care, because now you'll end up replacing your electronics more frequently as they mysteriously die. This is a huge problem for those of us trying to design electronics for long term (30+ year) applications. We see things dying within a couple of years when lead isn't used.

    So, the end result is more used electronics in the landfills, along with all the associated bad chemicals still used in their production. Once more, the Greens announce they've won without considering all the unintended consequences.

  79. lead - mobos - ??? by TechnoFreek · · Score: 1

    Obviously, the lead had to come from SOMEWHERE, right? I'm going to take a stab in the dark, and guess that it came from either the earth, or aliens. Since, although I support the belief of extraterrestrial life, I find it illogical that they would want to sneak lead to earth, the lead probably came from earth.

    when I was a kid, my mom would always tell me to put the damn bread back in the damn fridge when I was done making the damn sandwhich.

    Could somebody more learned in ecology tell me why we can't put the damn lead back in the damn earth when we're done with the damn products?

    I mean, I realize that animals die because of it, but doesn't that just accomplish more natural selection? I don't see how it matters.

    Then again, i'm an idiot compared to 99% of /.

    1. Re:lead - mobos - ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because you had to process thousands of times more material to get that lead than the lead itself.

      There is far more gold in the oceans than available in mining operations on land. However, it is so dilute, it is not worth extracting.

      Same thing, but in reverse.

      PS you probably ARE at the bottom 1% of /.

      PPS let me volunteer you for aiding natural selection by dying. Please drink a pint of acetone. In the future, we humans will be immune to it.

  80. wait a minute... by Vacant+Mind · · Score: 0

    I didn't even know there was lead on the mobo, no wonder my kids are retarded :(

  81. I disagree by astro-g · · Score: 1

    If you consider the safe disposal and storage of spent nuclear fuel, the mining and prossesing of said fuel. A nuclear power plants are only economical to run if you have a domestic nuclear weapons programme, which will use the plutonium produced by your uranium fueled reactors.

    DDT I dont know about.

  82. They'll get right on it. by rebelcool · · Score: 1

    First, few computers draw their power supply's rating. Their recommendations for that is when the card is being heavily used on an assumed fully loaded PC with a bunch of extra peripherals. Your PC is NOT drawing 450 watts *all the time* (or even part of the time, usually) when you have a 450 watt power supply.

    Second, if you can figure out a way to significantly reduce the power required by chips while maintaining performance, you will be fabulously wealthy and revolutionize the world of computing. Power draw is a HUGE concern. Remember that the vast majority of computers sold these days are actually in battery powered devices (all your cell phones, pdas, calculators etc have processors in them now)

    --

    -

  83. sure, it is all a big conspicary... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    first, many eu companies produce in taiwan, malaysia and so on. second, many non-eu companies produce in eu (amd in dresden for example)

    --
    Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
  84. 970FX. by RadRafe · · Score: 1
    Second, if you can figure out a way to significantly reduce the power required by chips while maintaining performance, you will be fabulously wealthy and revolutionize the world of computing.

    So the designers of the PPC 970FX are fabulously wealthy computing revolutionaries? Well, they certainly deserve more praise and material reward than the makers of Prescott. Now if only yields were a bit higher...

  85. Misconceptions regarding lead (Pb) in industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    (Dis)claimer: I used to work in the electronics industry and was involved in development related to lead free processes and I must say the misconceptions caused unneeded problems. As usual garbage in - garbage out.

    Others here talk about 1 Kg Pb in a TV, you see that a lot. What happens is that people divide number of metric tonnes of Pb used by each TV and say that is the lead used. And that is wrong. What happens is that after a number of solderings the solder bath has to be renewed. And it is renewed by recirculating it, not dumping it in a lake at night and buyng fresh lead. Doing the maths again you see it is far less than a kilogramme Pb in a TV.

    We had the authorities in here on that issue. He didn't know this either. So he asked just how much lead there really is and when we told him he simply packed up and left!

    And solder contains more than Pb, there is Ag, Sn and Bi, occationally others too in varying mixtures.

    But Pb-based solder is soft, making electronics mechanically robust. These first generation Pb-free solders are more brittle making things more fragile so don't expect it to be used in life critical items like pacemakers and aircrafts from day one.

  86. Tip of the iceberg by Plammox · · Score: 1

    The ban of lead in the electronics industry is only the beginning.
    Just you wait until the environment hippies :-) discover all the nicey materials used in assembly, packaging and silicon wafer processes.

    I mean, Beryllium and Gallium Arsenide just sound unhealthy, right?
    Well, yeah, you're right. They actually are....

    Hint: Don't go licking the walls in the manufacturing facilities.

  87. Get a grip! by LibrePensador · · Score: 1

    You are an idiot. Environmentalists are not only concerned about the heavy metals emitted by nuclear plants, but about the catastrophic effects of an accident at a power plant.



    Have you heard of Chernobyl? Well, if that's too far away for you, maybe you would like to look into the missing fuel rods at this Vernmont nuke plant



    A pencil size rod is missing and it is enough to make a dirty bomb and kill thousands. Even if it isn't used in a terrorist act, it will be fatal to anyone who comes into contact with it without being properly shielded. Considering that no one knows where it is, we don't know how many people have already died.



    Those are the real concerns of the environmentalists that you ridicule. If you were to fairly criticize them, you would do the honorable thing, which is to fully articulate the position of those that you critique, so that others can really weigh out the arguments.

    --
    Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
  88. Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /. rant about the use of "begging the question">

  89. I hope this doesn't hurt reliability. by smallmj · · Score: 1

    I can't help thinking about this story,

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/06/0449 23 0

    Some chip makers went green, and it killed their reliability a few years later. Hence a zillion useless Fujitsu hard drives.

    I hope they have done huge testing, or else landfills will be clogged with a lot more computer parts.

    Of course, given my experience VIA stuff doesn't last that well anyway. When I'm working on a flakey computer with a dying MB, I usually see a VIA chipset on it.

    --
    ------- Mark
  90. Re: VIA and Yamashita aren't the first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    VIA and Yamashita aren't the first people to produce lead-free computers. NEC had one back in 2001/2002. What's with the ignorance of everyone?

  91. Aluminium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The green way is to recycle aluminum cans, which involves significant energy and chemical expenditure for the recycling.

    Smelting Aluminium is a high energy process. It takes less energy to smelt recycled aluminium than it does bauxite.

    omicoo--

  92. Me confused??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With all this lead leaching into the environment, where the hell did it all come from to begin with??? Pantyhose aren't birth control...