Sixthly ... That's right, I have seen comments on the Forums, on off-eBay forums and site, which mention that other countries and Unions (like the EU) have strict laws pertaining to lead. So I became curious and decided to research the subject. I found the following information about the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS), which was adopted by the European Union in February 2003 and which took effect on 1 July 2006. I think it is highly interesting, that this Directive was adopted in 2003, and that business had almost 3.5 years to apply the rules in this directive to their business. (The point has been made on numerous websiteand forums, that our congressmen should have alloted more time for the transition to put their law into effect.) For those of you who do not know about how the EU is organized. It is not like the United States. Therefore the EU can NOT make LAWS. They can only pass Directives. It is up to each member country to decide what the best ways are to apply those Directives in their country, and to pass their own laws. While I only scanned the information briefly, here are some notes of interest: 1. The Directive covers 6 banned substances, including ......a. Lead ......b. Mercury ......c. Cadmium ......d. Hexavalent chromium (Cr6+) ......e. Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) - flame retardant ......f. Polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) - flame retardant 2. The maximum permitted concentrations of these 6 elements and compounds are 0.1% or 1000 ppm (except for cadmium, which is limited to 0.01% or 100 ppm) 3. These substances are banned from ALL products with no regard for whether it is made for a child, a dog, an adult or a Klingon. (the dog and Klingon were my additions.-PEN) 4. The directive applies to the following Categories:* ......a. Large and small household appliances. ......b. IT equipment. ......c. Telecommunications equipment (although infrastructure equipment is exempt in some countries) ......d. Consumer equipment. ......e. Lighting equipment—including light bulbs. ......f. Electronic and electrical tools. ......g. Toys, leisure, and sports equipment. ......h. Medical devices (currently exempt)** ......i. Monitoring and control instruments (currently exempt)** ......j. Automatic dispensers. *It is noted that batteries already fall under an earlier EU Directive. **Due to the serious nature of the equipment in these two categories, they are currently exempt while the EU studies the longetivity of non-lead welds. Curiously missing from the list of banned products are clothing and books!!!! 5. Economic effect - There are no de minimus exemptions, (e.g., for micro-businesses,) meaning that some small businesses had to closed down, citing the cost of compliance. This economic effect was anticipated and at least some attempts at mitigating the effect were made. (No further information about this "mitigation" was given. I would tend to believe that if this information came from a EU governing body, they would tend to under-report the effects on small businesses - PEN) ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS: ......1. Most of the listed categories seem to contain metal, although I'm sure lead in paint is considered (in the case of toys.) ......2. No where do I see any reference to books or clothing or items of that nature in the Directive. ......3. The article did not specify testing procedures, nor costs associated with testing, so I do not know if these are reasonable for manufacturers. ......4. When I compare this EU Directive to the new CPSIA law, I find RoHS to be well thought-out, logical and easy to understand. There are recommendations included for the recycling of consumer electronics, so that their landfills are not poisoned by out-dated, lead-filled equipment. ......5. Compared to RoHS, the new CPSIA looks slip-shod. It appears as if the US authors tried to "borrow" parts of the EU Directive without full consideration of how all the parts of RoHs work together. Where the US lawmakers came up with the idea of including clothing and books into CPSIA, I have no idea. ......6. Although the RoHs allows for higher levels of lead and the other elements and compounds, I personally do not have a problem with the stricter standards required by CPSIA, EXCEPT that apparently it is impossible for US manufacturers to meet these standards, with the raw materials available on the market today. (For example, there is no paint on the market today which meets the August 16 lead requirement.) Had american lawmakers given manufacturers more time to meet these requirements, they would not have to be making products today, which will be considered "hazardous goods" on August 16. 7. Notice that this EU Directive does not include Phthalates. Phthalates were banned in the EU in 2005. 8. This article, which summarizes this EU Directive can be found at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Substances_Directive Yes, this is a Wikipedia listing, and Wikipedia listings are not considered to be the final source for information. But let me point out that there are 55 related references given, as well as 20 links to associated websites, which you may explore if you are so inclined. Also let me mention here, that I spent 1.5 hours researching the information about this EU Directive in both German and English. And the Wikipedia entry was one of the few sites I found with exhaustive information for the layman. I would be willing to bet you, that I spent more time researching the European Union's Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) than most of our Congressmen did.