[TheForge] Refractory wool hazard(?) (was: Johnson Forge ...)

Mon Nov 17 19:19:01 2003

I have to agree with Bruce when I worked for a construction company I was responsible for keeping the MSDS sheets organized.  We had a MSDS for gravel if you followed all the safety recommendations all the labourers would have been wearing respirators, goggles and long sleeved shirts with the cuffs tucked into rubber gloves.  Unfortunately it is hard to tell which materials are truly dangerous from MSDS sheets because they all err on the side of extreme caution.

Bruce Freeman wrote:

> Silicosis, black lung, etc., all center around uptake of "respirable" particles (guess: <8 microns).  If you don't breathe those particles, you don't get the condition.  So don't breathe those particles!  I think we're agreed on that.  What I take issue with is the tacit assumption that these particles are out to get you, that if you use something that can yield these particles you're dooming yourself.  Ever been in a dusty wind.  What do YOU think that dust is * powdered sugar?  The stuff that blows around is small stuff, likely to be respirable.
>
> I don't see any reason NOT to trust the manufacturer's MSDS.  THAT was an MSDS that could have been written by someone on this list - a very straightforward presentation of the facts by some writer who clearly was pissed off at the brouhaha that has ensued since THE PUBLIC found out about the bad side of asbestos.
> I thought it a very bravely written document.  When a manufacturer wants to deceive, he does it by hedging, putting out general warnings (WARNING:  DROWNING CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH), uzw., NOT by clearly written rendtions of actual findings.  I have never before SEEN such a thorough treatment of a subject in an MSDS, and have to respect any person who'd stick his neck out like that to write one.
>
> We all know enough to consider both sides of a hazard question.  You all are (or should be) aware that coal tar and "creosotes" and "coke oven emissions" are on the US Public Health Service's list of known (not just "suspected") carcinogens.  Does that stop you from blacksmithing?
>
> Remember that asbestos, for example, has SAVED a large number of lives by not burning when another insulating material might have.  Perhaps the WTC might not have collapsed had they left the asbestos in place.
>
> As for thalidomide, you're WAY off base.  Thalidomide was NEVER approved by the FDA for use as a sedative (the use that ended up causing birth defects).  That was the Europeans that did that.  The FDA's drug approval system worked to protect Americans from this drug.  Unfortunately, some got it elsewhere.  (In fact, the best way to give a drug a cult following is to have FDA reject it!  Go figure...)  The current use for thalidomide is for leprosy.  Indeed, the fact that thalidomide is an (obviously) active drug is what makes it so interesting.  Drugs HAVE to be active to do any good.  Again, you have to weigh the good against the bad.
>
> More reading for those interested:
> http://www.rcfc.net/hearth.htm
> http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/DT/fibrous-glass.html
>
> Bruce
> NJ
>
> >>> [email protected] 11/17/2003 3:06:40 PM >>>
>
> Bruce Freeman wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > Some time ago I posted the MSDS for one of these refractory wool
> > products.  The manufacturer had watched his workers for years and
> > years and found no lung diseases.  This stuff is NOT asbestos.
>
>     But it is still a sillicate, which can cause silicosis,
>     the symptoms of which I believe are very similar to that
>     of emphysema.
>
> > (Not all asbestos, even, is carcinogenic, BTW.)  What the
> > manufacturer DID find was some slight evidence of scarring of the
> > lungs that was so slight that it was not outside the range of the
> > normal population (which is not to say that the refractory didn't
> > cause it).
>
>     I would not be so fast to blindly trust amanufacturer's
>     findings in such matters.  They also said that Thalidomide
>     was safe and look where it got several thousands of new borns?
>     And to boot, I recall just a few months ago that the drug
>     companies have been lobbying to bring thalidomide back!
>     My seemingly unrelated point here is that where profit is
>     concerned, one must take the "trust me, it's safe" claims
>     made by those who make those profits with at least a grain
>     of salt.  Corporate veils generally protect execs from
>     any personal accountability.  Chapter 11 protects the
>     corporate entity from even the most eggregious acts (to wit,
>     ENRON which is still operating, and Ken Lay has yet to be charged
>     with any crime.)
>
>     Caveat blacksmith!
> >
> > Weigh against that that it is a mistake to breath in ANY fibers or particles smaller than, say, 8 microns.  (I don't know the exact figure.  10 microns apparently is not too much of a problem - you cough those up and spit them out - but 4 microns is "respirable" * i.e., a problem.)  Now, remember that MOST of the fibers you kick off a forge are going to be much bigger than 10 microns.
> >
> > I do not want anyone to get sloppy around refractory wool.
> >I just want some balance in reporting its hazards.
>
>     Point well taken.
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> theforge mail list group photo site is
> http://www.photoaccess.com
> Login:  [email protected]
> password:  anvil
> ___________
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
>   text/html
> The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
> or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
> to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> theforge mail list group photo site is
> http://www.photoaccess.com
> Login:  [email protected]
> password:  anvil
> ___________