gtacleveland t1_jddm7hz wrote

I understand that you moron. I'm saying it is not physically possible for any product to have 0% lead content, ie, be 100% lead free.

You yourself are not lead free. You were born with lead in your body. You will die with it in your body, and hopefully it never reaches a concentration that does serious harm to your body.

I don't understand what you don't get.


gtacleveland t1_jddk1iu wrote

No shit Sherlock, of course there shouldn't be any. But it is not physically or statistically possible to be 100% free of it. What do you not understand about this? There is no absolutes. Hell the human body naturally has lead and plutonium and other heavy metals in it. The difference is that there is an acceptable amount that won't harm you.


gtacleveland t1_jddh0ev wrote

Are you stupid or do you not understand statistics? You can mandate a company guarantee their products be 99% free of contamination, or 99.9% free, or even as high 99.99999% free. But you can never guarantee something be 100% free of contamination. There is always risk. The best you can do is mandate a product be within safe limits. In the real world you can get functionally close to 0% or 100% but you can never achieve them.


gtacleveland t1_jddezmg wrote

You can mandate what a specific amount, but you cannot ensure that something is 100% free of a certain chemical or defect or contamination. You can only mitigate the problem to an accepted level, whether that is set by a customer or mandated by the government. I would know, I'm an engineer who deals with quality control in a factory every damn day.


gtacleveland t1_j72gbas wrote

In case anybody is wondering, the Leo 1 is not great at fighting modern tanks because it is obsolete, thinly armored, and has only a 105mm gun. But it doesn't have to fight tanks. That what the ATGM's and MBT's are for. This will likely be used like a light tank to exploit breakthroughs and scout, and for protected direct fire support in support of infantry and other armored vehicles.