[bfreedma]

The comments I made were in regards to various concerns and misinformation being spread and not only directly about the concerns of the OP. My comments were also to explain why Focal may not be able to give a response or why Focal may not even have the information. You seem to have a difficult time putting things together so I'll spell it out a little more clearly for you.

1. The OP had a concern of the Beryllium being so close to his head but Beryllium is not a radioactive material, just being near it will not cause any health issues. So the path of exposure is important. Just being near asbestos will not harm you, it only leads to issues if your breath it in. Is anyone breathing any Beryllium from Focal products? Unless there is Beryllium dust on their products then no. How much of a health concern it would be if the Beryllium were to break is another issue. And a little knowledge is a dangerous thing when it leads a person to the false idea that they have a full understanding of an idea or concept. It does the opposite when people realize that they actually don't understand something and that there are things they don't know.
2. Various people were making comments along the lines of, "there are so much toxic materials around us so who cares if anything is toxic". This is where "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing". These people make these comments because they don't realize how much they don't understand. By providing examples of how materials affect us they can glean a little understanding on the complexities of this topic, quite the opposite of coming away feeling like they are experts.
3. Someone made the comment that a material must be safe if they have safely used it for years. So I gave the example of how it took decades to realize the dangers of asbestos so simply one person using it for years does not necessarily mean it is safe.

That's just what I can think of off memory. I say all of this realizing that you really don't have any interest in actually learning anything but I feel the urge to dispute the misinformation you put out for the sake of anyone that is interested.

You’re misrepresenting the comments made here and once again assuming that some posting here don’t have deep knowledge of Be, it’s various manufacturing processes, and relative risks based on use case.

I suspect you are referencing my post in item 3. No claim was made that it was safe simply because Focal (and Yamaha, Paradigm, also OEM from Madisound, SEAS, Scanspeak...) has used the material for several decades. The statement was that Focal has a long history with and a great deal of knowledge about Be and that over several decades, had passed all required French and American safety and regulatory checks. While that doesn’t guarantee safety, it should carry significant weight for the OP and others who are looking for reassurance.

You can keep playing the “we don’t know everything yet” card but it’s an absurdist position without at least a rational assessment of the risks. If we go down that road, then nothing is “safe” as may see knowledge evolve around any and every material.

Everything in life has a risk level associated with it and every individual needs to be comfortable with the risks they take. Be toxicity has been extensively studied and to date and the risk level of Be post manufacturing is considered extremely low. Until evidence is made available that changes that risk level, Be speakers fall well below my threshold of concern. While certainly not absolute proof of safety, there have been zero reported cases of Berylliosis where the exposure was limited to consumer products.

Everyone should make their own personal decision here, but it should be made based on the facts as we know them today, not FUD.

 

[Onetwothree]

You’re misrepresenting the comments made here and once again assuming that some posting here don’t have deep knowledge of Be, it’s various manufacturing processes, and relative risks based on use case.

What I was trying to do was provide some background on how materials can affect us and to shoot down some fallacies being perpetrated here while trying not to single out individuals, my comments weren't directed at everyone posting here. Some people have posted some useful information.

I suspect you are referencing my post in item 3. No claim was made that it was safe simply because Focal (and Yamaha, Paradigm, also OEM from Madisound, SEAS, Scanspeak...) has used the material for several decades. The statement was that Focal has a long history with and a great deal of knowledge about Be and that over several decades, had passed all required French and American safety and regulatory checks. While that doesn’t guarantee safety, it should carry significant weight for the OP and others who are looking for reassurance.

Someone suggested that a material is safe because they've used it for years without an health risks and it is a fallacy to believe that something is safe because they have not detected any health affects. My point was to shoot down that fallacy. I agree with everything else you are saying here.

You can keep playing the “we don’t know everything yet” card but it’s an absurdist position without at least a rational assessment of the risks. If we go down that road, then nothing is “safe” as may see knowledge evolve around any and every material.

You didn't reference what I said so I'm not sure how you arrived that I'm playing a "we don't know everything yet" card. But I agree with what you are saying. As science progresses we find new information that supports old ideas and new information that changes our understanding of ideas and concepts we thought we understood. At the end of the day, you use the best information you have and you make decisions based on that information but you always leave a little space for doubt. Different circumstances call for different amounts of that space.

I think I said in a previous post that I personally wouldn't be worried about the risk of beryllium in electronics. ​

Everything in life has a risk level associated with it and every individual needs to be comfortable with the risks they take. Be toxicity has been extensively studied and to date and the risk level of Be post manufacturing is considered extremely low. Until evidence is made available that changes that risk level, Be speakers fall well below my threshold of concern. While certainly not absolute proof of safety, there have been zero reported cases of Berylliosis where the exposure was limited to consumer products.

What you are saying sounds reasonable but the OP was looking for that assurance from Focal or some authoritative source. Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anyone post links to these studies that prove beryllium post manufacturing is considered extremely low. I would assume the vast majority studies would be on the manufacturing of the material because that is where the majority of the risk would be. I know the dangers of VOC's in new electronics has also been studied and something about beryllium is probably in there but it would be interesting to see a study on just beryllium if you have a reference.

But the reason I don't think the study has been made is because I don't think the risk to the average consumer is high enough for anyone to pay attention. As far as I know, Focal audio equipment is unique because of the amount of beryllium found in them, other electronic equipment doesn't have this level of concentration although I wouldn't be concerned unless the speaker broke.

Everyone should make their own personal decision here, but it should be made based on the facts as we know them today, not FUD.

I agree.

 

[headr]

Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anyone post links to these studies that prove beryllium post manufacturing is considered extremely low. I would assume the vast majority studies would be on the manufacturing of the material because that is where the majority of the risk would be. I know the dangers of VOC's in new electronics has also been studied and something about beryllium is probably in there but it would be interesting to see a study on just beryllium if you have a reference.

You didn't miss it, this thread has been appeal to authority after appeal to authority ad nauseam.

Essentially "Trust me, I am an internet stranger who just happens to be highly knowledgeable about mass manufacturing of beryllium in consumer products, and I can assure you it is completely safe".

"Don't believe me? The government approved it, so don't worry about"

I mean, that was OK on the first page, and there may be some reassurances one can take from the government approval process (although I would argue it would and should be minimal), but repeating the same line for 9 pages is a bit absurd.

It's time to put up or shut up. If someone wants to argue for the relatively safety of beryllium in consumer products, no more appeals to authority. Cite sources, add new information, provide links to summaries and studies, provide the scientific background that proves your point, or you simply aren't adding anything noteworthy to the thread anymore.

 

[bfreedma]

What I was trying to do was provide some background on how materials can affect us and to shoot down some fallacies being perpetrated here while trying not to single out individuals, my comments weren't directed at everyone posting here. Some people have posted some useful information.



Someone suggested that a material is safe because they've used it for years without an health risks and it is a fallacy to believe that something is safe because they have not detected any health affects. My point was to shoot down that fallacy. I agree with everything else you are saying here.

You didn't reference what I said so I'm not sure how you arrived that I'm playing a "we don't know everything yet" card. But I agree with what you are saying. As science progresses we find new information that supports old ideas and new information that changes our understanding of ideas and concepts we thought we understood. At the end of the day, you use the best information you have and you make decisions based on that information but you always leave a little space for doubt. Different circumstances call for different amounts of that space.

I think I said in a previous post that I personally wouldn't be worried about the risk of beryllium in electronics. ​

What you are saying sounds reasonable but the OP was looking for that assurance from Focal or some authoritative source. Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen anyone post links to these studies that prove beryllium post manufacturing is considered extremely low. I would assume the vast majority studies would be on the manufacturing of the material because that is where the majority of the risk would be. I know the dangers of VOC's in new electronics has also been studied and something about beryllium is probably in there but it would be interesting to see a study on just beryllium if you have a reference.

But the reason I don't think the study has been made is because I don't think the risk to the average consumer is high enough for anyone to pay attention. As far as I know, Focal audio equipment is unique because of the amount of beryllium found in them, other electronic equipment doesn't have this level of concentration although I wouldn't be concerned unless the speaker broke.



I agree.

Thanks for the response and my apologies if I misinterpreted some of the previous post as directed at me.

Most of the studies around Be exposure risks have focused on industrial manufacturing, so I don't have anything specific to home use. Anecdotally, I believe some reasonable assumptions can be made by looking at the exposure rates/levels in the linked documents below then extrapolate out the greatly reduced rates of inhalation that would be seen in Be based tweeter use.

From the EPA: "To illustrate how the UR is applied, the EPA estimates that a person would have a one-in-a-million chance of developing cancer if exposed to air containing beryllium at a concentration of 0.0004 μg/m3 every day over a lifetime. (A microgram is one millionth of a gram.) Using the RfD, it is estimated that 150-pound (lb) person could safely ingest 0.14 mg of beryllium every day without experiencing any adverse effects
(2.2 lb = 1 kg, or 1,000 g, or 1 million mg)." It doesn't seem likely that these exposure rates would occur from any outgassing of Be tweeters, or even from the dust of a damaged tweeter (though I would follow Focal's advice to cover those immediately)

http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/cicad/en/cicad32.pdf
https://rais.ornl.gov/tox/profiles/beryllium.html

Again, the links above are studies of industrial inhalation and exposure, but do provide some context.

Oddly, as I was looking for these documents, it became apparent that in "real world" risks, the neodymium magnets in many headphones are a far bigger risk than Be. There were several reports of children eating two or more and the magnets coming together to pinch the digestive tract. Should I start a thread on why headphone manufacturers are putting out such potentially dangerous products? Just kidding about the thread, but somewhat seriously pointing out that abusing many things can be dangerous.

Lesson learned - don't eat headphones!!!!!

 

[bfreedma]

You didn't miss it, this thread has been appeal to authority after appeal to authority ad nauseam.

Essentially "Trust me, I am an internet stranger who just happens to be highly knowledgeable about mass manufacturing of beryllium in consumer products, and I can assure you it is completely safe".

"Don't believe me? The government approved it, so don't worry about"

I mean, that was OK on the first page, and there may be some reassurances one can take from the government approval process (although I would argue it would and should be minimal), but repeating the same line for 9 pages is a bit absurd.

It's time to put up or shut up. If someone wants to argue for the relatively safety of beryllium in consumer products, no more appeals to authority. Cite sources, add new information, provide links to summaries and studies, provide the scientific background that proves your point, or you simply aren't adding anything noteworthy to the thread anymore.

It's a two way street. Those worrying about Be in consumer products haven't produced a single piece of evidence that home exposure presents a risk, let alone a study. If you can find an example of someone developing berylliosis from exposure to consumer products, please post it.

With a few exceptions, it's been a bunch of hand waving over "the dangers of beryllium" with zero context.

 

[headr]

It's a two way street. Those worrying about Be in consumer products haven't produced a single piece of evidence that home exposure presents a risk, let alone a study. If you can find an example of someone developing berylliosis from exposure to consumer products, please post it.

With a few exceptions, it's been a bunch of hand waving over "the dangers of beryllium" with zero context.

Yes, but that makes sense doesn't it? Because beryllium is a known toxic substance and the natural position of anyone should be "is this really OK to use in this way"?

There is well documented evidence on the dangers of beryllium. What is at issue isn't the fact that beryllium is toxic (it is) but rather how that toxicity is mitigated in consumer applications, especially niche applications which use lots of beryllium such as solid beryllium drivers in headphones and speakers.

Imagine in 1944 there were internet forums and someone asked "Is using mercury OK to treat syphilis?" and the response was "prove it me it isn't safe! Doctors & governments say it is ok! Trust us!".

The onus should be on the company providing the product to prove it is safe. And if nothing else, it seems this thread has been quite revealing of how many other toxic substances are used in every day products (besides beryllium) that we really don't know as much as we assumed we did.

In any case, this is a useful discussion, and assuming the conversation has to start with "Beryllium is safe, prove it isn't." is absurd.

 

[Onetwothree]

Thanks for the response and my apologies if I misinterpreted some of the previous post as directed at me.

Most of the studies around Be exposure risks have focused on industrial manufacturing, so I don't have anything specific to home use. Anecdotally, I believe some reasonable assumptions can be made by looking at the exposure rates/levels in the linked documents below then extrapolate out the greatly reduced rates of inhalation that would be seen in Be based tweeter use.

From the EPA: "To illustrate how the UR is applied, the EPA estimates that a person would have a one-in-a-million chance of developing cancer if exposed to air containing beryllium at a concentration of 0.0004 μg/m3 every day over a lifetime. (A microgram is one millionth of a gram.) Using the RfD, it is estimated that 150-pound (lb) person could safely ingest 0.14 mg of beryllium every day without experiencing any adverse effects
(2.2 lb = 1 kg, or 1,000 g, or 1 million mg)." It doesn't seem likely that these exposure rates would occur from any outgassing of Be tweeters, or even from the dust of a damaged tweeter (though I would follow Focal's advice to cover those immediately)

http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/cicad/en/cicad32.pdf
https://rais.ornl.gov/tox/profiles/beryllium.html

Again, the links above are studies of industrial inhalation and exposure, but do provide some context.

Oddly, as I was looking for these documents, it became apparent that in "real world" risks, the neodymium magnets in many headphones are a far bigger risk than Be. There were several reports of children eating two or more and the magnets coming together to pinch the digestive tract. Should I start a thread on why headphone manufacturers are putting out such potentially dangerous products? Just kidding about the thread, but somewhat seriously pointing out that abusing many things can be dangerous.

Lesson learned - don't eat headphones!!!!!

No worries. Determining what is and isn't a risk is difficult to do and this thread has gotten pretty messy.

 

[bfreedma]

Yes, but that makes sense doesn't it? Because beryllium is a known toxic substance and the natural position of anyone should be "is this really OK to use in this way"?

There is well documented evidence on the dangers of beryllium. What is at issue isn't the fact that beryllium is toxic (it is) but rather how that toxicity is mitigated in consumer applications, especially niche applications which use lots of beryllium such as solid beryllium drivers in headphones and speakers.

Imagine in 1944 there were internet forums and someone asked "Is using mercury OK to treat syphilis?" and the response was "prove it me it isn't safe! Doctors & governments say it is ok! Trust us!".

The onus should be on the company providing the product to prove it is safe. And if nothing else, it seems this thread has been quite revealing of how many other toxic substances are used in every day products (besides beryllium) that we really don't know as much as we assumed we did.

In any case, this is a useful discussion, and assuming the conversation has to start with "Beryllium is safe, prove it isn't." is absurd.

There is plenty of evidence that Beryllium is dangerous during manufacturing but none I’ve found indicating that it’s dangerous as a solid. Assuming someone isn’t intentionally trying to abuse the tweeter dome.

Serious question, not trying to combative : How can Focal (or other Be tweeter supplier) prove it’s safe in a way that would satisfy the OP? The only process I can think of would be a decades long study of owners where Be levels were tested regularly and medical histories examined.

There really isn’t as much Be in Focal products as you suggest. Only the thin dome of the tweeter is Be (driver exploded view in link below) I’d be surprised if it weighed more than a few tenths of a gram. Couldn’t find specifics on the weight of the Focal Be dome, but Usher lists the weight of their Be dome as .1 g (100 micrograms) and Yamaha stated theirs was .035g.

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=40060

 

[up late]

The comments I made were in regards to various concerns and misinformation being spread and not only directly about the concerns of the OP. My comments were also to explain why Focal may not be able to give a response or why Focal may not even have the information. You seem to have a difficult time putting things together so I'll spell it out a little more clearly for you.

1. The OP had a concern of the Beryllium being so close to his head but Beryllium is not a radioactive material, just being near it will not cause any health issues. So the path of exposure is important. Just being near asbestos will not harm you, it only leads to issues if your breath it in. Is anyone breathing any Beryllium from Focal products? Unless there is Beryllium dust on their products then no. How much of a health concern it would be if the Beryllium were to break is another issue. And a little knowledge is a dangerous thing when it leads a person to the false idea that they have a full understanding of an idea or concept. It does the opposite when people realize that they actually don't understand something and that there are things they don't know.
2. Various people were making comments along the lines of, "there are so much toxic materials around us so who cares if anything is toxic". This is where "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing". These people make these comments because they don't realize how much they don't understand. By providing examples of how materials affect us they can glean a little understanding on the complexities of this topic, quite the opposite of coming away feeling like they are experts.
3. Someone made the comment that a material must be safe if they have safely used it for years. So I gave the example of how it took decades to realize the dangers of asbestos so simply one person using it for years does not necessarily mean it is safe.

That's just what I can think of off memory. I say all of this realizing that you really don't have any interest in actually learning anything but I feel the urge to dispute the misinformation you put out for the sake of anyone that is interested.

don't patronise me for separating what is relevant to the op's concerns (which is the topic of this thread) from what is not.

1. i'm well aware of the op's concerns as i have referred to them repeatedly now and they did not include radioactivity - someone else referred to that. i think it was you, however, who raised the (arguably remote) possibility of beryllium dust residue remaining on the utopia's drivers as a consequence of the production process. given that @bfreedma had already stated in the second post of this thread that "Beryllium is typically only a toxicity risk during the manufacturing process as the damage is through inhalation of Be in powder form. Once in solid form, there is no risk unless you severely damage the drivers but it's hard to imagine how that would happen by accident.", i don't think that you have brought anything new to the discussion of the "path of exposure" with regard to beryllium other than more conjecture.
2. while i appreciate that you have been "shooting down fallacies" arising from the discussion of exposure (levels) to a variety of toxic materials, that still does not address the op's specific concerns, which pertain to the actual risk to his/her health from wearing the utopia headphone containing drivers made of beryllium.
3. while your asbestos example may be interesting in and of itself, the only apparent similarity to beryllium is that both materials are hazardous to humans in dust form and can cause serious lung disease if inhaled. mesothelioma, which is a type of lung cancer caused by ingesting asbestos dust is usually fatal, however. and again, it does not directly relate to the op's concerns, noting that he/she already knew that beryllium is a toxic material.

contrary to your realisation, i'm interested in learning about many things but i'd prefer that they be more relevant to the thread topic for the purpose of this discussion. as i posted earlier, i did my own layman's research into beryllium and its effects before purchasing the utopia. i also refer you to my posts in this thread and ask that you cite an example of the misinformation that you accuse me of spreading.

No worries. Determining what is and isn't a risk is difficult to do and this thread has gotten pretty messy.

and that is my point. no one here can provide any indication, let alone quantify the potential risk to the op's health from wearing the utopia headphone "for hours at a time", which is the crux of the matter - yet they're willing to speculate about it nonetheless.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

It's time to put up or shut up. If someone wants to argue for the relatively safety of beryllium in consumer products, no more appeals to authority. Cite sources, add new information, provide links to summaries and studies, provide the scientific background that proves your point, or you simply aren't adding anything noteworthy to the thread anymore.

You are totally missing the point of how it works. The point is your side is practically making an assertion by asking a question and by your hypotheses on the absence of a response. The burden of proof is on your side to produce data that says this application is dangerous. I can think of a lot of examples as to what else works like this, but Head-Fi has conveniently banned mentioning such on this forum.

And this is not mere appeal to authority. You want data that says that, so far, use of beryllium in audio transducers has been safe so long as you don't go off like a small child and munch of snort the drivers? Look at how there are ZERO l(successful) awsuits from people getting poisoned by their Utopia Be. But of course since your mind is made up it's not like you will recognize that as data.

 

[headr]

Serious question, not trying to combative : How can Focal (or other Be tweeter supplier) prove it’s safe in a way that would satisfy the OP? The only process I can think of would be a decades long study of owners where Be levels were tested regularly and medical histories examined.

This isn't combative at all and really strikes at the root of the thread. For some customers, they will not be convinced, no matter what. That's OK, they can move on to other products.

For other customers, it might be a different set of evidence, studies showing beryllium in solid-form consumer applications being tested on animals. Beryllium being used in controlled studies versus other substances where there is regular contact. It could be documented approval processes whereby governments allow beryllium to be used in consumer products. It could be the actual tests Focal went through to get their headphones available for sale and approved given the toxic substances.

It could be any number of things. The way I see this thread being useful is as an exploration of the data and associated studies concerning the usage of beryllium, and compiling and documenting how much we know, what we know, and the extent of our knowledge.

You have added several links which I believe pushes the conversation forward, and allows people to evaluate things better for themselves. But at the end of the day, for some customers, it may not be enough, you may not be presenting the right data, you may not be presenting enough data, and so on.

In any case, I would again posit that the onus is on the company providing the potentially toxic consumer good to provide assurances and peace of mind to any potential customers.

 

[up late]

in an ideal world, the onus would be on every company producing consumer goods containing toxic materials that are potentially harmful to provide assurances and peace of mind to any potential customers. we live in the real world, however.

 

[hpeter]

Then again, this is an audio forum, which has the sort of people who think there is scientific data that backs up how fantastic $10,000 cables are.

they are great for people, who sell those LOL (-:
for normal people it´s a scam, snakeoil.

 

[AnasHiFi]

Hi all,

Here is a question to keep this forum alive

I just got my Focal Maestro, lucky me . I am placing the speakers in my bedroom and I am really wondering if there is any risk to have the Berylium speakers where I sleep? bedroom is 30m2 and speakers are 4m far from bed. I have also the heating system 2m far from the Focal speakers.


Cheers,
Anas

 

[bfreedma]

Hi all,

Here is a question to keep this forum alive

I just got my Focal Maestro, lucky me . I am placing the speakers in my bedroom and I am really wondering if there is any risk to have the Berylium speakers where I sleep? bedroom is 30m2 and speakers are 4m far from bed. I have also the heating system 2m far from the Focal speakers.


Cheers,
Anas

Read the thread. Make your own decision.