Hacker News Reader

> Even researching what soldering wire to use is a pain because apparently leaded solder is just so much "better" when it comes to flowing than non-leaded. It just doesn't seem to be taken that seriously at the hobbyist level (whereas my understanding is that industrial processes already have switched to non-leaded solder). I get that it's easier to use, but what about when kids or pets are around, or you forget to wash your hands, or when disposing of it?

I guess I fit in the hobbyist you mention here so I'll try to chime in and explain. I use lead solder for my drone repairs and a few small home automation projects. Lead solder is not really dangerous at a hobbyist scale because the usages are spaced enough that even if you weren't washing your hands each month after soldering the measurable lead in your (or people around you) blood stream wouldn't be anywhere near worrying. In a way it's similar to asbestos, while it's 100% bad, the mere fact of studying in a room that has asbestos in the ventilation probably won't have an impact on your health. It's the longer exposure of say a teacher that worked 30 years in that environment that's much more dangerous.

There is also the tradeoff of non-leaded solder wire that needs higher temperatures. To compensate you would need to use more flux and that flux is a significant threat to your lungs.

> There is also the tradeoff of non-leaded solder wire that needs higher temperatures. To compensate you would need to use more flux and that flux is a significant threat to your lungs.

From what I've read, I did learn that this is an issue. I'm trying to get a setup going at home, and I've been debating on what to do. I know the lead solder can be mitigated and issues only come from handling it (and not breathing it in), but it gets tougher with things I can't control like kids and pets. Also, what do you do with the parts you've soldered? Does handling these not expose you to lead? I think disposal is still an issue.

I think part of my lament is that there just isn't a lot of pressure to find better solder materials for non-industrial use. I'm assuming industrial use has solved problems. Although I can be careful with lead solder at home, it still feels wrong to be buying it and then disposing of it, even through the proper recycling/disposal channels. Lastly, I actually didn't realize until recently that solder had such significant lead portions in it (if I did, I forgot), which means that all the times I handled it at work (admittedly infrequent) was done without that knowledge. That's on me, but that was part of my point that it's in things that may not be clear to people.

If you are really concerned about flux and lead I would suggest using a lead-free solder with a good (i.e. not the cheap on with "active charcoal filters") fume hood.

As far as handling leaded PCB goes I really don't see it as being an issue unless you voluntarily lick it, and even then I am not sure that there would be nefarious consequences (aside from probably getting sick from leftover flux).

What I do is just use leaded solder but wash my hands afterwards. I solder about every two weeks so I just don't think it would even show up in a blood work. I don't have children but I suppose you can just lock your supplies somewhere or educate them depending on their age.

I use Senju M705 alloy solder, it flows fine at reasonable temperatures and their newer flux formulations are less toxic. The development work on lead-free solder continues apace, so there have been a wider and wider array of low temperature lead free alloys on the market in recent years. This differs from the lead solder world a little in that there has only been three or four formulations out there since the 1950s.

Personally, I think a lot of the avoidance of lead free solder by hobbiests is based on unfamiliarity with it. Once you have spent significant time working with it you get used to it and can work with it well.

Every realtor has told me not to test for lead paint. If the house is older it has it, so if you test you have to check the box and then the new buyer will make you do something about it. If you don't test though you can remain ignorant.

Every house I've lived in has been painted a few times since lead paint was common, which covers up the problem. Getting rid of lead paint is possible, but not really affordable.

Only once have I physically encountered leaded solder, and immediately wrapped it up with the lead-acid batteries I had to take to hazardous waste in my city.

I always try to reduce the exposure I have for myself if at all possible. My family's house was built in the 80's and we've ensured that there's no leaded paint on the house or water pipes on the property.

> But all a seller has to do is check on the form that they have no knowledge of lead in the house. The house could literally be filled with it on the walls, door jams, windows, but if they check "we're not sure", then both them and the state have washed their hands of the issue

You're using moralizing language, but what else do you think could happen here? Barring government funding, by-the-book remediation costs a lot of money. So the two options are either completely remediating the lead and offer that as a selling point, or just kicking the can down the road ("I don't know but it was painted before 1978 so make your own informed guess"). If the seller checked the box for positive existence of lead, they would be doing you no favors since you'd be getting the exact same physical house, but would also have to check the known-lead box when selling the house down the line.

If you only want to buy a house that has been fully remediated, you could make your offer contingent upon that. But since your offer has to be competitive with the rest of the market, that would cost a similar amount to buying the house as it is and then doing your own remediation afterwards.

If you go to rent that house out and the renters have small kids, then you can no longer kick the can down the road. It makes for a painful immediate situation, but barring government funded remediation or straight up mandating that every bit of lead paint needs to be remediated before a house can be sold (despite it being fine for the majority of people), I don't see how else it could be handled.

The problem is that there is an incentive to not check.

But the state could easily change that. The state could introduce a law where the seller must cover remediation costs if lead is discovered after the sale.

Then sellers would have an incentive to check for lead contamination ahead of the sale.

> what else do you think could happen here?

The seller could actually care about the health of the fellow human being they're doing business with.

> proper remediation costs a lot of money

So what? Not doing it means harming other people. That's criminal negligence.

Inert lead, like asbestos, is safe to be around. It only really becomes a problem if you start taking actions that could allow it to become airborne in some way. There's nothing especially negligent about allowing lead paint to remain somewhere, especially if it's been sealed under layers of non-lead paint as is going to be the case in most situations at this point.

One point is that one should be proactive in testing things on your house and property because no one else is going to do it, which is obviously and unfortunately exclusionary due to socioeconomic factors, as the article points out. Although that only gives you power to test things you have control over.

The other point is basically what you've already made by your elaborations. The entire lead and radon disclosure and right to test is basically theater. The disclosures are toothless, and at least in the market I'm in, you will not get an offer accepted if you keep your right to test. So the whole thing is pointless and only exists to protect industries and governments from repercussions. As you've also pointed out, the current process just creates conflicts of interests.

For radon, testing is cheap and easy. I think short term testing or testing records should be required when selling/buying a house with long term testing recommended (and prior long term test logs provided). For lead, I agree that the situation on testing and remediation is more complicated. For one, it shows the major and long-running repercussions to using and allowing lead in the first place and for so long. I.e., there are consequences to our actions and they can create a mess. In my view, actual knowledge is better than the current situation, which is one of theater, covering ass, and conflicts of interests. The practicalities of enforcing that knowledge I think are tough, but it should be better attempted. I don't think it's reasonable to completely remove lead from houses. That can basically only be done by a gut renovation (to my knowledge). But I do think it's more reasonable to think about testing and logging when it comes to windows, door frames, and other high probability areas, including when these areas were last replaced or last painted.

> [the seller] and the state have washed their hands of the issue

I took this as judgement that the seller or the state should be doing something else. Which seems like you, as the new owner of the house, wanting someone else to have completely solved the problem for you without fully owning that stance and paying to get it done. It seemed like you were passing this judgement having only considered half the issue, which feels like the same perspective that got us this useless do-something disclosure legal dance in the first place.

Ignore that feel-good disclosure song and dance, here is the actual knowledge: if you're buying a house that was built before 1978, it behooves you to assume that every painted surface has been painted with lead paint, period. The "what if" scenario isn't the house having lead, it's the house not heaving lead - a newer-built addition could be a lead-free bonus. But barring any written representation by the seller or negative test, that's the condition of the house.

There are other comments in this thread talking about remediation companies being a racket (not surprising because any time anything gets regulated in such a way, it becomes a captive market). Making testing mandatory would further entrench that racket - eg "your house tested positive for lead when you bought it, and now it's testing negative. How could that have happened without hiring a certified ripoff remediation company?". In reality a P100 respirator, good worksite hygiene, and disposal in municipal trash will get the job done (at least last time I checked a decade ago, disposal regs may have changed).

(I'm sympathetic to the socioeconomic angle, but enforcement of current tenant law as written would actually solve that for lead paint, at least in the states I'm aware of. So unless you're thinking a government program that pays for proactive lead remediation, I don't know what else could be done)

Radon is comparatively cheap to mitigate. Burying your head in the sand about that is kinda dumb.

Completely removing lead is economically unfeasible. When we bought our house, which was built in '72, we replaced all the door jams and window sills. It wasn't as cheap as mitigating radon but it wasn't "tear out all the drywall" expensive, and should generally be good enough as long as you don't let the house completely deteriorate.

>Even researching what soldering wire to use is a pain because apparently leaded solder is just so much "better" when it comes to flowing than non-leaded.

This used to be true (I remember having to grind through many different solders on different boards for work and they sucked compared to the Multicore 60/40 5 core rosin fluxed solder), but modern alloys are pretty good. Whatever you're using you must use ventilation too, so the comments about flux are already answered.

I feel that there's a much wider range of soldering tasks that solder has to cope with now. In the past hobbyists had single or dual layer PCBs with big pads and through hole components, or stranded wire and big connector buckets. But now we have tiny surface mount components on tiny pads, or a big FET on a 12 layer board with a big ground plane. If it's something you're doing at work you get used to the feel of it and can set your iron station up accordingly, but if you're a hobbyist you don't get that practice and set up time.

I don't understand why people wouldn't bother testing for radon - the mitigation systems tend to be cheap when compared to getting rid of lead, which might involve tearing out all your drywall.