Doug's Tubes
New Member
I am one of the named defendants.
Last edited:
Mercury poisoning from rectifier tubes lawsuit
- Thread starter Wigwam Jones
- Start date
- Status
Judgments can almost always be entered for enforcement in a state other than where they were issued. I used to do it all the time when working in a government child support enforcement office.
(this isn't legal advice, check your local statutes and/or consult a local attorney)
Wigwam Jones
Caesar non supra grammati
I'm sorry to hear it. Have you responded to the suit, and if so, can you talk about it?
sheltie dave
Addicted Member
Or it could be what is right about having a few good friends. I know three lawyers who would work for a couple good matched quads of output tubes, and I am sure there are a couple good lawyers/audiophiles in Pennsylvania who would do the same.
Keep in mind the plaintiff DEFINITELY has been to the hospital multiple times, and is quite sick physically, and may have (ahem) other issues as well. He may well be bankrupt from all these difficulties, and may have been led to think that a simple little lawsuit will scare up enogh money to get him back to square.
Ryan may even be one of those unfortunate folks who have a system that responds to minimal heavy metal exposures below both the Time Weighted Average(TWA) and Short Term Exposure Limit(STEL) that have been developed by OSHA, NIOSH, and the ACGIH for occupational exposed workers.
If I were any of the named parties in the lawsuit, I would be making friends pronto with a few audiophile industrial hygienists and litigation attorneys. In rapid order, I would request the IH conduct a thorough airborne survey of all mercury containing vacuum tube storage areas with a calibrated Jerome mercury analyzer, pull a mercury smear swab of all vacuum tube testers used to take for-sale readings of vacuum tubes, likewise test 10% of all mercury containing vacuum tubes, and collect all mercury containing vacuum tubes test readings.
I would then provide said gathered test results and IH/Lab results to the litigation attorneys, and they can make an airtight case that all tubes sold to Hot Glass Audio
1) were sold and properly packed for shipment while under vacuum
2) all tube testers, testing areas, and storage areas are, within the accuracy of the Jerome and testing methodology, free of airborne and residual mercury 3)no mercury containing vacuum tubes were returned by Hot Glass Audio as defective, likewise, no request to refill a defective tube order was ever received from Hot Glass Audio
4)Due to items 1, 2, and 3, said defendent(s) acted with due diligence and provided reasonable safety precautions to ensure said ordered products arrived at Hot Glass Audio intact and ready for service.
It will cost a little money and a fair amount of time, but being comprehensive will save your ass many times over. BTW, I would wager that Ryan has taken none of these IH steps to establish that his exposure is due to defective products, rather than slipshod or improper safe work practices. Having years of work experience in the heavy metals/radioactive materials venue, contamination events like Ryan's are virtually always due to poor engineering controls and even worse work habits.
Doug, if you want, check your PM box. Give me a call if you want.:thmbsp:
Keep in mind the plaintiff DEFINITELY has been to the hospital multiple times, and is quite sick physically, and may have (ahem) other issues as well. He may well be bankrupt from all these difficulties, and may have been led to think that a simple little lawsuit will scare up enogh money to get him back to square.
Ryan may even be one of those unfortunate folks who have a system that responds to minimal heavy metal exposures below both the Time Weighted Average(TWA) and Short Term Exposure Limit(STEL) that have been developed by OSHA, NIOSH, and the ACGIH for occupational exposed workers.
If I were any of the named parties in the lawsuit, I would be making friends pronto with a few audiophile industrial hygienists and litigation attorneys. In rapid order, I would request the IH conduct a thorough airborne survey of all mercury containing vacuum tube storage areas with a calibrated Jerome mercury analyzer, pull a mercury smear swab of all vacuum tube testers used to take for-sale readings of vacuum tubes, likewise test 10% of all mercury containing vacuum tubes, and collect all mercury containing vacuum tubes test readings.
I would then provide said gathered test results and IH/Lab results to the litigation attorneys, and they can make an airtight case that all tubes sold to Hot Glass Audio
1) were sold and properly packed for shipment while under vacuum
2) all tube testers, testing areas, and storage areas are, within the accuracy of the Jerome and testing methodology, free of airborne and residual mercury 3)no mercury containing vacuum tubes were returned by Hot Glass Audio as defective, likewise, no request to refill a defective tube order was ever received from Hot Glass Audio
4)Due to items 1, 2, and 3, said defendent(s) acted with due diligence and provided reasonable safety precautions to ensure said ordered products arrived at Hot Glass Audio intact and ready for service.
It will cost a little money and a fair amount of time, but being comprehensive will save your ass many times over. BTW, I would wager that Ryan has taken none of these IH steps to establish that his exposure is due to defective products, rather than slipshod or improper safe work practices. Having years of work experience in the heavy metals/radioactive materials venue, contamination events like Ryan's are virtually always due to poor engineering controls and even worse work habits.
Doug, if you want, check your PM box. Give me a call if you want.:thmbsp:
sheltie dave
Addicted Member
And if you want a headache or can't get to sleep, here is a good read about CFLs and mercury, answering the question about the mercury in lightbulbs - and throwing a cohort exposure in Ryan's lawsuit.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2646878/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2646878/
I think I saw that eBay removed the action from state court to federal. Depending on the details of how the original complaint was served on each defendant, and what service has occured thereafter, they may be subject to the court's jurisdiction, or not. Complicated issues, and there's no way to speculate on the outcome.
Hopefully, the defendants are working together.
Go get em Dave. :thmbsp:
Khodabear
Super Member
Could they employ common representation? If they did how could each be sure their individual best interests were being served?
Cascade didn't sell the plaintiff any tubes. Dave might have.
And so on and so forth on ad infinitum
Catswold
It's psy-cat-delic!
"Loser pays" laws would be a good first step in preventing this, but as long as judges refuse to dismiss these sorts of frivolous lawsuits, this will continue and innocent companies like Cascade will continue to be forced into bankruptcy.
It's too bad, especially for those of us who enjoy this hobby. How amusing is it that this law suit is against tube manufacturers and marketers for mercury poisoning, when we now are mandated to use mercury containing compact florescent light bulbs?:screwy:
Will
P.S. In case you missed the connection, "chicks" made a funny, page 5, comment #74. "Mad as a hatter."
Mercury was used in curing felt for making hats and the fumes inhaled over an extended period of time led to neurological problems like slurred speech.
It's too bad, especially for those of us who enjoy this hobby. How amusing is it that this law suit is against tube manufacturers and marketers for mercury poisoning, when we now are mandated to use mercury containing compact florescent light bulbs?:screwy:
WillP.S. In case you missed the connection, "chicks" made a funny, page 5, comment #74. "Mad as a hatter."
Mercury was used in curing felt for making hats and the fumes inhaled over an extended period of time led to neurological problems like slurred speech.
Brian
An Old Geezer
While the defendants could have common representation it is unlikely as a common defense will be that the defendant's actions did not cause the injury and therefore, if there was any injury one of the other defendants may be the cause. A lawyer would be in a conflict of interest almost from the start.
While many here are dicing the plaintiff and the lawyers, remember that this is a cornerstone of our society and our republic; the ability of each to seek redress. A lawyer looks at the client's claim and if there is a possibility he sends it to the court and the judge or a jury then decides if there is merit and if there is what the damages are. Consider, how it would feel if you felt you had a case but, could not convince a lawyer of the merits and it required a lawyer to send it to a court or, you had to prove it by a perpoderance of the evidence before a court would take it and regardless of how you felt neither the lawyer or the court would listen.
I agree, there are cases before the court that should be dismissed early as the proffered evidence does not support the claim but, that is the lawyer's job to bring the issue to the judge. If you do not file an answer, you are under the rules admitting the facts and impliedly asking the court to proceed on the claim. File a general denial at a minimum as it preserves your right to argue and examine. A lawyer can help help in forming a pro-se answer of general denial, he does not agree to represent you, for a small fee and in some States possibly a paraprofessional service can also. It is better to spend a hundred or so, then 5x the amount and declare bankruptcy and throw in the towel when you feel you have done nothing wrong.
While many here are dicing the plaintiff and the lawyers, remember that this is a cornerstone of our society and our republic; the ability of each to seek redress. A lawyer looks at the client's claim and if there is a possibility he sends it to the court and the judge or a jury then decides if there is merit and if there is what the damages are. Consider, how it would feel if you felt you had a case but, could not convince a lawyer of the merits and it required a lawyer to send it to a court or, you had to prove it by a perpoderance of the evidence before a court would take it and regardless of how you felt neither the lawyer or the court would listen.
I agree, there are cases before the court that should be dismissed early as the proffered evidence does not support the claim but, that is the lawyer's job to bring the issue to the judge. If you do not file an answer, you are under the rules admitting the facts and impliedly asking the court to proceed on the claim. File a general denial at a minimum as it preserves your right to argue and examine. A lawyer can help help in forming a pro-se answer of general denial, he does not agree to represent you, for a small fee and in some States possibly a paraprofessional service can also. It is better to spend a hundred or so, then 5x the amount and declare bankruptcy and throw in the towel when you feel you have done nothing wrong.
drknstrmyknight
Addicted Member
If the far flung defendants can retain common local council, I will gladly contribute.
In cases of nonsense litigation, joint defense agreements are not uncommon. They allow each defendant to break off from the others at will, and they allocate costs. Each defendant waives the potential conflicts, which allows one lawyer to represent all up to the point where an actual conflicts arise. In the case of a nonsense suit, getting rid of the case early can avoid the potential conflicts becoming actual.
For example, in this case, general denials followed by a motion for summary judgment based on the non-consumer status of the plaintiff, the statute of limitations, and other similar common defenses could prove effective, without ever having to get into the differences between the defendants.
All of that isn't simple to achieve, but if the deep pocket defendants want to, it can be done.... and often gets done because the deep pockets become concerned that one of the little guys will make some litigational error that gets them all in the soup. Even though one defendant can usually avoid being affected by the others' errors, that can be really hard, especially in a jury trial, so they want to control the whole thing. If I were GE, I'd be thinking just that, as these tiny defendants could easily settle for $1,000 and admissions that the tubes caused the injury, but that they didn't know and they relied on the big guys to make safe products or notify everyone of the problem.
I hate litigation, because of these kinds of weird twists and endless traps.
For example, in this case, general denials followed by a motion for summary judgment based on the non-consumer status of the plaintiff, the statute of limitations, and other similar common defenses could prove effective, without ever having to get into the differences between the defendants.
All of that isn't simple to achieve, but if the deep pocket defendants want to, it can be done.... and often gets done because the deep pockets become concerned that one of the little guys will make some litigational error that gets them all in the soup. Even though one defendant can usually avoid being affected by the others' errors, that can be really hard, especially in a jury trial, so they want to control the whole thing. If I were GE, I'd be thinking just that, as these tiny defendants could easily settle for $1,000 and admissions that the tubes caused the injury, but that they didn't know and they relied on the big guys to make safe products or notify everyone of the problem.
I hate litigation, because of these kinds of weird twists and endless traps.
Doug's Tubes
New Member
Yes, we are co-defendants with New Sensor Corp.
Wigwam Jones
Caesar non supra grammati
Yep.
Brian
An Old Geezer
I'd not suggest the defendants admit that the tubes caused the injury as such an admission may be used against them in the future by another Plaintiff of even a 2rd party defendant in this suit should there be such brought in. Better to admit nothing and settle without admitting anything as is the normal case with many settlements. Because it is based on mercury, outsiders may be interested.
As mercury is a contaminent an agency such as the EPA may be on the sidelines and such an admission might trigger them coming into the picture as they then have an admission against interests to work with. When advising a client, a lawyer needs to think way beyond the box as sometimes, fighting off a bee, there is a rattler circling your shoes.
As mercury is a contaminent an agency such as the EPA may be on the sidelines and such an admission might trigger them coming into the picture as they then have an admission against interests to work with. When advising a client, a lawyer needs to think way beyond the box as sometimes, fighting off a bee, there is a rattler circling your shoes.
So a guy files a lawsuit against some companies, which will probably be found to be baseless, and somehow this has something to do with energy efficient light bulb standards? Which, by the way, do not REQUIRE anyone to use CFLs, only that light bulbs that are sold meet certain efficiency standards. I don't see the connection.
In any case, suggest you not eat or inhale either one. :thmbsp:
beemers417
New Member
What do you call 1,000,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean...
sheltie dave
Addicted Member
Chris, in order for the modern CFL to meet efficiency standards, the manufacturers are pretty much boxed in to using mercury as the catalyzing agent for the electrical flourescing, and a relative large amount at that. These bulbs can contain between 0.7 and 115 mg Hg per lamp, with the average being 3 to 5 micrograms per bulb.
To quote a passage from the NIH study, "As an illustration of the effects of CFL breakage, the release of only 1 mg of Hg vapor (~20% of the Hg inventory in a single CFL) into a 500 m3 room (10 × 10 × 5m) yields 2.0 μg/m3 or ten times the ATSDR-recommended level of 0.2 μg/m3 in the absence of ventilation.
There is limited information on the timing and extent of Hg vapor release from fractured lamps (1,2,5), especially the new CFLs. Jang et al. (1) report only 0.04−0.17% of the Hg as vapor, but this was a study of the phase partitioning within the bulb volume, not a study of the gradual evaporation and release characteristics upon fracture under atmospheric conditions, where we find much larger amounts of Hg vapor (see below). Following any mercury spill, hard surfaces can be cleaned, but in the absence of in situ treatment technologies, porous materials such as carpets or woodwork must be removed and discarded (4). Carpet vacuuming can release Hg vapor when large gas volumes are forced across the Hg-containing dust cake in the vacuum cleaner internal filter. If not removed, spilled Hg liquid will continue to release vapor over time and can spread to other sites through foot traffic. Most consumer information on CFLs claim there is no significant health risk from small numbers of broken lamps, and indeed, since the 1960s, examples of Hg poisoning from all sources have become rare (6). There is one report of Hg poisoning (acrodynia) in a child exposed to broken tube-type fluorescents in a detailed case study presented by Tunnessen et al. (6)."
Keep in mind it is difficult to definitively establish how much mercury goes airborne or volatilizes while operating, but it may be reasonable to expect a linear algebraic function to properly model both CFLs and vacuum tubes. Some research would be needed to determine whether to model it via a voltage vs an amperage constant. I would expect the percentage emitted from a broken unenergized vacuum tube to be far less than one that is energized, however.
To put potential exposure from such a lamp vs a vacuum tube in perspective, the OSHA permissible exposure level is 0.1 micrograms/cubic meter airborne(8 hr day), the NIOSH recommended exposure level is 0.05 micrograms/cubic meter airborne(8 hr day), and the ACGIH threshold limit value is 0.025 microgram/cubic meter. Mercury exposure is a serious concern due to potential harm to developing children, so the ATSDR established a recommended ceiling of 0.02 microgram/cubic meter for children.
Does anyone know of any site that provides any mercury values present in vintage vacuum tubes?
To quote a passage from the NIH study, "As an illustration of the effects of CFL breakage, the release of only 1 mg of Hg vapor (~20% of the Hg inventory in a single CFL) into a 500 m3 room (10 × 10 × 5m) yields 2.0 μg/m3 or ten times the ATSDR-recommended level of 0.2 μg/m3 in the absence of ventilation.
There is limited information on the timing and extent of Hg vapor release from fractured lamps (1,2,5), especially the new CFLs. Jang et al. (1) report only 0.04−0.17% of the Hg as vapor, but this was a study of the phase partitioning within the bulb volume, not a study of the gradual evaporation and release characteristics upon fracture under atmospheric conditions, where we find much larger amounts of Hg vapor (see below). Following any mercury spill, hard surfaces can be cleaned, but in the absence of in situ treatment technologies, porous materials such as carpets or woodwork must be removed and discarded (4). Carpet vacuuming can release Hg vapor when large gas volumes are forced across the Hg-containing dust cake in the vacuum cleaner internal filter. If not removed, spilled Hg liquid will continue to release vapor over time and can spread to other sites through foot traffic. Most consumer information on CFLs claim there is no significant health risk from small numbers of broken lamps, and indeed, since the 1960s, examples of Hg poisoning from all sources have become rare (6). There is one report of Hg poisoning (acrodynia) in a child exposed to broken tube-type fluorescents in a detailed case study presented by Tunnessen et al. (6)."
Keep in mind it is difficult to definitively establish how much mercury goes airborne or volatilizes while operating, but it may be reasonable to expect a linear algebraic function to properly model both CFLs and vacuum tubes. Some research would be needed to determine whether to model it via a voltage vs an amperage constant. I would expect the percentage emitted from a broken unenergized vacuum tube to be far less than one that is energized, however.
To put potential exposure from such a lamp vs a vacuum tube in perspective, the OSHA permissible exposure level is 0.1 micrograms/cubic meter airborne(8 hr day), the NIOSH recommended exposure level is 0.05 micrograms/cubic meter airborne(8 hr day), and the ACGIH threshold limit value is 0.025 microgram/cubic meter. Mercury exposure is a serious concern due to potential harm to developing children, so the ATSDR established a recommended ceiling of 0.02 microgram/cubic meter for children.
Does anyone know of any site that provides any mercury values present in vintage vacuum tubes?
Last edited:
sheltie dave
Addicted Member
This took some f'ing digging..here is the mercury content for the RCA 816.
"RE: How much actual mercury is really in one of these tubes anyway?
Posted by Alchemy (A) on December 29, 2011 at 21:38:41
In Reply to: RE: How much actual mercury is really in one of these tubes anyway? posted by benie on December 29, 2011 at 18:56:46:
Electron Tube Division, Radio Corporation of America. Electron Tube Design, 1962 p805. Mercury content is .5 g total, .01 mg vapor for type 816."
"RE: How much actual mercury is really in one of these tubes anyway?
Posted by Alchemy (A) on December 29, 2011 at 21:38:41
In Reply to: RE: How much actual mercury is really in one of these tubes anyway? posted by benie on December 29, 2011 at 18:56:46:
Electron Tube Division, Radio Corporation of America. Electron Tube Design, 1962 p805. Mercury content is .5 g total, .01 mg vapor for type 816."
- Status