🚀 go-pugleaf

ps02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PENELOPE E. SMITH) writes:

>In article <1992Oct2.113921.2739@mtroyal.ab.ca>, dhayward@mtroyal.ab.ca writes:
>>For years I have been interested in the present and future uses of
>>Berrylium. Due to it's many spectacular properties it should be more
>>common than it is. any info?
>>
>Beryllium oxide is used as the electrical insulator and thermal conductor
>between electrified electronic devices generating heat and their heat sinks.
>If you look in the right trade mags, for example Microwaves&RF (maybe
>Photonics Spectra) you can find mention of these things.
>    (from my husband, Eric Christenson, an Engineer)

I would not be surprised if it never becomes common in products
as it is highly toxic.  I come across beryllium windows in X-ray Tubes for
Powder X-ray Diffractometers.  It is really nasty, not only because
of its toxicity but it is very fragile.  If broken, splinters 
fly everywhere.  Philips, the maker of the X-ray tubes, provide
a free disposal service for used X-ray tubes because berylium is
so toxic.

A recent local TV news item on health risks for artist
mentioned Berylium as giving skin tumours on fingers because of
berylium salts.

Merck goes into more detail:-

"Death may result from short exposure to incredibly low concentrations.
Acute: pneumontis may result from single exposure to berylium
and accasionally is fatal.  Chronic: pulmonary granulomatous
disease may appear in 3 months  to 6 years, often after short
exposure to low concentrations.  Uncertainty as to complete
recovery.  Death rate about 25%.  Rewiew: "Berylium
and Berylliosis" by J. Schubert in Sci. American 199,
no 2, pp 27-33 (Aug. 1958)"
-- 
  Lachlan Cranswick  -  CSIRO             _--_|\  lachlan@dmp.CSIRO.AU
  Division of Mineral Products           /      \ tel +61 3 647 0367
  PO Box 124, Port Melbourne 3207        \_.--._/ fax +61 3 646 3223
  AUSTRALIA                                            v 

Can anyone provide a summary of what is known about the brittleness
problem? A bibliography as well.

Patrick

> "Death may result from short exposure to incredibly low concentrations.
> Acute: pneumontis may result from single exposure to berylium
> and accasionally is fatal.  Chronic: pulmonary granulomatous
> disease may appear in 3 months  to 6 years, often after short
> exposure to low concentrations.  Uncertainty as to complete
> recovery.  Death rate about 25%.  Rewiew: "Berylium
> and Berylliosis" by J. Schubert in Sci. American 199,
> no 2, pp 27-33 (Aug. 1958)"
> -- 
Look at the date of that article! No one has died of berylliosis in 30
YEARS!!! 
There have been 2 (yes, count them, 2) cases of berylliosis in the last 20
years. The toxicity of beryllium is ONLY related to powder form. Contact in
any other pure form is absolutely harmless. Back in the 50's when beryllium
was becoming popular, some workers contracted berylliosis.  Only a small
fraction of people, about 3%, can even get berylliosis at any exposure
level.  Most of us are totally immune to berylliosis.  There was an
immediate panic, evidenced by your quote. Research quickly determined that
dry machining and ore crushing operations caused the dust which caused
berylliosis.

Here at Lockheed we constantly use beryllium, it has many properties
unmatched by any other material known to man, and it is extremely harmless
when proper precautions are followed.

You could propably find a 50's article which shows the benefit of cigarette
smoking.  I suggest to look into more recent work in the area.

kevin weber

>>In article <1992Oct2.113921.2739@mtroyal.ab.ca>, dhayward@mtroyal.ab.ca writes:
>>>For years I have been interested in the present and future uses of
>>>Berrylium....

Beryllium is used frequently in applications where one wants to
avoid large amounts of secondary x-ray flourescence: thus it
is frequently used as an x-ray window material for x-ray detectors
and a material for making low background specimen stages for
analytical electron microscopes.  One advantage for x-ray
windows on SEMs is that Be is strong enough to withstand an atmosphere
of pressure even when the window is thin enough to
allow a large amount of x-ray transmission.  

Doug Medlin
dlmedli@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov

>> "Death may result from short exposure to incredibly low concentrations.
>> Acute: pneumontis may result from single exposure to berylium
>> and accasionally is fatal.  Chronic: pulmonary granulomatous
>> disease may appear in 3 months  to 6 years, often after short
>> exposure to low concentrations.  Uncertainty as to complete
>> recovery.  Death rate about 25%.  Rewiew: "Berylium
>> and Berylliosis" by J. Schubert in Sci. American 199,
>> no 2, pp 27-33 (Aug. 1958)"
>> -- 
>Look at the date of that article! No one has died of berylliosis in 30
>YEARS!!! 
>There have been 2 (yes, count them, 2) cases of berylliosis in the last 20
>years. The toxicity of beryllium is ONLY related to powder form. Contact in
>any other pure form is absolutely harmless. Back in the 50's when beryllium
>was becoming popular, some workers contracted berylliosis.  Only a small
>fraction of people, about 3%, can even get berylliosis at any exposure
>level.  Most of us are totally immune to berylliosis.  There was an
>immediate panic, evidenced by your quote. Research quickly determined that
>dry machining and ore crushing operations caused the dust which caused
>berylliosis.

>Here at Lockheed we constantly use beryllium, it has many properties
>unmatched by any other material known to man, and it is extremely harmless
>when proper precautions are followed.

>You could propably find a 50's article which shows the benefit of cigarette
>smoking.  I suggest to look into more recent work in the area.

>kevin weber

OK, I admit it, my personal Merck Index is a bit old (1960) but
those health warnings are still current and
"the beryllium panic" is still going on down here to the
extent that the supplier of our X-ray diffraction tubes
(our source of beryllium) considers it an obligation
to safely dispose of the tubes for us free of charge.
In this part of the world, beryllium is a chief nasty
that you don't want to use unless you have to.
One easy way to get you arse kicked here is to risk your own 
health and/or of others - even if the health risk to some
people seems pretty obscure.

Just a small query :-
What handling procedures make handling berylium "extremely harmless"?          
(In theory CFCs can be contained in such a way that they don't
affect the OZONE layer, but why is there the rush for alternatives?)
I am very carefull (almost paranoid) with beryllium metal  
because (1)  it is considered to be highly toxic
and (2) it is so fragile that it does not take too
much effort to break the beryllium window
- wrecking a $4000 X-ray Diffraction tube
and spraying the lab with toxic beryllium splinters.

The worst horror story I have heard about beryllium
(all hearsay) is about a guy who was trying to
sythesize a beryllium mineral by putting the starting
material in an Iron bomb, then into an furnace.  Being  in a rush to
cool the bomb down (claiming afterwards full knowledge of the possible 
consequences) he threw the still hot bomb into a bucket of cold
water.  This promptly blew up spraying beryllium all over the lab.
I don't know what had to be done to get the lab
back in a safe-usable condition.  (Mercury spills are cleaned
up by adding elemental Sulphur over the area, what imobilizes
beryllium?)

Given the above attitude on beryllium, you will
probably find it typically paranoid that our radiation lab
considers anything above background to be a
leak that has to be fixed.  It can be 
argued that compared to the health risks of pollution,
passive smoking, junk food, coca-cola etc,
these potential hazards are not much of a
health risk.  This could be correct, but it is much
nicer to work in an lab environment where the emphasis
is on more safety rather than less safety.

The original question was why Beryllium isn't used more
widely (in mainstream uses).  My opinion (still)
is that Beryllium is so toxic people would
prefer to use alternatives rather than risk its harmful effects.


-- 
  Lachlan Cranswick  -  CSIRO             _--_|\  lachlan@dmp.CSIRO.AU
  Division of Mineral Products           /      \ tel +61 3 647 0367
  PO Box 124, Port Melbourne 3207        \_.--._/ fax +61 3 646 3223
  AUSTRALIA                                            v 

lachlan@dmp.csiro.au (Lachlan Cranswick) writes:

>Just a small query :-
>What handling procedures make handling berylium "extremely harmless"?          
>(In theory CFCs can be contained in such a way that they don't
>affect the OZONE layer, but why is there the rush for alternatives?)

Certainly not from any scientific reasons.

>(Mercury spills are cleaned
>up by adding elemental Sulphur over the area, what imobilizes
>beryllium?)

I once had the Hazmat team called out after I dropped a mercury thermometer.
Again, no basis in science.

>Given the above attitude on beryllium, you will
>probably find it typically paranoid that our radiation lab
>considers anything above background to be a
>leak that has to be fixed.  

In a radiation lab, that is considered as much radiation hygene in order
to keep backgrounds low as it is a health precaution.

>It can be 
>argued that compared to the health risks of pollution,
>passive smoking, junk food, coca-cola etc,
>these potential hazards are not much of a
>health risk.  This could be correct, but it is much
>nicer to work in an lab environment where the emphasis
>is on more safety rather than less safety.

Actually no.  I find the lawyer-induced "precautions" now practiced
by most businesses and institutions opressive.  I seemed to have done
quite well back when all that was needed for most procedures was a pair
of glasses and a lab apron.

>The original question was why Beryllium isn't used more
>widely (in mainstream uses).  My opinion (still)
>is that Beryllium is so toxic people would
>prefer to use alternatives rather than risk its harmful effects.

But it has nothing to do with the ACTUAL risks.  Here in the US, we
have a little problem with lawyers and with people looking for a free
mealticket for the rest of their lives.  That means that managers must
take extreme steps, far beyond anything scientifically reasonable,
so that he will appear "reasonable" to 6 or 12 blithering idiots (the
jury screening process screens anyone with a clue) if he gets sued.

You asked about disposing of your X-ray tubes.  Your supplier is not
doing you much of a favor "disposing" of those tubes.  At least in 
medical and XRF application tubes, they are rebuilt and resold.
Much too expensive to simply throw away.  I'd have to commend your supplier,
however.  He's put a great marketing spin on it. :-)

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.

>In article <1992Oct2.113921.2739@mtroyal.ab.ca>, dhayward@mtroyal.ab.ca
writes:
>>For years I have been interested in the present and future uses of
>>Berrylium....
>


I use Be as a substrate for thin films when I want to do RBS analysis
(Rutherford backscattering) of the films.  RBS works best when the substrate
material has a lower atomic number than the material you're analyzing.  I work
with BN films and the only good substrate with a smaller Z is Be.

Dan Kester
kester@mte.ncsu.edu