The Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) is not about preventing garbage in landfills, and frankly it's been 18 years and the sky is not falling.
The sky is not falling in large part because the transition to lead-free solder was simultaneous with the transition to electronic devices that are not repaired and which frequently have a lifetime not much longer than their warranty time.
Most current electronic devices are dumped much earlier than when they would fail due to the tin whiskers.
Many consumer electronic devices made 50 years ago are still usable without any problems caused by the aging of the soldering or of the semiconductor devices (but old electrolytic capacitors may have to be replaced). The electronic devices that are made now do not have any chances of such a long lifetime, with the exception of a few devices made for special requirements, e.g. military/aerospace.
Consumer electronics used to break down all the time 50 years ago. Metal whiskers are not even close to being relevant when other factors impact reliability and durability to a far greater extent.
Consumer electronics used to break down all the time, but in almost all cases that was due to manufacturing defects, which were much more frequent, because many operations that are now automated were still done manually then.
The consumer devices which survived infant mortality, because they were free of manufacturing defects, had a negligible aging rate after that.
Modern electronic devices have far fewer initial manufacturing defects, due to automated production, but all age much quicker, due to very small component sizes, lower safety factors, surface semiconductor devices (MOS transistors) instead of bulk semiconductor devices (bipolar transistors), lead-free soldering and other similar changes in technologies.
They used to break down and they could and were repaired. Nowadays if something breaks it goes in the garbage can. I had an extension cable which died staying in the basement for a year. When i opened it to check the reason i was shocked. It looked like a spider net made of dust but this was metal.
Actually, yes I could imagine that quite easily. Just buy "hackable" products which do that as a matter of course. A digital multi-purpose device with an alarm-clock form factor would not even be especially complicated to make.
Once things started going to multi-layer PCBs it was the end of reparability. It’s too bad because I have fond memories of fixing broken components on PC hardware and game consoles, even as someone who’s not an expert and simply a hobbyist.
> Once things started going to multi-layer PCBs it was the end of reparability.
Very true, however having full documentation would help nonetheless. My water heater electronic board cost over €250 to replace, although it contains less than €20 parts; a preprogrammed uC makes it impossible to replicate it. If it had public hardware and firmware documentation, someone could repurpose a similar but cheaper board or replicate the functions using a different rugged enough uC board, which would also likely bring down the retail price of the original spare part.
My understanding is that the new manufacturing techniques stop many people but usually not skilled technicians. It's component serialization, keeping schematics secret, and exclusive supply chains that are the real problem.
Yes but the parent is not stating that. They are stating that a "save the environment" effort is not very environmentally friendly if it makes more waste.
Saving the environment by reducing actively, acutely hazardous materials and saving the environment via reducing landfill/carbon emissions are completely different goals.
As others have pointed out in this thread, reducing landfill waste from electronics is a much more complex problem and just adding leaded solder will not solve it.
That assumes waste reduction is the goal, rather than lead reduction. With toxic, intelligence reducing [1], materials like lead, maybe some extra waste is a perfectly good trade off.
Last i checked tin was not an edible material. There is a small difference between having tin dust, which you cannot contain, and having electronics containing lead which you can colect and store in a warehouse ( asuming you want to address the problem in the first place).
They are assuming that these devices would be used long enough for tin whiskers to become a problem. I seriously doubt that RoHS will be causing more waste - because at the point that devices become unusuable, they are on in the trash anyways for completely unrelated reasons (think: bezel to large to be popular, plastic backshell instead of metal or glass, device is too thick, device is too heavy, ...).
Uhm, that is exactly the point that I'm making? That the goal was never save the environment, but rather reduce the exposure to toxic-at-any-concentration things like lead?
Devices are disposed of (becomes waste) long before they become broken from whiskers. That makes RoHS a net-win by reducing toxic materials from landfills full of phones with broken screens and kitschy doodads with broken plastic.
