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

41–50 of 74 posts

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#41

Post by analog31 »

doubloon wrote: post #28
rsaxvc wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're eactly right. I saw the blight at Herculaneum, MO in the 2000s - dozers plowing down houses in a slowly expanding circle centered on the smelter. 1 in 5 students had excess blood lead. The schools nearby were scraped down and soil was replaced whenever the lead levels got too high from the dust blowing off the open ore and slag trucks running town. The smelter didn't hit EPA requirements for 25 years, and when…

thats very interesting, i never heard of this, i wonder how many other towns are off-the-radar. and in China probably even more now. i wonder if the EPA could be better off if it gave grants instead of fining people.

Superfund is such a a program.

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#42

Post by jki275 »

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…

Sorry, but as someone who has had to use them, lead-free solders are garbage. They are difficult to work with, require higher temperatures to use, don't last as long, whisker and destroy equipment they're used in.

This is all well known, it's not a mystery, and lead in solder is the least of the problems with lead in the world today.

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#43

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

rsaxvc wrote: post #23
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…

You're eactly right. I saw the blight at Herculaneum, MO in the 2000s - dozers plowing down houses in a slowly expanding circle centered on the smelter. 1 in 5 students had excess blood lead. The schools nearby were scraped down and soil was replaced whenever the lead levels got too high from the dust blowing off the open ore and slag trucks running town. The smelter didn't hit EPA requirements for 25 years, and when…

Doesn't have to be a smelter. Battery factory is enough. Like former VARTA, now Hawker, now closed (2021) in Hagen i.W., Germany.

Lead, so sweet, its dust a sheet, over kindergardens, parks and shools, the fools!

https://osm.org/go/0GMgy_p2J--?m=

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#44

Post by exmadscientist »

jki275 wrote: post #42
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…

Sorry, but as someone who has had to use them, lead-free solders are garbage. They are difficult to work with, require higher temperatures to use, don't last as long, whisker and destroy equipment they're used in. This is all well known, it's not a mystery, and lead in solder is the least of the problems with lead in the world today.

If all you've used is crappy old SAC305 lead-free solder, you owe it to yourself to try a modern alloy like SN100C (& friends, it has several names and similar competitors). It's generations newer and with the right flux (I like AIM's Glow Core wire) it's just great for routine work. It runs a little hotter, but most people already solder too hot anyway, so who cares.

I still use 63/37 or 62/36/2 for anything challenging, though. Or for old rework: many people in this thread are missing that you really, really shouldn't mix alloys on a joint, so you've got to get the old stuff out before switching to lead-free, and at single-joint scale that's a lot more polluting than just grabbing the spool of 63/37.

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#45

Post by jki275 »

exmadscientist wrote: post #44
jki275 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but as someone who has had to use them, lead-free solders are garbage. They are difficult to work with, require higher temperatures to use, don't last as long, whisker and destroy equipment they're used in. This is all well known, it's not a mystery, and lead in solder is the least of the problems with lead in the world today.

If all you've used is crappy old SAC305 lead-free solder, you owe it to yourself to try a modern alloy like SN100C (& friends, it has several names and similar competitors). It's generations newer and with the right flux (I like AIM's Glow Core wire) it's just great for routine work. It runs a little hotter, but most people already solder too hot anyway, so who cares. I still use 63/37 or 62/36/2 for anything challen…

I'll definitely agree that you shouldn't rework old joints with different solder.

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#47

Post by LM358 »

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 are aware that leaded solder is in use in many industries to this day?

I'm soldering with SN62 now as we speak.

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#48

Post by mordechai9000 »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #35
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…

[flagged]

I don't think we should be resorting to calling each other crying babies over this. I recognize that you were not the first.

> I think nobody craves lead in their life.

Plenty of people scoff at the idea that handling lead is risky, whether it's fishing weights, ammunition, or lead solder. I've watched a trained engineer use his teeth to crimp lead fishing weights. He said there wasn't enough exposure to matter, and people had been doing this since before he was born. Is he right? I dunno. I personally want every brain cell I can muster.

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#49

Post by skybrian »

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…

As with anything in the manufacturing process, it depends how it's done. You can imagine it being done safely or dangerously, but either way, it's not a fact, it's something you imagined.

Unfortunately, we usually don't know what safety procedures were followed or whether they're adequate. This requires insight into the whole supply chain.

So, maybe it's better to be safe and ask for alternatives? But we don't know if it helps, because there are other materials and other reasons why one manufacturing process might be better than another.

Consumer purchase decisions are a very indirect way of affecting working conditions and a poor substitute for work-safety regulations.

Re: Finding lead in Stanley's Quencher

#50

Post by wakawaka28 »

mordechai9000 wrote: post #48
wakawaka28 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't think we should be resorting to calling each other crying babies over this. I recognize that you were not the first. > I think nobody craves lead in their life. Plenty of people scoff at the idea that handling lead is risky, whether it's fishing weights, ammunition, or lead solder. I've watched a trained engineer use his teeth to crimp lead fishing weights. He said there wasn't enough exposure to matter, and…

Yes, I just said it was petty to single out hobbyists who use a few grams of lead for a good purpose as if they are killing the planet. That is a hysterical take, and he got more hysterical when I called him out on exaggerating, not knowing what he was talking about, and most likely being a hypocrite. The lithium battery in each of our phones is probably more polluting than an average hobbyist's lifetime allotment of solder.

>Plenty of people scoff at the idea that handling lead is risky, whether it's fishing weights, ammunition, or lead solder. I've watched a trained engineer use his teeth to crimp lead fishing weights. He said there wasn't enough exposure to matter, and people had been doing this since before he was born. Is he right? I dunno. I personally want every brain cell I can muster.

Everything has costs and benefits. In many applications, there are no suitable alternatives to lead, or else the alternatives are scarce and expensive. As a society we have eliminated most excess lead so I think further browbeating over it is silly. Virtually every car has a lead battery, most brass has some lead in it, but otherwise it is scarce in most households. Ammunition is one case where lead is potentially dangerous, but if you need ammunition then the mild precautions necessary to handle the lead are well worth it.

Post reply on HN