Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

lumafield.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#31

Post by dylan604 »

HankB99 wrote: post #27
dylan604 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will never understand the brief viral Stanley popularity, it isn't the product, but the effect of viral. the effect of influencers is the thing to be looking at here. however, that's just the next evolution of marketing. to me, it is the ability to be influenced that should be studied and improved.

> it is the ability to be influenced that should be studied and improved. I'm curious about what you mean by "improved?"

awkwardly worded to be sure after rereading if not just an incomplete thought. i would hope that we could improve our abilities to be less susceptible to the influence after studying. some of us seem to be impervious since we don't spend any time on the socials where these influencers live. others seemingly can't tell there's an influence at all. while others yet seem like they couldn't figure out how to feed themself if an influencer didn't first suggest it

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#32

Post by wakawaka28 »

doubloon wrote: post #9

I have the same problem with this as with retro youtubers using lead solder. Consumers are not the only ones that matter The people working in the factoriesare exposed to lead. The people at the mines are exposed to lead. The people in shuttered ghost towns like Pitcher Oklahoma are exposed to lead. The people transporting lead are exposed to lead. People working in recycling or waste management or landfills are expo…

That retro Youtuber gripe is silly. You really think it's worth getting bent out of shape that one guy is using a little bit of lead solder to repair a valuable antique thing full of lead solder and thus keep it out of the landfill? They want to use it for technical reasons. There are many more significant sources of lead than oddball hobbyists, such as aviation fuel. Technically most hazardous chemicals we ever use end up in the environment. Even medication. So getting too fixated on a rare specialist use of lead is misguided. We should reduce the uses of lead and other toxic materials where possible, but sometimes it isn't possible or economical.

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#33

Post by dustymcp »

uoaei wrote: post #10
bigyikes wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoa. Alternate take: people are having fun with a silly cup? It’s a meme in physical form.

It's a meme you're spending money on. Meme transmission is a kind of peer pressure, the entire thing seems prickly to me from a moral perspective. I for one don't appreciate being pressured to spend money on things I don't need or want.

Its the kids that are being influenced into consuming, nothing else.

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#34

Post by Brian_K_White »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #32
doubloon wrote: post #9

I have the same problem with this as with retro youtubers using lead solder. Consumers are not the only ones that matter The people working in the factoriesare exposed to lead. The people at the mines are exposed to lead. The people in shuttered ghost towns like Pitcher Oklahoma are exposed to lead. The people transporting lead are exposed to lead. People working in recycling or waste management or landfills are expo…

That retro Youtuber gripe is silly. You really think it's worth getting bent out of shape that one guy is using a little bit of lead solder to repair a valuable antique thing full of lead solder and thus keep it out of the landfill? They want to use it for technical reasons. There are many more significant sources of lead than oddball hobbyists, such as aviation fuel. Technically most hazardous chemicals we ever use…

"You really think it's worth getting bent out of shape that one guy is using a little bit of lead solder to repair a valuable antique"

Yes.

Not even close.

As someone who repaires such things myself, I know that there is no excuse for it.

Simple as that.

I do it myself and so I know just how not-a-problem it is.

Several lead-free solders are perfectly usable in all the same places, and the only way to reduce the background radiation of lead permeating the entire environment, is to stop putting it into the environment.

Keeping the antique radio out of the dump does not excuse the fact that the same user had to buy a spool of lead solder which had to be manufactured, and at least half of that spool will go right into the environment, not into museum exhibits.

It will be in spatters and sponges and wicks and soldapults and brillo scrubbers and random junk scrapped wiring and junk projects that are not antique radios housed in museums forever. Probably 90% or more of that spool ends up all over the environment rather than in some precious artifact.

Yes the lead-free solders are slightly more difficult to work with, but hardly enough to matter. If you never soldered anything before, the very act of soldering successfully at all is a baffling art to a lot of people. After some amount of trial & error, maybe training if they're lucky enough to know someone, they eventually develop a feel and a sense for how to get it to work right. Going from lead to lead-free requires a similar adjustment, but it's a freaking microscopic fraction of the difficulty.

Complaining about lead-free solder is nothing but pathetic baby crying, and crying over something that is simply not that difficult, and something that comes at a simply inexcusable cost.

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#35

Post by wakawaka28 »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #34
wakawaka28 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That retro Youtuber gripe is silly. You really think it's worth getting bent out of shape that one guy is using a little bit of lead solder to repair a valuable antique thing full of lead solder and thus keep it out of the landfill? They want to use it for technical reasons. There are many more significant sources of lead than oddball hobbyists, such as aviation fuel. Technically most hazardous chemicals we ever use…

"You really think it's worth getting bent out of shape that one guy is using a little bit of lead solder to repair a valuable antique" Yes. Not even close. As someone who repaires such things myself, I know that there is no excuse for it. Simple as that. I do it myself and so I know just how not-a-problem it is. Several lead-free solders are perfectly usable in all the same places, and the only way to reduce the back…

[flagged]

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#36

Post by bxparks »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #34
wakawaka28 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That retro Youtuber gripe is silly. You really think it's worth getting bent out of shape that one guy is using a little bit of lead solder to repair a valuable antique thing full of lead solder and thus keep it out of the landfill? They want to use it for technical reasons. There are many more significant sources of lead than oddball hobbyists, such as aviation fuel. Technically most hazardous chemicals we ever use…

"You really think it's worth getting bent out of shape that one guy is using a little bit of lead solder to repair a valuable antique" Yes. Not even close. As someone who repaires such things myself, I know that there is no excuse for it. Simple as that. I do it myself and so I know just how not-a-problem it is. Several lead-free solders are perfectly usable in all the same places, and the only way to reduce the back…

You have strong opinions on the use of leaded solder. I'm curious if you have some numbers to drive home your point. For example, what is the relative risk of using leaded solder for a hobbyist creating a handful of prototype circuit boards a year (using proper ventilation of course), versus living close to an airport exposed to burning jet fuel which contains lead to this day? I want to know, roughly speaking, if using leaded solder a few times a year cause 100X more exposure or only 1/100 the exposure compared to living near an airport. If it's only 1/100 compare to an airport, I'm not going to worry about it. If it's 100X, then I think your position is quite valid. [Addendum: Another example, what is the risk of leaded solder compared to lead exposure from common household items like brass knobs, handles, fixtures, and keys?]

My current inventory of solder was obtained from estate sales, so they are all leaded, but old stock, not newly manufactured. If I had not bought them, they would have been thrown away into the garbage dumps.

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#37

Post by kortilla »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #32
doubloon wrote: post #9

I have the same problem with this as with retro youtubers using lead solder. Consumers are not the only ones that matter The people working in the factoriesare exposed to lead. The people at the mines are exposed to lead. The people in shuttered ghost towns like Pitcher Oklahoma are exposed to lead. The people transporting lead are exposed to lead. People working in recycling or waste management or landfills are expo…

That retro Youtuber gripe is silly. You really think it's worth getting bent out of shape that one guy is using a little bit of lead solder to repair a valuable antique thing full of lead solder and thus keep it out of the landfill? They want to use it for technical reasons. There are many more significant sources of lead than oddball hobbyists, such as aviation fuel. Technically most hazardous chemicals we ever use…

Av gas is what has led, not jet fuel. Av gas consumption is negligible by comparison so it’s not the impact you think.

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#38

Post by mauvehaus »

bxparks wrote: post #36
Brian_K_White wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You really think it's worth getting bent out of shape that one guy is using a little bit of lead solder to repair a valuable antique" Yes. Not even close. As someone who repaires such things myself, I know that there is no excuse for it. Simple as that. I do it myself and so I know just how not-a-problem it is. Several lead-free solders are perfectly usable in all the same places, and the only way to reduce the back…

You have strong opinions on the use of leaded solder. I'm curious if you have some numbers to drive home your point. For example, what is the relative risk of using leaded solder for a hobbyist creating a handful of prototype circuit boards a year (using proper ventilation of course), versus living close to an airport exposed to burning jet fuel which contains lead to this day? I want to know, roughly speaking, if us…

Jet fuel does not contain lead. Jet fuel is for practical purposes roughly the same part of the dinosaur juice as kerosene and diesel. Jet fuel is burned in turbine and turboprop airplane engines, which comprise the enormous majority of the commercial fleet.

Avgas is the stuff with lead in it. Avgas is basically gasoline with lead added as an anti-knock agent and is burned in reciprocating spark ignition engines. Typically these are found in the general aviation fleet.

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#39

Post by wakawaka28 »

kortilla wrote: post #37
wakawaka28 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That retro Youtuber gripe is silly. You really think it's worth getting bent out of shape that one guy is using a little bit of lead solder to repair a valuable antique thing full of lead solder and thus keep it out of the landfill? They want to use it for technical reasons. There are many more significant sources of lead than oddball hobbyists, such as aviation fuel. Technically most hazardous chemicals we ever use…

Av gas is what has led, not jet fuel. Av gas consumption is negligible by comparison so it’s not the impact you think.

Literally tons of aviation fuel vs. trace amounts of fresh lead solder. I think the fuel is obviously worse. Neither one may be so bad that it needs to draw excess concern of course.

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#40

Post by ianburrell »

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #22

Maybe I’m just too old, but I will never understand the brief viral Stanley popularity, or the viral inaccessible-lead-pellet alarmism.

Stanley invented, or at least popularized, a new kind of tumbler. It is insulated to keep drinks hot or cold, it has large capacity but fits in cup holder, has handle to make easier to carry.

I don't like since prefer smaller water bottles, but I understand why some people would. I also don't get the viral popularity, but I understand why social promotion of something people want and is new can take off. It is turned into phenomenon that people want just cause its popular.

Post reply on HN