Teo XLR

Another newbie post. Seeeeeeeeeems mighty suspicious! :)

To Mr. Audionewfie

In case you missed this part of a post that was up-thread here it is again.

In all the time that TEO Audio has been in existence there has been only one instance in which someone has come to my home and bought cables. That one instance had Bob Neill visit us to sign a distribution agreement to sell TEO Audio to dealers in Canada ( it should perhaps be noted at this time that the agreement that was signed at that time was in very short order terminated by TEO Audio) During that visit Bob Neill, who is the owner of Worldwide Wholesales, bought only one (1) pair of cables. These cables were a set of our PDL series RCA terminated inter-connects, which at that point was our entry level cable ( at that point TEO Audio had three cables in our catalog, the PDL, the SPDL and the Standard...the Reference which seems to be referred to at times in this thread was still in development and was not yet completed...and certainly never heard by Bob Neill ).

It should also be noted at this present time that Bob Neill and/or Worldwide Wholesales is also the Canadian distributor of HiDiamond cables and Zu products ( please see links listed below )

Let's get back to the sound of the Teos, can we?

Tbg,
You state: "I think you have greatly exaggerated concerns about this metal [indium]."

With all due respect, when commenting on the toxicity of indium I have referred only to publicly available information that clearly indicates that indium is highly toxic even in the form of vapor. But I believe I am putting everything in its proper perspective when I state "I don't believe we are facing this kind of imminent danger. But, with the passage of time, if these cables were shown to leak indium liquid or vapor with prolonged use, then there would, at that time, be a real health issue in many homes."

Regarding exporting mercury to Latin America and South America, I believe you have helped prove an important point I am trying to make. It is traditional business practice that when companies in North America are forbidden by new regulations from using various products, those companies find a way to export them to countries that are unregulated.

We can see this in the export history of toxic pesticides, asbestos (96% of Canada's deadly asbestos production is now destined for overseas unregulated markets) and various mercury products. The fact that these various products are being used overseas is not an indication that there is no health danger associated with their use.

On the contrary, the dangers have been already recognized "at home" which is why they are found overseas and not "at home". Overseas marketing of toxic products is an indication that companies have been forced by regulation to develop a new marketing strategy when these products are recognized as dangerous "at home" and their use is restricted or prohibited.

You have also helped prove my point when you refer to lead-free solder. For decades it was not considered hazardous to use lead solder. But now that the health dangers of using lead are widely recognized and lead products are regulated, there are other marketing strategies that are being used by lead producers so that they can continue to sell their products. Lead solder is widely available overseas.

In the future, it may well come to pass that solder containing indium will also become regulated when the toxic danger of indium vapor is more widely recognized. It is not unusual that the process involved in recognizing industrial toxins and regulating them can take years and often decades. This is a slow process. In the interim, it does not mean that these products do not pose a danger. They do. It just means that the regulatory process takes a long time to evolve. At the root of this process is legal liability.