Tulane Wood Dust Study - "wood dust is bad for you" is a lie?

[Matt King]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Industry Wood Dust Study Completed</TD></TR><TR><TD>http://www.apawood.org/images/clear.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD class=contentBodyText><!--mgt_rpt/storypara.htm-->

"A major study of the effects of wood dust on mill employee respiratory health has found "no statistically significant adverse effects from wood dust at the facilities participating in the study," according to Sharon Kneiss, vice president of regulatory affairs at the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). The six-year study, which followed more than 1,100 employees from 10 wood products industry plants around the country, was commissioned by AF&PA and 18 other wood products trade associations, including APA. The study was conducted by the Tulane University Medical Center."
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
A Google search on "Tulane Wood Dust Study" will give many results referencing this study. This quote listed above is from the American Plywood Association site.

Here's another, from Lisa Harbatkin of Wood Digest - "Solid wood dust is not a respiratory danger to wood workers at levels measured in plants participating in the recently completed Respiratory Health Study of the Wood Processing Industry."

Is it just me, or does this study (or at least the general conclusions drawn from it) seem to contradict everything we've (as a group) always understood about the dangers of wood dust? :confused:

Inquiring minds want to know.....

Dustfully yours,


Matt

[Chris Dodge]

I know of people that have developed allergies to wood because of wood dust...at least that is how it is assumed they developed the allergy.

My recommendation is to keep the dust collectors going and keep the masks on.

[Lee DeRaud]

Key words in that quote are "at levels measured in plants": these guys have orders-of-magnitude better dust collection than the average hobbyist.

[lloyd morris]

I don't know about the study Matt, but exposure to wood dust and the resulting allergies, asthma and pneumonia almost killed me last year. Visit Bill Pentz's website for an eye opener about the dangers of wood dust.

As far as the study goes I would look at who funded it and who stands to benefit from test results which are contrary to a rational person's good judgement. Problems from long term exposure to wood dust can also take years to begin to show up and by then the damage is usually done.

There is a lot to be said for good dust collection at the source and hopefully these plants have excellent dust collection cababilities. Most of them are way better than the systems we have in our shops.

Hope this helps,

Lloyd Morris

[Guy Boulianne]

Key words in that quote are "at levels measured in plants": these guys have orders-of-magnitude better dust collection than the average hobbyist.

You're Rigth.

May i Cite Bill Pentz's text here:

=========================
My doctor, a fellow woodworker and pulmonary (lung) specialist helped and pushed me hard to learn what went wrong then share what I learned along with my personal solutions to provide protection. He says testing of thousands of small shops as they apply for commercial licenses shows small shops with indoor dust collection equipment consistently test with five to twenty times higher than government allowed maximum airborne dust levels. My shop with the top recommended cyclone and fine filters tested over the eight hour government maximum with the parts per million particle counts surging to over 12,000 times medical recommended maximums
=========================

Maybe the plants are not ALWAYS in the allowed range, but they have to be the closest they can at the most workstation they can....

[Don Baer]

Matt,
I presently work in the Industrial Health and Safety field as a product manager. Part of my job is to recommend instrumention that is used to measure things like airborne particulate matter so I read the report with great interest. The way I read it the study realy had to do with are the allowable levels of airborne particulate safe or do the need to be changed. The industry standard today for a worker 8 hour exposure is set at 5 mg/m3. There was some talk of lowering the standard to 1 mg/m3. this would cost the industry about $1B/year to achieve. What the Tulane study said was that the present limit is safe.

What I can't find out and no one is talking about is the size of the particulate and what the alowwable concentration should be for small particles. This is talked about in other studies just not wood dust. Here is my concern. There are 3 threshold that are used as measuring stick for particulate size. the first threshold is 10 micron (called PM-10) the second is 2.5 micron (PM-2.5) and the third is 1 Micron (PM-1).
Any thing bigger then PM 10 will not make it through the respetory tract to the lungs. PM-2.5 particles are so small that the can be trapped in the lining of the lungs. And PM1 particle are so small that they are absorbed directly into the blood stream. I think that as a minimum we need to find out the concentration of particulate is in these lower and smaller sizes before we say we are safe enough. Unfortunatly the average hobbiest as a great many of us are don't have the where with all to find this out. I will do some testing in my new shop (my present setup has no dust collection :o ) when it is set up and if anyone is interested will post the results if anyone is interested.

[Ian Barley]

I take a simple view of these things.

If I work my table saw for 2 minutes with no DC running I sneeze like mad and end up coughing.

Sneezing and coughing are reactions that nature has given my body to deal with foreign bodies likely to have a deleterious affect on my health. If my bodies semi-autonomous reactions are telling me that something is bad for me I don't care how many studies you point to - I trust my body.

With my DC gear going I can work all day without a cough or sneeze. Simple conclusion in my mind.

[Frank Pellow]

I take a simple view of these things.

If I work my table saw for 2 minutes with no DC running I sneeze like mad and end up coughing.

Sneezing and coughing are reactions that nature has given my body to deal with foreign bodies likely to have a deleterious affect on my health. If my bodies semi-autonomous reactions are telling me that something is bad for me I don't care how many studies you point to - I trust my body.

With my DC gear going I can work all day without a cough or sneeze. Simple conclusion in my mind.
Well said Ian! I certainly trust my own body's reaction to dust a lot more than a study which appears to be funded by the American Forest & Paper Association.

[Chris Fite]

One good point made in the results of the study was the recapitulation of the measured amounts of dust and the sizes of the particles measured. This could be translated to our systems and the respective data for their abilities to remove or collect dust to this concentration. If we all had some readily available method to collect such information about our environments, we might be able to safely evaluate them versus the test environments. We tend to focus on making sure that no dust is uncollected. Not a bad approach, just not supported scientifically.

Allergic reactions to wood dust are the same as the allergic reactions to anything else. If you react to an allergen, the smallest amount will trigger the reaction. Allergies can result from persistent or frequent exposure to an allergen. Sometimes allergic reactions can result from the first such exposure, indicating that the allergy existed all along.

I suspect that the greatest value of the study is the empirical data that it provides. The next logical step would be to extend the study over a greater time to evaluate exposure over the long term.

We can use the data from the study to set current targets and evaluate exposure over time to decide if there are any different effects after 20 or 30 years.

At the same time, we must recall who funded the study and keep our own counsel.

[Matt King]

Ah - I think I may have mistakenly given the impression that "we don't need no stinking dust collection" whereas I'm actually looking at this study with a "yeah, uh huh, right-o!" reaction! I could not agree more that any research funded by a party with a potential gain based on the outcome of said study is to be viewed as highly suspect.

I believe Frank is correct in saying that Ian has nailed this one!

I'll continue my plans to install a cyclone system when (or is that "if"?) I build my dream shop to be sure! :) If my 'paltry little Shop Fox bag house' can make as big a difference in the air quality as it does, then a properly installed (I'd be rather embarrassed for y'all to see my current cobbled-together collection of S&D pipe, flex hose and metal tape) cyclone would have to be leaps and bounds better!:D

Take care,

Matt

[Jim O'Dell]

Matt,...... snip
..... Unfortunatly the average hobbiest as a great many of us are don't have the where with all to find this out. I will do some testing in my new shop (my present setup has no dust collection :o ) when it is set up and if anyone is interested will post the results if anyone is interested.

Don, I, and I think a lot of others, would be very interested in the measurements you take at your shop! If no one else wants to know, please hang on to my note and PM me the results!! Thanks. Jim

[Maurice Ungaro]

"A major study of the effects of wood dust on mill employee respiratory health has found "no statistically significant adverse effects from wood dust at the facilities participating in the study," according to Sharon Kneiss, vice president of regulatory affairs at the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). The six-year study, which followed more than 1,100 employees from 10 wood products industry plants around the country, was commissioned by AF&PA and 18 other wood products trade associations, including APA.


Folks....FOLLOW the MONEY. Look at who funded the study. Need I say more?

[Bart Leetch]

Around home when we heard something like this that we didn't believe we always said ya & their eyes are brown too. Meaning they are full of it.

I am getting to where I'll be wearing a mask & Ear protection more of the time I'm in the shop. Ear protection for sure because in talking to my Dad he is on his RD pair of hearing aids the latest costing $6000.:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Mark Valsi]

no matter what,

WEAR A DUST MASK OF SOME KIND !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lee DeRaud]

Folks....FOLLOW the MONEY. Look at who funded the study. Need I say more?While I agree in principle with that sentiment, I think it applies more to studies that say "X is good, you should buy a whole bunch of it" or "X is bad, you need to pay us big bucks to fix it". It's not like they're trying to sell us sawdust or talk us out of buying DC equipment.

For that matter, who else is going to fund a study of this?

[Frank Hagan]

Matt,
I presently work in the Industrial Health and Safety field as a product manager. Part of my job is to recommend instrumention that is used to measure things like airborne particulate matter so I read the report with great interest. The way I read it the study realy had to do with are the allowable levels of airborne particulate safe or do the need to be changed. The industry standard today for a worker 8 hour exposure is set at 5 mg/m3. There was some talk of lowering the standard to 1 mg/m3. this would cost the industry about $1B/year to achieve. What the Tulane study said was that the present limit is safe.


I am fuzzy on the conversion, but isn't that less than a teaspoon of wood dust per square yard?

[Don Baer]

I am fuzzy on the conversion, but isn't that less than a teaspoon of wood dust per square yard?

Thats less then a teaspoon per cubic yard. When I demonstart how a particulate monitor work I tear a piece of notebook paper in half near the instrument and it produces more dust then that. Remember this is the average amount of dust over an 8 hour shift.

[Lee DeRaud]

Thats less then a teaspoon per cubic yard. When I demonstart how a particulate monitor work I tear a piece of notebook paper in half near the instrument and it produces more dust then that. Remember this is the average amount of dust over an 8 hour shift.It might be interesting to know what the "background" count is, especially in an area as dusty as the L.A. basin.

[Don Baer]

It might be interesting to know what the "background" count is, especially in an area as dusty as the L.A. basin.

Lee I've measured several places in the LA Basin and typicaly around the OC it run 30-50 ug/m3 (micro grams). During Santa Anna's it can go as high as 100-200 mg/m3 and once when there was a fire buring close to my house I measured 850 mg/m3

[Lee DeRaud]

Lee I've measured several places in the LA Basin and typicaly around the OC it run 30-50 ug/m3 (micro grams). During Santa Anna's it can go as high as 100-200 mg/m3 and once when there was a fire buring close to my house I measured 850 mg/m3Kinda what I figured, although I'm a little surprised by that overall range: four orders of magnitude?!?:eek:

I also suspect that "typical OC" figure is way low for where I am: 1/2 mile from the Santa Ana "river" (AKA "Silt Central")...might as well be in Corona as far as dust is concerned.:p

[Howard Acheson]

Chris, I don't believe that the study tested for allergies or sensitivities. They were interested in actually illnesses.

I am vaguely aware on one study that indicated that dust was a possible carcinigen for a rare form of nasal cancer. The same study, as I recall, found not illnesses of the lungs from wood dust. I think I saw the study on an OHSA site.

[Michael Disorbo]

I owe wood dust a big favor. A few years back while working with hickory, I got a real bad lung infection. I use a DC and at the time was doing a lot of sanding with a downdraft table. That lung infection led me to quit smoking and really fast. Still can't breath well, but doctors say that both culprits played a role in my lung damage. I am sure the smoking did the most damage and if I would have never got the lung infection from the hickory I would still be smoking. Another wood that is real bad on the lungs is walnut. Like the other thread said WEAR A MASK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Michael

[Brett Baldwin]

Just another thing to consider about this study...what type of wood were these plants working with? Woodworkers that make furniture and projects are probably exposed to more exotic woods than many plant/mill workers ever will be and some of those exotics are notably more toxic than say pine or oak. Just something that occured to me as I was reading this.

[Ellen Benkin]

Common sense will tell you that getting any "foreign" particles in your lungs cannot be good for you, even if the particles by themselves are not carcinogenic. Wear a mask.

[Andy Fox]

Let's not forget that dust can be a nearly silent killer (like tobacco smoke) that we don't really notice, other than maybe an annoying cough.

From: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Copd/Copd_WhatIs.html



Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a lung disease in which the lungs are damaged, making it hard to breathe. In COPD, the airways—the tubes that carry air in and out of your lungs—are partly obstructed, making it difficult to get air in and out.

Cigarette smoking is the most common cause of COPD. Most people with COPD are smokers or former smokers. Breathing in other kinds of lung irritants, like pollution, dust, or chemicals, over a long period of time may also cause or contribute to COPD.

...

COPD is a major cause of death and illness, and it is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States and throughout the world.

[Earl Kelly]

I think most are missing the point of the testing. It was to determine if the current OSHA requirements are safe enough or are more stringent standards needed. Which I believe would be 2-3 times more stringent. Granted most OSHA compliant factories have much better dust collection than small shops and home workshops, so comparing the two is not practical. Main thing is take care of yourself, and not read too much into the study.

[Don Baer]

I think most are missing the point of the testing. It was to determine if the current OSHA requirements are safe enough or are more stringent standards needed.

Actually they Osha spec proposed changed was from 5mg/m3 to 1mg/m3 and that for everthing excet western red Ceder which is .5mg/m3.

Granted most OSHA compliant factories have much better dust collection than small shops and home workshops, so comparing the two is not practical. Main thing is take care of yourself, and not read too much into the study.

That is correct and also the large factories I have seen don't return the air back to the shop they exaust it outside and use clean makeup air from a source hopefully not close to the chip bins..while many wood worker have enclosed shops or work out of there basements.


<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Earl Kelly]

Actually they Osha spec proposed changed was from 5mg/m3 to 1mg/m3 and that for everthing excet western red Ceder which is .5mg/m3.

Don, is that the specs OSHA was wanting to change to? If so, quite a magnitude of change, to lower the allowable dust to 1/5th the present standards.

[Bob Aliano]

I like to understand who paid for the studies, how they were conducted and exactly what was studied when I see results that contradict widespread beliefs. I might be cynical but I've seen a lot of these studies that produce results suspiciously convenient to the sponsors.

[Don Baer]

Actually they Osha spec proposed changed was from 5mg/m3 to 1mg/m3 and that for everthing excet western red Ceder which is .5mg/m3.

Don, is that the specs OSHA was wanting to change to? If so, quite a magnitude of change, to lower the allowable dust to 1/5th the present standards.

Yes Earl that was the proposed change based on the recommendations of the American Council of Goverment and Industrial Hygenists.

[Bob Noles]

I am not about to put my dust mask up for auction based on that study. :eek:

nuff said......

[Mitchell Scrivener]

I went to Tulane. Yathink they might want to do a study on the effects of wood rot and mildew and lung damage. Willow Street was under quite a lot of water, and any of those researchers will probably be researchee's in about 15 years.

[Uma Duffy]

Who funds the research determines the likely results of the study...industry funded=industry favorable results...see FDA drug tests...another fine example of money talks:cool:

[Dan Clark]

The study is BS. Just like the thousands of other studies funded by some industry or trade organization. The cigarette industry funded dozens (hundreds?) of studies PROVING that smoking was NOT hazardous your health. Riiiight!

Follow the money!

Dan.

[glenn bradley]

I would feel really lucky if my shop air quality approached the quality in a local cabinet shop. When you get in the general vicinity of one of their open gates you can feel your hair pulling toward it. Their cyclone looks like it could swallow a Volkswagon and not even notice.

I am lucky and can have the side and large roll up front doors open 9 months out of the year for cross ventilation. I still use DC and wear a mask. Folks who work in areas requiring heated shops or in basements are in a very different environment than those used in the study.

Interestingly, I work with a couple of intelligent and well educated individuals. One religiously refuses to use his turn signals and the other will not wear a seat belt . . . some folks don't use dust collection. Some folks think I'm a dare-devil becasue I don't ground my PVC(?). We all have different comfort levels.

[Wilbur Pan]

Interestingly, I work with a couple of intelligent and well educated individuals. One religiously refuses to use his turn signals....

I have to ask.

I can see not thinking and forgetting to use turn signals. But is there any reason to deliberately not use turn signals?

Of course, here in New Jersey, activating a turn signal seems to mean, "Please speed up on this side of my car." ;)

[Gary Keedwell]

Here in Boston we don't use turn signals because we like to keep the enemy guessing.

Gary

[Art Mann]

Comments on the comments:

1) The study referenced here was done by a prestigious medical school that has much to lose by falsifying research data. The individuals doing the research have much to lose by publishing a bad study with their name on it.

2) Almost all research of any type is privately funded by the institutions that are affected by the results. No new drugs would ever be released if we counted on public funding for research. Anyone who claims that we have not made tremendous progress in the medical field through privately funded research, much of which actually eliminates promising new drugs, is living in a fantasy world. The source of the funding does not affect the results in most cases.

3) Very few people on this board have ever actually been in a wood industry facility that complies with OSHA dust standards. I have. I think people would be astounded at the cleanliness of the air in such a place. The air is often less dust filled than the outside open air.

4) It is extremely difficult to achieve OSHA standards in a home shop environment. In reality, if we could come up to those standards in our hobby shops, we would be extremely pleased.

5) Much of the information spread about on this board about the health effects of dust come from a single individual who a) has had severe respiratory problems that may affect his thinking and b) stands to reap personal financial benefit from the sale of dust collection equipment. Unlike the sponsors of the Tulane study, he is doing all his own "research" hmself with no professional medical qualifications and no peer review. I marvel at the people who would rather trust his opinions than the results of legitimate research.

6) I have read a number of studies that he and others on this boad have referenced in proving their claims about the hazards of wood dust. Several facts come out of those studies. a) Most of the research was done in foreign third world countries 10 to 30 years ago. b) The air quality standards were generally much worse than what is permitted by OSHA. c) In spite of these facts, the increases in dust related illnesses were very slight in most cases.

7) With the exception of allergic reactions, the health risk of inhaling wood dust is related to the amount of exposure. Hobbiests do not spend 8 hours a day, 5 or 6 days a week inhaling wood dust.

My intentions in making all these coments are not to deny the obvious fact that inhaling wood dust is hazardous to one's health. Rather, I am trying to add a little reason to what I believe is largely hysteria whipped up by a few paranoid individuals. As for myself, I have a central dust collection system in my shop and I am improving it all the time. I wear a quality dust mask whenever I am doing high risk jobs. I use an exhaust system to pull in fresh air when weather permits. I would advise others to do the same. I think achieving the OSHA goals in a home shop is a worthy, if very difficult, goal.

[Toney Robertson]

Wow, a voice of reason from the wilderness!

I can not understand why this issue is a hot button issue for so many people. I have asked what I think are reasonable questions in the past and have received mostly unreasonable answers.

Most people seem to think that DC's are the end all and be all and I am sure that if you spend thousands that statement can be true but I have yet to see any empirical evidence showing that an ordinary DC provides a safe working environment.


I was recently at a small commercial shop where a worker was putting strips through a wide belt sander. Even though it had 2 4-5" outlets hooked to a DC and no visible signs of airborne dust, he was still wearing a dust mask. Unless he had an allergy to dust then his willingness to wear a mask IMO states volumes about how we should be approaching wood dust.

IMO DC are nice but to protect your lungs a GOOD dust mask is a prudent measure. Stopping dust before it enters your lungs is the goal.

I would love it if someone can show me evidence of a reasonably priced DC that would eliminate the need for personal dust protection.

Toney

[Louis Rucci]

Just to be a Devil's advocate.

You can't always ignore the report because of who funded it. They may have a valid reason for the study, good or bad, and it's up to us whether to trust the results or not.

[James Ayars]

Art, thanks for your post, specifically points 1 and 2. When I was in grad school, I saw that almost all research funding was from public and private corporations. While the departments of education and sociology got government money, the sciences rarely did. The professors and graduate assistants were not liars that would manufacture data and sell their credentials to the highest bidder.

I saw a lot of research being done to develop new drugs, especially for cancer. It was extremly expensive, slow and often led to a dead end. And it was funded by drug companies. They did not say "Here is xxxxx number of dollars, now make this drug look good." Rather they said "here's xxxxx number of dollars. See if you can find a connection between this protein/enzyme/etc and the growth of certain cancer cells."

If someone or some industry did not have a stake in the outcome, they would have no reason to fund the research.

James

[Ray Turney]

The only thing that should be in your lungs is oxygen. Black lung doesn't show up in miners lungs till it's too late. Stop it before it stops you

[Harry Hagan]

Here's another question you should be asking yourself: What have their unpublished studies determined?

After years of attending medical conferences and reviewing thousands of medical research papers; I’ve concluded that studies sponsored by those who benefit the most should be evaluated with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[John Browne]

I have to agree that to assume that these studies are slanted or inaccurate solely because of the source of the grant money is falling a bit too much into conspiracy theory thinking. Solid researchers will present solid data and conclusions. It may or may not be beneficial to the org which provided funding, that's their risk. They want to deal with policy issues by bring facts, not opinion, to the table.

I use a DC and am concerned about dust, who isn't? But it's hard to know how far one should take it...I used to smoke 2+ packs of cigarettes a day, that was dangerous. I don't smoke at all now. But if someone only smoked one cigarette a day, is that highly risky? How about one per week? or month? Where is the tipping point? No one can say.

And no one can say it about dust, either. I have a client who has an OSHA compliant boat yard, they have PM66 saws hooked up to little 1.5 or 2hp DCs with the cheap nylon bags. Dust on the bags, floor, saws, everywhere. Hardly a dust-free environment. Yet their OSHA inspector said they were the best inspection he'd done in like 20 years. These employers are seriously concerned about the welfare of their employees--if they thought for one second they were hazarding people's health they'd do it better.

Now those saws don't get a lot of use--it's a boat shop, not a cabinet shop. But these people work around that equipment for years and years. And they've never had a dust-related illness (had one allergy from fiberglass exposure, however).

I used my saw for a grand total of maybe 20-30 minutes per week actually cutting, always with the DC on. Sure, there's some dust floating around. But am I killing myself at these levels of exposure to where I should also wear a respirator and get a .5u filter etc? Frankly I doubt it. But what do I (or any of us) actually KNOW?

[Greg Pavlov]

One of the golden rules in reporting research results is to report and publish sufficient detail about an experiment and the conditions it was conducted in to allow someone else to replicate it. This is true regardless of who sponsors the study. If that has been done, most credibility problems can be resolved.

A major problem with most news reports about medical studies is that they don't give enough real information: you can see this in a lot of the questions and comments that came up in this thread. Another is that they very often misinterpret the experiment and the results, most often overstating the results.

Perhaps the most significant credibility issue concerning drug industry trials is something someone alluded to: some studies may never be reported. This has come up in some recent court cases and its very likely that in the future, pharmcos will be legally required to publicly report on all studies regardless of outcome.

I wouldn't equate anything that the tobacco industry has done over the past 50-60 years to anything anyone else has done.

[Wilbur Pan]

Before we get all warm and fuzzy about private/industry sources for medical research funding, we need to be aware that if a study is funded with industry money, the sponsors of the study can and do squash studies that are not favorable to the sponsor. The recent issues with antidepressants and an increased risk of teen suicide (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/492840) is one of the most recently publicized examples of this, but this goes on all the time.

I'm a pediatric oncologist that works in academics, and our division is frequently approached by industry to do clinical research sponsored by private funds, so we see a lot of this. Industry always reserves the right to do what they want with the dat, including refusing to submit it for publication. I don't know of a single physician worth their weight in salt that doesn't automatically see industry sponsorship and think, "potentially compromised data".

This is not to deny that private funding sources aren't important. But if funding comes from the public sector, I have more faith in the data.

[Wilbur Pan]

One other issue with the Tulane wood dust study: I can't find the actual study anywhere. There's an article in the Tulane University Magazine (http://www2.tulane.edu/article_news_details.cfm?ArticleID=6535) referencing the study and the lead author, Henry Glindmeyer, but doing a search on Pubmed (http://www.pubmed.gov) (a database of all articles relating to biomedical research) for "Glindmeyer" doesn't return an article describing these findings, which leads me to believe that the Tulane wood dust study is, at the very least, not peer-reviewed. There's an "executive summary (www.trefokus.no/Doc2132_Annex_JEkEm.pdf.file)" of the paper that I found, and mention of a presentation of this data in 2002 at the American Industrial Hygiene Conference & Exposition (http://www.som.tulane.edu/pulmdis/Glindmeyer.htm), and lots of press releases, but no published paper that I can find, at least.

To see a list of these papers, go to www.pubmed.gov, and search for "Glindmeyer".

Interestingly, reading the abstracts of the other studies that he is an author on shows that he does link respiratory disease with exposure to spray painting, cotton dust, coffee bean processing, and sandblasting, and in many of these cases says that current standards and practices are inadequate to protect workers in these industries.

[Wilbur Pan]

2) Almost all research of any type is privately funded by the institutions that are affected by the results.

This is factually wrong. Here's a graph of funding trends in biomedical research from 1993-2002.

http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/woodcock0602/Slide4.GIF

This data is from the FDA (http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/woodcock0602/woodcock0602.html). Although pharmaceutical spending outpaces the NIH budget, public funds still makes up a significant part of biomedical research funding.

[Roger Warford]

This is a great thread, as are all of the numerous threads on DC. I particularly appreciate Art's comments (and love your show on HDNet as well! ;)).

I think any reasonable person would agree that on-going exposure to wood dust cannot possibly be a good thing and that we all owe it to ourselves and our families to take steps to keep ourselves healthy. I, however, have limited means (as I suspect most of us do) and therefore must split my precious few resources (time and money) amongst many competing needs. I am just setting up shop and am including DC as a central component. But I also spent a little extra on a TS to get a riving knife which I perceive as a significant safety feature. Spending more on the TS meant spending just a little less on DC (I went with a single stage rather than a cyclone). As for the TS, I could have gone the next step up and purchased a SawStop that adds even more safety, but then I wouldn't have had enough left to purchase my DC.

Likewise I have to divide up the precious little time I have. I've read volumes from SMC, Bill Pentz's site, and as many other sources as I could find on DC. And it has all been valuable. But I've also spent time reading up on TS safety and other topics. And have actually saved a few minutes to make some of that deadly saw dust! :D

I enjoy obsessing over every aspect of my hobbies, but when push comes to shove we all have to make trade-offs. I encourage those of you who, like me, are new to WW and the Creek to educate yourselves on this and a few other important topics, do what you can to protect yourself, but make your own judgement calls based on your own working habits, plans, goals, and means.

And, most importanly, have fun and share your experiences! :)

One last note, as I have mentioned I am new to the Creek so please go easy on me! I hope I won't regret this post!

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Welcome to the Creek Roger....


Break out the whips and chains folks......Roger assume the position:eek::rolleyes::D

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Roger,

I joined the Creek 4 years ago when I first started building a workshop. I didn't even know DC existed. I just finished this weekend the final tiny installation details to my new 3hp central DC. I attached it to my new b/s and was starting install the first blade on the b/s but got called to work yesterday.

That's one of the things I like about the Creek......You can learn a lot.

[Dennis Peacock]

Yup...an old thread but the content is very good.

[Prashun Patel]

If you have enough $ to spend on stationary power tools, then you have enough $$ to spend on dc. If there's even a shred of doubt, why take a chance?

Try working without DC for a few weeks and pay careful attention to the quality of your breathing. I notice it.

What a small price to pay.

Shoot, while yr at it, throw away yr blade guards and splitters and toss that eye protection.

[Roger Warford]

...Break out the whips and chains folks......Roger assume the position:eek::rolleyes::D

Yikes! :eek:


...That's one of the things I like about the Creek......You can learn a lot.

Whew, thanks for following up - I was running scared after the first message!

And I'm amazed by all that I've been able to learn here. I've been so impressed I've taken the unprecendented step of making a contribution. As a software developer by day I spend a significant portion of my day searching the Web for information on one topic or another. I've NEVER payed for an open forum before - and almost never participated in any.

The information here, though, is so good, and everyone is so willing to help, that I made a small donation to the creek. For anyone who hasn't noticed, there's a DONATE button near the top right of the SMC page.

SMC is a valuable "safety" feature for me - it's already kept me out of trouble I might have otherwise stumbled into!

Now when do I get my cool "2008 Contributor" tag line? :)

[Dennis Peacock]

Now when do I get my cool "2008 Contributor" tag line? :)

Roger,

Please send a PM or email to Keith or Jackie Outten and one of them will get your account updated.

[Jeff Bratt]

Exactly right - read the articles or look at the study itself - not the headlines. The study was conducted by an industry council to resist any tightening of current regulatory limits for wood dust. Their conclusion was that the current limits 15 mg/m3 for total dust and 5 mg/m3 for respirable dust should not be lowered to proposed limits of 1 mg/m3 (inhalable fraction) for all species except Western red cedar, and 0.5 mg/m3 as the limit for Western red cedar. However, there were adverse health effects noticed in some instances - the study attributed these to mold in the wood being processed - so that wasn't a "wood dust" problem.

Do NOT draw any conclusions that "wood dust is not harmful". The headlines associated with reports on this study are blatant lies:
"Breath Easy: Wood Dust is Safe"
"Tulane Wood Dust Study Finds No Adverse Respiratory Health Risks"

There are heath risks - even at the current exposure levels - and since many home shops are wildly above the current OSHA limits, dust collection should still be a concern to all of us. Notice that exotic woods are barely mentioned and exposure to some of these can be significantly more dangerous than the common species studied.

[Art Mann]

This is not to deny that private funding sources aren't important. But if funding comes from the public sector, I have more faith in the data.
In a former life 3 decades ago, I used to work in the world of agriculture and chemical research. Some of the shoddiest and most biased work I have ever reviewed was done using exclusively public funds and government employed researchers. They were bound and determined to prove that certain chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides were harmful to the environment. Their own research did not prove this but they claimed it did anyway. As a result, less effective ands more dangerous chemicals were introduced into the environment to replace the old ones.

Public funding is no guarantee of objectivity. I would trust research funded by the woodworking industry more.

[Steven Hardy]

To be concerned about excessive dust is one thing. To be a dust prohibitionist's is just plain bizarre to me.
It occurs to me that the human body is designed to cope with some amounts of dust or it would never be safe for us to go outside.If you can smell it,whatever it is...chances are its been in your lungs.
Are some of us becoming like Howard Hughs????

[Robert Gardner, Amherst MA]

James,
Most mainstream research in the sciences, medicine, and engineering is funded by agencies such as NSF, NIH, etc. The crucial element of this type of funding is the peer review. NSF and NIH have an incredibly rigorous system of blind, peer review panels that go to great pains to avoid "old boy network" conflicts of interest when dishing out the dough. This, together with publication in a top peer-reviewed scientific journal is the gold standard in assessing the quality and accuracy of scientific research. There is (and should be) some skepticism, both in the scientific communities and by the lay public of studies that obtain funding, especially exclusive funding from industrial sources, since even with the best of intentions (which is not always the case) the knowledge that the paycheck is signed by a company with a financial stake in the findings often has an impact in subtle, and sometimes not-so-subtle ways.

As a case in point, there was a front page headline in the NY Times a year or two ago about a world class cancer researcher at one of the big medical schools (I believe it was Cornell, but can't remember exactly) who for years, had been an advocate of early screening and surgical intervention of lung cancer in smokers. She had published many studies purporting to evaluate such early detection and intervention methods, and claimed that they showed a significant benefit in terms of a better remission rate and increased longevity. However, her statistical methods were regarded with a great deal of skepticism by other cancer researchers, and anti-smoking organizations were appalled at the thrust of the work, since it gave the false impression to smokers that they could continue to smoke and rely on early detection/intervention to limit their risk of dying from lung cancer. The NY Times headline was about a recent disclosure that her research had received funding amounting to millions of dollars over a period of many years from an obscure research organization. A reporter had uncovered the fact that this outfit was set up as a front for one of the big tobacco companies, and that both the researcher and the dean of the medical school had direct knowledge of this relationship. Cancer researchers are legally required to disclose funding obtained from the tobacco industry, but she failed to disclose this fact in any of her grant applications and journal articles. At the time, some disciplinary proceedings were underway both for the researcher and the dean.

In regard to the wood dust study, the key points are that there is no mention of peer-reviewed funding, and that the article appeared in Wood Digest, which is not exactly at the level of credibility of JAMA. I think if you shredded it and fed it to your dust collector, it would come out the other end as extremely lightweight particulate matter, and would therefore be extremely dangerous to your health.

[Lee DeRaud]

And "The Thread That Would Not Die" award for 2008 goes to...