Hi en2oh,
You criticize others here who have expressed the opinion that current RoHS and RoHS-like restrictions ("RoHS") go too far and have shown no quantitative results in attaining their purpose. You seem to be the one, however, who presents no data. Supposedly, your credentials speak for themselves and data are not needed. I don't agree. The adverse effects of RoHS are all around us. Specifically from the standpoint of electronics, there are the problems of solder failures, difficulty in production, added costs, and in a few cases, complete unavailability of RoHS compliant parts.
First, what is the health purpose of RoHS? How can its success be measured? No one here is going to debate that lead is a toxic metal. No one here will say that exposure shouldn't be reasonably limited. As you point out, other things in our environment, such as cigarette smoking, are more dangerous and cause more death and morbidity than lead ever did; yet, cigarette use is not nearly as restricted as lead. One of the driving forces on RoHS legislation was concern that exposure of children to excess lead causes mental retardation. Now that we have had some version of RoHS in the US for almost 2 generations, where are the data on mental retardation to support that premise?
Second, RoHS is or has become an almost purely politically motivated over-reach of government. That is what people, including myself, are objecting to in this thread. RoHS has created an almost paranoid reaction in the public. People are afraid of it. You stress that RoHS is a fact of life. Lead is a fact of life too. You cannot get away from it. However, RoHS can be changed through are legislative processes. The way to begin that process is to have open rational dialog. Governments have effectively said that any lead is bad. Where are the data? Is that really to protect us or to allow unlimited intrusion in our lives?
The first was the notion that lead is only toxic as a salt. That is nonsense. Plain and simple. It is nonsense from a chemists perspective and it is nonsense from a medical doctors perspective. Problems can be debated. Facts are either accepted or ignored. Your choice.
I don't recall anyone arguing that exposure to elemental lead in some forms is not dangerous. Moreover, I think everyone is aware that ingested lead is better absorbed in children than in adults.
Please explain from a chemist's perspective why the vastly lower absorption rate of metallic lead as compared to oxidized lead is nonsense. And from a medical perspective, please explain why a lead bullet in soft tissue (not next to a bone) does not affect blood lead levels at all. Should it be removed to prevent lead toxicity?
RoHS is not a fact, except so far as the uncertainty of its cost benefits go AND, that it has been passed as legislation. Deal with it. Debate it, but don't use it to prop up statements made in other postings that claim knowledge in matters medical OR chemical. (1) Lead is a known heavy metal toxin. It is irrelevent how many individual lead levels have been done on you or others.(2) Statistics don't work that way. (3)Conclusions drawn from these observations and anecdotes are misleading, unreliable and in some cases dangerous.
@1 We are all aware of that. The discussion is about cost-benefit.
@2 Just how do statistics work in your view? It is really a matter of science, not politics, to determine what levels of lead produce no discernible effects in humans. That science is justifiably based on multiple measurements of a large number of people who show no effects compared to people who show effects. Now that lead has been restricted in paint and gasoline for several decades, we have a good opportunity to compare the before and after pictures. Statistics should clearly play a part in that analysis.
@3 Not sure what you mean by conclusions based on observations being misleading and unreliable. Of course, one must take care in making conclusions from any experimental observation. What is your better alternative?
The rest of your comments can be subjected to similar dissection, but I don't think that would change your perspective. I do think that your claims and assertions need to be supported by data. Most important, I don't think discussion of RoHS as an intrusive political ploy is silly. Isn't that the same characterization applied advocates who lack data to anyone who questions other hot topic items?
John
Us consumers don't count 
