California New RoHS Rules

[Erik Sine]

PDF File for new Rules

CaliforniaRoHSrules.pdf

[YYZ]

This doesn't mean a whole lot for the sign industry just yet - since it's 'covered devices' such as LCD televisions, monitors, etc...

Most electronics manufacturers (including those that make LED products) are already RoHS compliant, or on their way. In electronics, it's commonly referred to as "lead free" or "pb free", which requires components without leaded contacts, lead free solder, etc... Most ballasts, etc have a RoHS compliant equivalent for same in Europe, which will probably become standard for North America as well.

Starting this summer, pretty much anything we make will be RoHS compliant, since it's easier than making 2 products for 2 continents - which goes for most companies, I would think.

It seems the mercury in glass tube products is also exempt from this - for now, possible always. If they go after it, it won't be under RoHS but some other initiative.

[joemomma]

I must've missed that news item. When exactly did California secede from the US and join the EU? Did Schwarzenegger annex CA to Austria?

As usual with stupid laws, there will be unintended consequences. The top 2 that come to mind are: small businesses that can't afford to hire lawyers that can do a good job of pretending to understand this bureaucratic gobbledygook will fast go out of business. And since the law states that these products can't be sold in CA (doesn't say you can't own one), consumers who wish to own a plasma TV will be forced to buy in another state or on the black market. Of course, that will lead to another law and the CA gestapo will be checking your baggage at all the state lines. As I've said before, Land of the theoretically free.

[YYZ]

There's no need for small businesses to hire any lawyers. Also, there's nothing in that 'law' that bans plasmas - you're jumping to conclusions. It's not just Europe either. Even China is already going lead free (hence the likelihood that anything coming into CA will already meet the standards).

TV's are only one type of device that have to meet certain component standards and chances are any name brand product is already lead free. This really isn't much different than getting asbestos out of insulation or getting lead out of paints, etc... Most people won't even notice and this will an extremely marginal effect on pricing. Think $10 on the cost of a $2000 TV.

[joemomma]

There's no need for small businesses to hire any lawyers. Also, there's nothing in that 'law' that bans plasmas - you're jumping to conclusions. It's not just Europe either. Even China is already going lead free (hence the likelihood that anything coming into CA will already meet the standards).

TV's are only one type of device that have to meet certain component standards and chances are any name brand product is already lead free. This really isn't much different than getting asbestos out of insulation or getting lead out of paints, etc... Most people won't even notice and this will an extremely marginal effect on pricing. Think $10 on the cost of a $2000 TV.

You really are missing my point, Marko. It doesn't matter whether it's plasma TV's or snake oil or clothes hampers or widgets. My point is that government has no business regulating business. Good Housekeeping, Consumer Reports, and, in the absence of the iron fist of government, a whole slew of profit making consumer oriented businesses would do a much better job of informing consumers about the products they buy. Wouldn't you, as a well educated and discriminating consumer, rather decide what products you buy, than have those decisions made for you by a whimsical nanny government in Washington or Ottawa? I know I would.

BTW, maybe you could explain to me why you wrote law as 'law'. Is it because the government calls it a regulation, and not a law? And if so, could you explain the difference?

[YYZ]

I meant to write 'stupid law' which would have been a quote - which makes more sense.

When it comes to free market decisions on products, technologies, etc - I would agree with you. Let the market and consumer groups lead the way. This isn't a specific product that we're talking about though, it's a substance found in thousands of products. You still seem to be tying it to the products themselves, when we're talking about a manufacturing process.

The way I see it, government should be as streamlined as possible and intrude as little as possible into our daily lives and the daily operations of business. The government's main roles should be providing the basic services that the population requires (roads, schools) and to protect it's citizens. One way to do this is immigration protections and another way is to put into place measures (be they laws or regulations) that either A) protect society from itself (as in criminal laws) and B) create a level playing field (as in regulating practices and disputes) and C) it also needs to implement other tools (laws, regulations) that put restrictions on harmful substances that if left unregulated, could be damaging to both people and the environment.

I'm not talking global warming bullshit here - we're talking substances that are known to make people ill and contaminate our landfills or water supply. There is no longer any reason why lead needs to be used in 90% of electronics - so why should it be allowed?

I suppose you don't like being forced to drink pasteurized milk?

[Erik Sine]

Nothing like a good ol' can of 1shot

[joemomma]

I meant to write 'stupid law' which would have been a quote - which makes more sense.

When it comes to free market decisions on products, technologies, etc - I would agree with you. Let the market and consumer groups lead the way. This isn't a specific product that we're talking about though, it's a substance found in thousands of products. You still seem to be tying it to the products themselves, when we're talking about a manufacturing process.

The way I see it, government should be as streamlined as possible and intrude as little as possible into our daily lives and the daily operations of business. The government's main roles should be providing the basic services that the population requires (roads, schools) and to protect it's citizens. One way to do this is immigration protections and another way is to put into place measures (be they laws or regulations) that either A) protect society from itself (as in criminal laws) and B) create a level playing field (as in regulating practices and disputes) and C) it also needs to implement other tools (laws, regulations) that put restrictions on harmful substances that if left unregulated, could be damaging to both people and the environment.

I'm not talking global warming bullshit here - we're talking substances that are known to make people ill and contaminate our landfills or water supply. There is no longer any reason why lead needs to be used in 90% of electronics - so why should it be allowed?

I suppose you don't like being forced to drink pasteurized milk?

The udder fact is that there's only one thing better than a glass of cold, cold milk. And that's a glass of warm milk straight from Moolie's tit. When I lived on the farm, that's what I did on occasion. You bet your bottom dollar I don't like being forced to drink pasteurized milk. I thought you knew me by now, Marko. I don't like being forced to do anything. It has nothing to do with the milk, only the "being forced". That's the main difference between us Libertarians and most of the rest of society. We don't like being forced and we don't like forcing. Another way of putting it is, "Live and let live." And I believe it to be amazing that some people think that government is the only resource we have to create a level playing field. I really don't understand what you mean by that, but if you mean what I think you mean, again, the consumer does a much better job of leveling the playing field, by insisting that companies produce a good and safe product or service at a reasonable price, or go out of business.

"The government's main roles should be providing the basic services that the population requires (roads, schools) and to protect it's citizens." There are a couple things in this sentence I disagree with. 1. Your list of basic services was pretty exclusionary. Distribution of food is a pretty basic service. Health care is a pretty basic service (not much freedom left in that service). Why hasn't the government taken over the grocery stores in our countries? There is only one service that the government provides that private industry can't do better and cheaper. It has to do with a thing called force, such as an Army and a Police Force. And it is the only business the government should be in - protecting its individual citizens from the initiation of force or fraud.

[B.O.P.]

The udder fact is that there's only one thing better than a glass of cold, cold milk. And that's a glass of warm milk straight from Moolie's tit. When I lived on the farm, that's what I did on occasion. You bet your bottom dollar I don't like being forced to drink pasteurized milk. I thought you knew me by now, Marko. I don't like being forced to do anything. It has nothing to do with the milk, only the "being forced". That's the main difference between us Libertarians and most of the rest of society. We don't like being forced and we don't like forcing. Another way of putting it is, "Live and let live." And I believe it to be amazing that some people think that government is the only resource we have to create a level playing field. I really don't understand what you mean by that, but if you mean what I think you mean, again, the consumer does a much better job of leveling the playing field, by insisting that companies produce a good and safe product or service at a reasonable price, or go out of business.

"The government's main roles should be providing the basic services that the population requires (roads, schools) and to protect it's citizens." There are a couple things in this sentence I disagree with. 1. Your list of basic services was pretty exclusionary. Distribution of food is a pretty basic service. Health care is a pretty basic service (not much freedom left in that service). Why hasn't the government taken over the grocery stores in our countries? There is only one service that the government provides that private industry can't do better and cheaper. It has to do with a thing called force, such as an Army and a Police Force. And it is the only business the government should be in - protecting its individual citizens from the initiation of force or fraud.

Interesting that the term "milk" was used... considering how much the government "milks" its citizens of ever penny they can get