sheltie dave Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 A Ryan C. Inman has filed suit against multiple manufacturers and sellers of vacuum tubes that contain mecury, alleging that harm has occured from exposure to hazardous mercury. Interesting, especially if this is HotGlassAudio's Ryan Inman, as the lawsuit states his potential exposure began in 2001. Linky... http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=416146 Having waded through the legalese, there doesn't appear to be any specificity to his claim of injury, while he appears to be shotgunning a suit against every possible supplier, and also avoiding any possible admission of improperly handling mercury containing vacuum tubes, if that is even the valid source of poisoning. While wishing Ryan a speedy recovery, I don't believe his lawsuit is standing on solid legal ground. have there been multiple successful lawsuits in this area, as this is the first I have ever seen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalogWave Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Great. Just great. Is there really mercury in some or all tubes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 Not to be mean, but it helps to read the lawsuit, and some of the associated material.[] The tubes that are alleged to cause the mercury poisoning include the 83, 857, 866, 872, 6BQ5, and their variants, and yes, they can and/or do contain mercury. This is indeed "our" Ryan, and from reading the lawsuit, a reasonable person wonders whether the exposure was from an accident, unsafe acts, or defective vacuum tubes as the suit alleges. The suit also appears to name every single possible party, whether Ryan ever purchased vacuum tubes from their company, or if he has any documentation that he ever handled their products. The pertinent question is not whether vacuum tubes contain mercury, thorium, tungsten, and other hazardous heavy metals, but what are the normal exposure hazards, how do you safely handle tubes, and what risks are present if you break a tube. I have never heard of a factory worker having acute mercury poisoning with a far greater risk of chronic and acute exposure, so what did Ryan do that was so radically different, and what is his toxicity level? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalogWave Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Lookingback at my post, I did a rather poor job of structuring it, as it was apparenton the first page of the thread (as far as I got) that the suit wasunfounded. I am now,however, surprised at all the nasties that inhabit tubes – I’ve never read ofthis anywhere. Is there a properway to recycle tubes like there is for car batteries and refrigerant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russ69 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I would encapsulate the hazardous materials into a glass tube. Oops, that is a vacuum tube! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Dave, I've known about this hilarious lawsuit for a while. Doug at dougstubes.com is one of the listed defendants. He called me after receiving the documents... It's been a long time since I had laughed that hard. No mercury is used in the manufacture of any regularly used for audio type vacuum tubes. In fact from what I understand only Mercury ever used in Vacuum tube was with mercury rectifiers made like 50+ years ago .... Yes this is the same Ryan Inman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkrop Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 EVERY Fluorescent light bulb contains mercury and is a vacuum tube. They are just not audio tubes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Yes this is the same Ryan Inman. It's all coming back to me...[:|] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebes Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Is he suing all the customers he stole old stock tubes from and then re-sold? [6] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZAKO Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I new a INMAN that was sniffing glue..I wonder if that is him.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest " " Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 EVERY Fluorescent light bulb contains mercury and is a vacuum tube. They are just not audio tubes. thats what doesnt make sense. 4ft'ers drop all the time and what ever is in there enters the atmosphere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 Just wait until the OTHER shoe drops, when he sues all the customers that sent him tube amps containing hazardous materials.[] Not a good way to drum up business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 He was the one sniffing all that solder... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike stehr Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Just wait until the OTHER shoe drops, when he sues all the customers that sent him tube amps containing hazardous materials. Not a good way to drum up business. According to his lawsuit, he doesn't work on tube gear anymore because of his illness. http://www.cascadesurplus.com/lawsuit/Inman_V_Technicolor_Et_Al.pdf Beware: Large file... Here's an opinion by Jac van de Walle, which I think is the guy for the Jac tube site. "One mistake I see, is accusing a whole list of companies. That will set free an army of lawyers, and if he looses the case completely,. I wonder whose is going to pay that in the end. With my company I would never accept being sued with something, come out 100%innocent, and have to pay my lawyer myself. I would start second case about that. About being sued for nothing, and the costs resulting from that. If the accused can raise doubt, the accusing party has the obligation to prove his accusations to a level of full 100%. It's what lawyers call "In dubio pro reo". This is important. Google for this, and you'll see what I mean. It is not enough for Mr.. Plaintiff to say he has typical symptoms linked to Mercury. First he must say how much Mercury he has in his body. Then how much this is above normal levels (we all have Mercury accumulated), and then he must PROVE it was those 83 rectifiers that caused just this. The amount in his body is easy to determine. Mercury poisoning is often linked to detoriating Dental fillings. The older type fillings start to scrape off the Mercury against each other, when they're not taken care off, or when you're not seeing a Dentist at all. I have a lot of doubt, and I would even say it's impossible to get poisoned by 83 rectifiers. For poisoning it needs quite some Mercury in your body. If I recall correctly from my studies days, the lethal dose is 13 gramsor so, but this is not what talk about. This person has only symptoms, and symptoms are in small percent range of the lethal dose. So what do we talk about, probably about a lot of milligrams. So from the symptoms I suppose toxolocial expert can say something about the total amount in his body. Then one must ask the question if this amount can have other sources such as bad teeth, or eating too much fish. Also the professions this person had, ever since. All of this may raise doubt. What I do know is this: Mercury poisoning is not possible from Solid Mercury. So not from drops. If swallowed, these will leave your body the next day as is. >From a broken rectifier, some miniature drops remain in his room somewhere, and evaporate over time, and give some very small amountof gas. Mercury accumulates in the body, but it can also be excreted by the body. Besides you're supposed to refresh the air daily inyour rooms, and the path from those drops particularly only into the body of a person being in that room is for me hard toimagine. It is just as attracted by anything else with a surface, like books, wallpaper and so on.What is very poisoning, is solved Mercury SALT in water and food. We don't have this in Mercury tubes. We have Barium salt, andsome others, but not Mercury salt.The poisoning that (may have) happened here, it can NOT have happened from tubes with glass cracks being send by sellers. Sucha tube would not work at all, not heat up, and not evaporate it's Mercury. It would just stay inside. What remains is Mercury GAS as the only possible source for poisoning. The only thing I can imagine, he breaks a good workingtube and inhales the Mercury gas that comes out at that moment. Now the gas cloud in a rectifier is very low concentration. That is because the tube is vacuum still. Otherwise it wouldn't workas a vacuum device. So we talk about a small dose only. How much gas is that? I would compare this with normal fluorescent Light tubes, the ones that are in every building. These have afew drops of solid Mercury inside just as well. Fluorescent lamps have on each side a Barium filament of 6.3Volts working voltage andare Mercury gas filled, same as 83 rectifiers. The danger when breaking a good, working 83 rectifier, is the same as when breaking a working fluorescent lamp. Such a breakage can happen to anyone, and there is no warning whatsoever on fluorescent lamps. I think it is valid to say Mercury rectifiers are the same hazard level. Meaning you should dispose of them as toxic waist, but for the rest there is no risk involved in glass breakage or vacuum defects, and inhaling the low level of gas resulting from that. Well this is only my personal opinion.Thanks + best regards,Jac" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Always trying to make lemonade out of lemons (and save some dough), I've begun using weak tubes as thermometers. I haven't gone any larger than 6BQ5s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seti Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 That is crazy. LOL I should have sued him for shipping my tubes back to me without properly packing them. I suppose I could have been poisoned by mercury . The sound of tinkling glass was sad as was the amp damaged in shipping.. I don't wish ill health on anyone. Hope he recovers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groomlakearea51 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I'm still waiting for the lawsuit against the doctor who spanked me at birth....... [H] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkrop Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Always trying to make lemonade out of lemons (and save some dough), I've begun using weak tubes as thermometers. I haven't gone any larger than 6BQ5s. Shouldn't you be using "rectifier" tubes?[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tube fanatic Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 There have also been lawsuits regarding bakelite tube bases! Guess I shouldn't be alive any more after handling so many thousands of tubes over the years: http://www.antiquewireless.org/otb/vt0108.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Always trying to make lemonade out of lemons (and save some dough), I've begun using weak tubes as thermometers. I haven't gone any larger than 6BQ5s.Shouldn't you be using "rectifier" tubes? Touché! I know I just had a 6X4 around here somewhere... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.