Beryllium in engines drama

[dialtone]

Don't remember where in these threads, but someone made a comment about how Ferrari complaining to FIA about beryllium being toxic, but really they were just not good with it and were instead doing research on ceramic coating and wanted to steer towards that.

I've done a bit of research since then and I think calling beryllium toxic is putting it EXTREMELY mildly.

Beryllium is toxic at microgram per cubic meter concentrations, and by toxic I mean that it will kill you, granted you need to have a specific genetic predisposition for that to happen but still. In that thread it was reported that it would give you cancer, which is not really true although the symptoms are similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berylliosis

To note is that there is no cure for this and mortality rates are between 5 and 38% with prevalence at 5%.

If the car crashed hard enough or the engine just started to melt like it did with Sainz in Austria 2022, there is a decent risk of exposure for all the people around the car so driver and marshalls if not even spectators.

Ferrari was absolutely in the right to complain about beryllium toxicity and danger, it is totally nuts that FIA allowed a technology this dangerous to be used in a sport where it clearly doesn't pass the test of being worth it.

[Tommy Cookers]

.. If the car crashed hard enough or the engine just started to melt like it did with Sainz in Austria 2022, there is a decent risk of exposure for all the people around the car so driver and marshalls if not even spectators.
Ferrari was absolutely in the right to complain about beryllium toxicity and danger, it is totally nuts that FIA allowed a technology this dangerous to be used in a sport where it clearly doesn't pass the test of being worth it.

the copper alloy in relays & contactors etc in our road cars is 1 - 1.5% beryllium
anyway eg copper contains some arsenic and most brass (free-machining brass) contains a small percentage of lead

nobody (in the public domain) has used beryllium ...
they've used eg a 50/50 aluminium/beryllium that was called an alloy - but is now called a metal matrix composite MMC
Porsche won the hillclimb championship with brake discs that were maybe 30 Al/70 Be
only ever 6 discs shared by 2 cars

we might expect that these applications wouldn't release micronic-size beryllium ....
or we might not
remember the bogus scare stories about the chemical toxicity of plutonium

yes I have used a lot of the high-strength 98% Cu/2% Be alloys (now 2.5%) - the springiest spring material ever
in some part because heat treatments in-application weren't needed ....
even looked at a special-order 96" x 12" billet to XH treatment state

exhaust valve seats in racing (and some road) machines are likely to be 2.5% Be

[SiLo]

Don't remember where in these threads, but someone made a comment about how Ferrari complaining to FIA about beryllium being toxic, but really they were just not good with it and were instead doing research on ceramic coating and wanted to steer towards that.

I've done a bit of research since then and I think calling beryllium toxic is putting it EXTREMELY mildly.

Beryllium is toxic at microgram per cubic meter concentrations, and by toxic I mean that it will kill you, granted you need to have a specific genetic predisposition for that to happen but still. In that thread it was reported that it would give you cancer, which is not really true although the symptoms are similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berylliosis

To note is that there is no cure for this and mortality rates are between 5 and 38% with prevalence at 5%.

If the car crashed hard enough or the engine just started to melt like it did with Sainz in Austria 2022, there is a decent risk of exposure for all the people around the car so driver and marshalls if not even spectators.

Ferrari was absolutely in the right to complain about beryllium toxicity and danger, it is totally nuts that FIA allowed a technology this dangerous to be used in a sport where it clearly doesn't pass the test of being worth it.

For those not aware, this was a long time ago when Ferrari and McLaren were fighting for titles in the late 90's.

https://www.racefans.net/2007/02/08/banned-beryllium/

[saviour stivala]

The Mercides/Ilmor aluminum-beryllium pistons and liners were two separate developments, with the aluminum-beryllium pistons being used first. Contrary to many believe the Mercedes/Ilmor aluminum-beryllium pistons were not the first to have been produced. Many years before that Porsche produced the first ever aluminum-beryllium pistons for an undisclosed east military block, after that when developing the 917 flat-12 engine they didn't even dare ask for cost approval to use aluminum-beryllium pistons from the parent company VW, because each piston would cost more than the car VW was producing at the time.

[Rodak]

Beryllium isn't the only hazardous metal. I knew a welder who did some chassis work for me; he had worked as a welder at the Hanford, Washington nuclear site. He had been welding chromium alloys without a supplied air respirator and contracted cancer from the fumes. He lived for only a short while after I met him.

[Espresso]

No need for drama please. There are worse things happening on earth.
It has a risk sure, but so are a lot of other things like getting an x-ray. 🩻
IMHO just Ferrari trying to annoy the competition.
Considering the toxicity of Fuel and Oil….

Beryllium is a naturally-found alkaline earth metal and can be released from the Earth's crust into the air and waterways. Individuals working in certain fields, such as nuclear, defense, electronics, biomedical, and semiconductor industries, are at higher risk for occupational exposure and subsequent disease development.

[saviour stivala]

"No need for drama please'' Fully agrees. The metal in question was sold, bought, machined into a final product lawfully, all in strict accordance with laws and regulations applicable. there was nothing clandestine done in the process, the particular material used was not banned by FIA rules when it was used. It gave Mercedes/Ilmor/Mclaren an advantage at the time, well done to them. Re FERRARI objecting to its use, it was not only normal to object at that time, it was the normal trend. In those ultra competitive years there was no one race weekend that went without either FERRARI or Mclaren objecting to one thing, or another used by the other, so that was normal at the time. FERRARI'S objections to the use of beryllium pistons was their best fastest calculated way in eliminating their direct competitor advantage, certainly faster than going back to the drawing board and use the discovered material that was being used, something that when it comes to cost, it was certainly no problem for FERRARI. It is not correct to blame one side or the other, instead we that lived that highly competitive era should cherish that time.

[basti313]

Don't remember where in these threads, but someone made a comment about how Ferrari complaining to FIA about beryllium being toxic, but really they were just not good with it and were instead doing research on ceramic coating and wanted to steer towards that.

Well, the question is who else was in the field back then and what were the regulations back then. Certainly different from today, where everyone would push for this. Still Ferrari being the last ones on legal terms

We are using CuBe for some parts with a relatively high Be content. Not speaking about electrical contacts, but parts you can take in your hand. The regulations in industry and academia are very strict, we need to specify every mg Be content on every part...this is a pain and I would expect that in German companies like Mercedes it would be nightmare to handle a Be containing part.

He lived for only a short while after I met him.

Regulations make sense.

Considering the toxicity of Fuel and Oil….

That is an interesting topic. I still see many mechanics not using gloves. I think in F1 everyone uses them, but people working on oldtimers or their own cars...where the oil might contain everything...
A good quality Nitril glove and you can work better than without.

[Tommy Cookers]

look around your neck of the woods !
eg the UK has burned 'Orimulsion' (a bituminous hydrocarbon) in power generation ....
it contains lots of nickel etc particulates, these excite the hazard-spotters

btw ... X-rays are no hazard - they are directly health-promoting
eg for WW2 millions of youngsters were taught to do X-rays (by doing them on each other of course) but ....
now they've all died we know that far fewer eg died of cancer than did the average population equivalent ...
of course the X-ray story also applies with so-called 'nuclear' radiation (plenty of impeccable papers say so)

but it's impossible for the facts to get in the way of a good story - that's the kind of story that people WANT to believe

[Big Tea]

look around your neck of the woods !
eg the UK has burned 'Orimulsion' (a bituminous hydrocarbon) in power generation ....
it contains lots of nickel etc particulates, these excite the hazard-spotters

btw ... X-rays are no hazard - they are directly health-promoting
eg for WW2 millions of youngsters were taught to do X-rays (by doing them on each other of course) but ....
now they've all died we know that far fewer eg died of cancer than did the average population equivalent ...
of course the X-ray story also applies with so-called 'nuclear' radiation (plenty of impeccable papers say so)

but it's impossible for the facts to get in the way of a good story - that's the kind of story that people WANT to believe

At your ( Presumed, excuse if incorrect ) age you no doubt recall workshops being full of dust from "blown out" breaks and clutch compartments. We now know of the asbestos component, but there was probably far more in some of those "clouds"

[dialtone]

look around your neck of the woods !
eg the UK has burned 'Orimulsion' (a bituminous hydrocarbon) in power generation ....
it contains lots of nickel etc particulates, these excite the hazard-spotters

btw ... X-rays are no hazard - they are directly health-promoting
eg for WW2 millions of youngsters were taught to do X-rays (by doing them on each other of course) but ....
now they've all died we know that far fewer eg died of cancer than did the average population equivalent ...
of course the X-ray story also applies with so-called 'nuclear' radiation (plenty of impeccable papers say so)

but it's impossible for the facts to get in the way of a good story - that's the kind of story that people WANT to believe

Your message is a bit hard to understand for me. What is the story that people WANT to believe?

[Tommy Cookers]

btw ... X-rays are no hazard - they are directly health-promoting
eg for WW2 millions of youngsters were taught to do X-rays (by doing them on each other of course) but ....
now they've all died we know that far fewer eg died of cancer than did the average population equivalent ...
of course the X-ray story also applies with so-called 'nuclear' radiation (plenty of impeccable papers say so)

but it's impossible for the facts to get in the way of a good story - that's the kind of story that people WANT to believe

Your message is a bit hard to understand for me. What is the story that people WANT to believe?

X-rays aren't harmful
but about 100 years ago some official guessed that they might be, so made rules limiting their number
so everyone assumed that they were harmful - and obeyed the rules
only now 80 years after (WW2) do we have proof they aren't harmful
proof on the eventual death of all the WW2 X-ray trainees who received many X-rays in training the many X-ray trainees
much less cancer than the general population

similarly (of the 1945 atomic bombing)
until after many decades we now know there was no increased cancer rate
and now apparently expert people have called for irradiation of the general population to reduce cancer rates

in both cases people expected the worst, so assumed the worst, and (still) assume the worst
because many people just want to see stuff as bad

(my dentist tells me she missed a problem in my tooth because she wasn't allowed to X-ray it)

[dialtone]

Do you have a source for x rays aren’t harmful?

Is the connection here that beryllium is also not harmful?

[saviour stivala]

Many things used that can be harmful if not handled properly. are still being used because if handled properly they are rendered safe to use, so they are allowed to be used and not banned outright.

[Big Tea]

Do you have a source for x rays aren’t harmful?

Is the connection here that beryllium is also not harmful?

Possibly suggesting similar to more people die from chicken bones than Beryllium, but chicken is not feared.