5 ms·

No, lithium battery fires are really nasty, and that's why he got a chemical burn. LiPF6 is a contact irritant, PF5 it decomposes to is a gas, and also a respi

No, lithium battery fires are really nasty, and that's why he got a chemical burn. LiPF6 is a contact irritant, PF5 it decomposes to is a gas, and also a respiratory irritant, and HF PH5 decomposes in the air is a dangerous poisonous acid. This is what everybody visiting a lithium battery factory is told on safety orientation. In case there is fire in the factory, run, preferably until you are few blocks away. If enough hot aqueous LF6 in solvent gets on the skin, you will get a chemical burn. In worst case, the same thing as HF poisoning will happen (it pulls electrolytes out of blood, and then death from heart failure.)

userbinator 5y ago
A lithium battery factory has many orders of magnitude more chemicals than a single low-capacity cell. "The dose makes the poison." It's not even clear if the battery caught fire, or if something else shorted out.
- romwell 5y ago
  What's clear is that Bose QC-35 II headphones caused bodily damage to the consumer who used it in a completely normal way and in accordance to the instruction manual, without any potential of such damage being indicated on the product that is generally assumed to be safe. We should stop nitpicking of which part of Bose QC-35 II headphones malfunctioned and caused the product to be deadly dangerous. Instead, we should focus on the following problems: * How do we incentivize the manufactures to take safety of their products seriously? * How do we make sure the manufacturers don't skirt the responsibility of selling unsafe products as safe ones? One doesn't get enter the free market without agreeing to some rules first. The rules are what differentiates a market from a scam. Actually delivering the product for which the money was paid is one such rule. Clearly warning about lethal dangers of the stuff you try to sell is another. Violations of either rule come with a cost - because these violations damage not only the customer, but the entire free market.
  - userbinator 5y ago
    What's clear is that you seem to have a bone to pick with Bose for some reason or another, since you're apparently the only one spamming the equivalent of SUE THEM SUE THEM SUE THEM!!! in every single one of your comments.
    - romwell 5y ago
      Well, first, I'm not the only one. That's the recommendation of one of the top comment here as well[1]. Second, I was spamming "Report to CPSC, then talk to a lawyer". The advice to sue or not sue is not for me to make. Third: > you to have a bone to pick with Bose for some reason or another They caused chemical burns to the person I am talking to while I tell them that they should consult a lawyer. That's my bone. ------ Another reason is that selling hazardous products that aren't labeled as such is a threat to the free market, which many people here are in support of. In short: what makes market different from scam is rules. Delivering the product for which the money was paid is one such rule. Warning about hazards of the product you try to sell is another. If there is no cost to violating the rules, the rules will not be observed, and the free market ceases to exist. I want Bose to bear the cost of violating the rules of the market, to ensure that they don't poison the well for other participants (in particular, who may be selling safer products after investing in safety). Is the above clear, or should I elaborate further? [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29602437 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29602437
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        You have about 17% of the total comments on this story right now. If this were an AMA and you were the “me” that would be in the right range. > should I elaborate further? I don’t think so. You’ve well made your points.
    - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
      Well, I like Bose products and have nothing against them, but if the OPs report is true, I also hope they sue Bose. It is important for all of us - people who use Bose products, their roommates etc - that they thoroughly check this incident and make sure it never happens again. They will not do it unless it costs them money and bad publicity.

userbinator 5y ago

A lithium battery factory has many orders of magnitude more chemicals than a single low-capacity cell. "The dose makes the poison." It's not even clear if the battery caught fire, or if something else shorted out.

romwell 5y ago
What's clear is that Bose QC-35 II headphones caused bodily damage to the consumer who used it in a completely normal way and in accordance to the instruction manual, without any potential of such damage being indicated on the product that is generally assumed to be safe. We should stop nitpicking of which part of Bose QC-35 II headphones malfunctioned and caused the product to be deadly dangerous. Instead, we should focus on the following problems: * How do we incentivize the manufactures to take safety of their products seriously? * How do we make sure the manufacturers don't skirt the responsibility of selling unsafe products as safe ones? One doesn't get enter the free market without agreeing to some rules first. The rules are what differentiates a market from a scam. Actually delivering the product for which the money was paid is one such rule. Clearly warning about lethal dangers of the stuff you try to sell is another. Violations of either rule come with a cost - because these violations damage not only the customer, but the entire free market.
- userbinator 5y ago
  What's clear is that you seem to have a bone to pick with Bose for some reason or another, since you're apparently the only one spamming the equivalent of SUE THEM SUE THEM SUE THEM!!! in every single one of your comments.
  - romwell 5y ago
    Well, first, I'm not the only one. That's the recommendation of one of the top comment here as well[1]. Second, I was spamming "Report to CPSC, then talk to a lawyer". The advice to sue or not sue is not for me to make. Third: > you to have a bone to pick with Bose for some reason or another They caused chemical burns to the person I am talking to while I tell them that they should consult a lawyer. That's my bone. ------ Another reason is that selling hazardous products that aren't labeled as such is a threat to the free market, which many people here are in support of. In short: what makes market different from scam is rules. Delivering the product for which the money was paid is one such rule. Warning about hazards of the product you try to sell is another. If there is no cost to violating the rules, the rules will not be observed, and the free market ceases to exist. I want Bose to bear the cost of violating the rules of the market, to ensure that they don't poison the well for other participants (in particular, who may be selling safer products after investing in safety). Is the above clear, or should I elaborate further? [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29602437 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29602437
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      You have about 17% of the total comments on this story right now. If this were an AMA and you were the “me” that would be in the right range. > should I elaborate further? I don’t think so. You’ve well made your points.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    Well, I like Bose products and have nothing against them, but if the OPs report is true, I also hope they sue Bose. It is important for all of us - people who use Bose products, their roommates etc - that they thoroughly check this incident and make sure it never happens again. They will not do it unless it costs them money and bad publicity.