5 ms·

>It would be good to see an autopsy, You do realize that there was a quite real chance of someone seeing the OP's autopsy here? >That sort of paranoia doesn't

>It would be good to see an autopsy, You do realize that there was a quite real chance of someone seeing the OP's autopsy here? >That sort of paranoia doesn't help I guess you don't. I find it fascinating that we get people saying "both of these in this thread: * The inherent explosive and deadly danger of lithium is well known, the OP should have expected it, and should not complain * The danger of lithium batteries is overblown, the OP shouldn't complain It's quite a mindfuck to argue with both simultaneously.

rndgermandude 5y ago
>You do realize that there was a quite real chance of someone seeing the OP's autopsy here? That's an overstatement. The batteries in this thing are the most dangerous part, and yet they are too small to explode with a force that could cause an immediate fatality, i.e neither the explosion itself nor the shrapnel it could generate from the casing or the other components in the headphone are powerful enough. The risk here is burns, and maybe toxic exposure. And while burns can be rather bad (especially since it's Lithium), of course, also depending on how much flammable "stuff" you have on your head (hair, hat, headscarf, etc), burns are not the same thing as death. The risk of a fatality is extremely low. The risk of lasting scars and disfigurement, deafness (on the battery side at least) and even blindness has a somewhat higher chance. Then again, just look at the picture in the article. You can see how little damage is there to the actual "fragile" head phones plastic casing. Mostly intact. It wasn't a major explosion, it wasn't a major fire, and there probably wasn't any shrapnel whatsoever. >>That sort of paranoia doesn't help >I guess you don't. This was clearly referring to the "toxic fumes" bit. And it is a fair thing to say, in my humble opinion. The fumes from the battery and plastic certainly aren't great, but unless you deliberately stay there and huff them without opening a window, your exposure will be rather minute, especially considering how small this event had to be. Indeed, what you inhale at a barbeque or just from burning food, or staying at the outside of a gas station for too long will be worse. The "chemical burns" claim in the article is just confusing to me. I'd get it if the claim was that only the hands had a burning sensation like that, but the arms too but nothing besides that? Such a thing is either caused by direct contact (so hands only) or from fumes/spraying (which would mean exposed areas like the face should be affected as well). The way the story represents it makes me think it might be a psychosomatic effect only, but not necessarily of course. There is a "sweet spot" where these things might have sprayed particles only in a very limited area where hands and arms were affected but other exposed skin was too far away, but that sounds unlikely to me at least... Regardless, nobody should expect these things to blow up, and it's fair to complain when they do. If it was a singular/very rare incident, fine, really bad luck. If there are a number of reports like this, this could indicate a systemic engineering or manufacturing problem.
- e_proxus 5y ago
  It’s not the only risk. What if OP had fallen asleep while listening to music? Then there would have been a real risk of the house burning down.
- BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
  > That's an overstatement. Sometimes I wear my headphones in bed (not this brand/model, but another wireless over-the-ear sort.) I'm reconsidering that now...
- ghusbands 5y ago
  Given that the battery was breached, that there are chemicals in batteries that can cause chemical burns and that the user apparently didn't know this and suffered diagnosed chemical burns, it seems unlikely that those burns are psychosomatic.
- romwell 5y ago
  >That's an overstatement. Calling things that spontaneously catch on fire while being worn on one's head a lethal danger is not an overstatement. For the same reason that smoking in bed is not something you should do: and that's because having something burning in places where fire isn't expected leads to people dying in fires. >This was clearly referring to the "toxic fumes" bit. And it is a fair thing to say, in my humble opinion. There is nothing humble about confidently calling the OP's concerns "unhelpful paranoia", and discounting what his doctor said were chemical burns as "psychosomatic effects" based on an armchair analysis of the spray pattern which you haven't even seen. >Regardless, nobody should expect these things to blow up, and it's fair to complain when they do Thank you. I don't understand why half the comments here are arguing the opposite. >If it was a singular/very rare incident, fine, really bad luck. If there are a number of reports like this, this could indicate a systemic engineering or manufacturing problem. Which is exactly why I urged the OP to immediately report it to CPSC (as Bose is also obligated to do, by law, regardless of whether they can establish the veracity of the claim). And since CPSC is not very reliable, only legal action might uncover such systemic engineering/manufacturing problem and force Bose to do something about it.
Tade0 5y ago
> * The danger of lithium batteries is overblown, the OP shouldn't complain Nitpick: lithium and li-ion are two different battery types. The former contains metallic lithium, the latter lithium salts. What went aflame in this accident wasn't the metal, but the liquid electrolyte, which is flammable.
- romwell 5y ago
  What went aflame in this accident was Bose QC-35 II headphones. Not sure what your nitpick is about; address it to the people who argue either. My point is that OP should file a CPSC report (which they did), and contact a lawyer (which, I hope, they would).
  - Tade0 5y ago
    > Not sure what your nitpick is about; You're conflating two different battery types. The lithium in lithium-ion batteries is bound to either the cathode or anode, so it's not readily flammable as metallic lithium would be.
    - romwell 5y ago
      >You're conflating... I am conflating nothing as I was summarizing the comments of other people in that sentence. The other comments do conflate different battery types; you can educate the people who make them. Ctrl+F "lithium" in this thread will get you plenty.
  - rndgermandude 5y ago
    > and contact a lawyer It might be my "European" upbringing, but why? Is there any indicating it was the manufacturers fault?
    - e_proxus 5y ago
      In Europe it usually is, until proven otherwise. At least in the first year (and for some classes of problems, longer).
Hnrobert42 5y ago
I think GP meant an autopsy of the device not the person.
- romwell 5y ago
  Yes, and I was highlighting that either could have been an outcome of this incident. Luckily, it wasn't the latter.

rndgermandude 5y ago

>You do realize that there was a quite real chance of someone seeing the OP's autopsy here? That's an overstatement. The batteries in this thing are the most dangerous part, and yet they are too small to explode with a force that could cause an immediate fatality, i.e neither the explosion itself nor the shrapnel it could generate from the casing or the other components in the headphone are powerful enough. The risk here is burns, and maybe toxic exposure. And while burns can be rather bad (especially since it's Lithium), of course, also depending on how much flammable "stuff" you have on your head (hair, hat, headscarf, etc), burns are not the same thing as death. The risk of a fatality is extremely low. The risk of lasting scars and disfigurement, deafness (on the battery side at least) and even blindness has a somewhat higher chance. Then again, just look at the picture in the article. You can see how little damage is there to the actual "fragile" head phones plastic casing. Mostly intact. It wasn't a major explosion, it wasn't a major fire, and there probably wasn't any shrapnel whatsoever. >>That sort of paranoia doesn't help >I guess you don't. This was clearly referring to the "toxic fumes" bit. And it is a fair thing to say, in my humble opinion. The fumes from the battery and plastic certainly aren't great, but unless you deliberately stay there and huff them without opening a window, your exposure will be rather minute, especially considering how small this event had to be. Indeed, what you inhale at a barbeque or just from burning food, or staying at the outside of a gas station for too long will be worse. The "chemical burns" claim in the article is just confusing to me. I'd get it if the claim was that only the hands had a burning sensation like that, but the arms too but nothing besides that? Such a thing is either caused by direct contact (so hands only) or from fumes/spraying (which would mean exposed areas like the face should be affected as well). The way the story represents it makes me think it might be a psychosomatic effect only, but not necessarily of course. There is a "sweet spot" where these things might have sprayed particles only in a very limited area where hands and arms were affected but other exposed skin was too far away, but that sounds unlikely to me at least... Regardless, nobody should expect these things to blow up, and it's fair to complain when they do. If it was a singular/very rare incident, fine, really bad luck. If there are a number of reports like this, this could indicate a systemic engineering or manufacturing problem.

e_proxus 5y ago
It’s not the only risk. What if OP had fallen asleep while listening to music? Then there would have been a real risk of the house burning down.
BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
> That's an overstatement. Sometimes I wear my headphones in bed (not this brand/model, but another wireless over-the-ear sort.) I'm reconsidering that now...
ghusbands 5y ago
Given that the battery was breached, that there are chemicals in batteries that can cause chemical burns and that the user apparently didn't know this and suffered diagnosed chemical burns, it seems unlikely that those burns are psychosomatic.
romwell 5y ago
>That's an overstatement. Calling things that spontaneously catch on fire while being worn on one's head a lethal danger is not an overstatement. For the same reason that smoking in bed is not something you should do: and that's because having something burning in places where fire isn't expected leads to people dying in fires. >This was clearly referring to the "toxic fumes" bit. And it is a fair thing to say, in my humble opinion. There is nothing humble about confidently calling the OP's concerns "unhelpful paranoia", and discounting what his doctor said were chemical burns as "psychosomatic effects" based on an armchair analysis of the spray pattern which you haven't even seen. >Regardless, nobody should expect these things to blow up, and it's fair to complain when they do Thank you. I don't understand why half the comments here are arguing the opposite. >If it was a singular/very rare incident, fine, really bad luck. If there are a number of reports like this, this could indicate a systemic engineering or manufacturing problem. Which is exactly why I urged the OP to immediately report it to CPSC (as Bose is also obligated to do, by law, regardless of whether they can establish the veracity of the claim). And since CPSC is not very reliable, only legal action might uncover such systemic engineering/manufacturing problem and force Bose to do something about it.

Tade0 5y ago

> * The danger of lithium batteries is overblown, the OP shouldn't complain Nitpick: lithium and li-ion are two different battery types. The former contains metallic lithium, the latter lithium salts. What went aflame in this accident wasn't the metal, but the liquid electrolyte, which is flammable.

romwell 5y ago
What went aflame in this accident was Bose QC-35 II headphones. Not sure what your nitpick is about; address it to the people who argue either. My point is that OP should file a CPSC report (which they did), and contact a lawyer (which, I hope, they would).
- Tade0 5y ago
  > Not sure what your nitpick is about; You're conflating two different battery types. The lithium in lithium-ion batteries is bound to either the cathode or anode, so it's not readily flammable as metallic lithium would be.
  - romwell 5y ago
    >You're conflating... I am conflating nothing as I was summarizing the comments of other people in that sentence. The other comments do conflate different battery types; you can educate the people who make them. Ctrl+F "lithium" in this thread will get you plenty.
- rndgermandude 5y ago
  > and contact a lawyer It might be my "European" upbringing, but why? Is there any indicating it was the manufacturers fault?
  - e_proxus 5y ago
    In Europe it usually is, until proven otherwise. At least in the first year (and for some classes of problems, longer).

Hnrobert42 5y ago

I think GP meant an autopsy of the device not the person.

romwell 5y ago
Yes, and I was highlighting that either could have been an outcome of this incident. Luckily, it wasn't the latter.