[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 11:42 pm, "zibbit" wrote:
I actually know quit a bit about science.
there are numerous accounts of service technicians that
have encountered asbestos (padding, dampening material,
fiberfill, fiberglass, you name it) in early vintage AR speakers.

Several problems with your assertion:

1. You just equated asbestos with other materials:

"asbestos (padding, dampening material, fiberfill,
fiberglass, you name it)"

Just because "you name it asbestos," doesn't mean that
it is.

2. There are numerous accounts of a lot of things. There
are numerous accounts that expensive wooden pucks
placed at specific points in a room make dramatic
differences in the sound. There are numerous reports
of CDs being improved because someone painted the
edge with a green magic market. There are numerous
reports of this and that.

Where's the evidence to support these "numerous reports?"

Where are, in fact, the "numerous reports" you refer to?

3. Do these "service technicians" know asbestos when they
see it.

4. Acoustically and mechanically, asbestos is a pretty poor
choice for the job an acoustic absorbant needs to perform
in an acoustic suspension speaker system. Given its cost,
difficulty in handling and poor performance, why would a
reasonably knowledgeable company like AR do this?

Why are you so sure that it is not true? I've heard and
read the assertions...what are the facts?

The FACTS are that you have made assertions with no
evidence to support them. The FACTS are that there's
no good reason why this might be true.

Some posts have suggested that they have never
encountered asbestos containing materials in an
AR speaker that they took apart or rebuilt. Is there
anyone on this newsgroup that has any concrete
evidence that they have seen asbestos containing
materials in any speaker (not just AR) that they
have taken apart and how would you know what it
was if you saw it?

In the thousands of speakers I have taken apart, I
have never once seen any evidence of asbestos.
It has an appearance which is quite distinct and easily
differentiated from materials such as fiberglass wool,
rock wool, acetate fiber, polyester fiber, urethane
and ethylene foams, shredded paper, cotton and
wool fibers, bags of packing peanuts, stretched layers
of cloth, bundles of straws, excelsior and any nimber
of other of contrivances (including nothing at all)
manufacturers have put inside speaker enclosures.

As a professional in the field, I think I am qualified, probably
a lot more so than most "service technicians" at making
these asertions.

Now, these "service technicians" and, by proxy, yourself
are making assertions or at least suggestions to the
contrary. Did any of these technicians, on becoming
suspicious as to the content, do the responsible thing
and take a sample of the material and submit it to a
local HazMat authority for analysis? That's what I
would have done (and have done, in other instances).

Did they?

Who are these "service technicians?" I think it would
behoove then to come forwartd with the evidence. If
they are correct, this represents a SIGNIFICANT
health hazard. What's their motivation for NOT coming
forward? The risk to them is negligible for doing so.

And, if there's ANY evidence for asbestos in speakers,
do you think the laqwyers would have missed it? Good
gracious, the number of ads for law firms pursuing
asbestos liability cases would alone suggest there's
gold in them thar hills.

Having been in this business for well over a quarter of
a century, and having seen the sort of "numerous accounts"
that pass for "fact" in this "industry, I'd bet good money
this is urban legend that has taken on a life of its own.