Tulane Wood Dust Study...No Health Risks..

[Phil Winn]

www.iswonline.com (http://www.iswonline.com)
www.iswonline.com/cwb/200608/issues_tulanestudy.cfm (http://www.iswonline.com/cwb/200608/issues_tulanestudy.cfm)

Tulane Wood Dust Study Finds No Adverse Respiratory Health Risks
By Wade Vonasek
The American Forest and Paper Association recently announced the completion of a six-year study into the potential respiratory health effects of wood dust exposure to workers in the wood and wood products industries. The $1.9-million study was commissioned by the Inter-Industry Wood Dust Coordinating Committee (IIWDCC), a consortium of 19 wood products trade associations, and carried out by the Tulane University Medical Center.

According to the AF&PA, the study concludes that breathing wood dust does not pose an adverse health risk to respiratory functions, as no significant adverse effects from wood dust were reported at participating facilities.

“The results were surprising in that we did not really see any effects with respect to exposure to wood dust,” says Dr. John Festa, PhD, senior scientist for the AF&PA. “The study was designed to look at exposure response, but at the levels encountered in the study, the Tulane researchers did not see effects over a fairly broad range of exposures.”

The study followed more than 1,100 employees from 10 plants across the country, representing a cross-section of the wood products industry, including furniture plants, cabinet and cabinet part manufacturing plants, a milled product facility, a plywood facility and an integrated sawmill-planer plywood facility. The plants provided a set of diverse operations with a range of dust levels for examining dose-response relations. Plants and employees participated voluntarily in dust monitoring and lung function testing, as well as answering health questionnaires.

While the study was specifically looking at potential effects of exposure to wood dust, researchers noted pulmonary effects unrelated to wood dust at two of the 10 facilities. The study’s authors suggest that the results may be due to a masked smoking effect at one of the plants, because of participants under-reporting their smoking habits. In another plant, researchers have proposed an additional study of non-wood dust factors, and the facility’s owners have begun an independent study.

Festa said that given the results of the study, he does not expect significant change in industry dust collection procedures, and states that no follow-up study or report is planned at this point. He commends the IIWDCC for funding the endeavor.

“I think it is to the industry’s credit to have sponsored this study,” Festa says. “It was a real commitment to wanting to ensure the continued safety of worker health.”

Festa will be speaking at the IWF 2006 Technical Conference session Got Wood Dust!!! How do you handle it?, taking place on Friday, Aug. 25, from 8:30 to 10:00 a.m. Festa notes that in addition to the results of the Tulane study, he also will discuss the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists’ (ACGIH) threshold limit values for wood dust.

“My presentation is not just going to be about the Tulane study, it’s going to be an overview of wood dust with some historical perspective, talking about some of the health issues from the past and some of the regulatory standards. I’ll also summarize the findings of the Tulane study,” Festa adds.



Sponsors of the Respiratory Health
Study of Woodworkers



AmericanForest & Paper Assn.
American Home Furnishings Alliance
APA - The Engineered Wood Assn.
Appalachian Hardwood Manufacturers
Architectural Woodwork Institute
Association of Woodworking & Furnishings Suppliers
Composite Panel Assn.
Hardwood Manufacturers Assn.
Hardwood Plywood & Veneer Assn.
Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Assn.
National Hardwood Lumber Assn.
National Wooden Pallet & Container Assn.
NOFMA: The Wood Flooring Manufacturers Assn.
Northeastern Lumber Manufacturers Assn.
Southern Forest Products Assn.
Western Wood Products Assn.
Wood Machinery Manufacturers of America
Wood Moulding & Millwork Producers Assn.
Woodworking Machinery Industry Assn.

[Don Baer]

This study was discussed at length back in Feb. when it first came out.
Here is a link to the thread http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=31265&highlight=Tulane+study
My comments to the study stand. I don't feel that the study is pertinate to the small shop or hobiest woodworker since the factories studied use large Dust collectors that exhaust to the out side and have make up air comming into the factories. Small shops and weekenders don't have the luxury.

Particles smaller then 10 microns are harmful. This has been proven. If you don't take precausions to clean the air you breath from these particles then you will feel the long term effect. Please don't let these studies that are funded by manufacturers who have a vested interest sway you from protecting your lungs.

[Phil Winn]

Hi Don,
Thanks for the info. I just posted it because I thought it was interesting....from the sponsors of the study to the University to the
results. I always use a great cyclone dust collector, an aircleaner, and
a mask....Being a Md & DMD, I have seen too many sick people with breathing issues..
Phil

[John Gregory]

I agree with Don. Most home workshops have far more dust exposure than a commerial operation. Lots more hand sanding and small power tool sanding. Any particle in the lungs cannot be a good thing. And if one has an allergy to woods or some species of wood, that is another matter.

Most of us do not have the dust collection system that we would like to have. We do the best we can taking into count, budget and space. But some type of dust collection and air filtration should be a priority in every home shop.

[Jim Becker]

For me, it comes down to common sense. Any time you introduce "foreign" material into your lungs, no matter what the nature, it is potentially affective to your health. Wood dust counts... ;)

[Maurice Ungaro]

I'd like to see the Tulane study on Katrina mold.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical but .............I can't believe that wood dust doesn't have an effect on one's lungs. Whenever I look at a study of any kind I ask myself two questions.....1) who paid for the study...2) what was the researcher's opinion BEFORE the study..........

[Julio Navarro]

My study revealed that after one afternoon of breathing the dust from the wood I was cutting I coughed my lungs out for two days.

[Jim Bell]

I really don't need a study. Spend 4 hrs in my shop with the a/c on and come to your own conclusions. My clear vue system will be here tomorrow or early next week. Several friends and family members are dead from lung issues resulting from cancer. That article in my opinion is one of the most irresponsible collection of disinformation I have read in a very long time. I thank you Phil for posting that article and do understand your intent. My statement is not aimed at you but the article itself. Happy turning,
Jim


If you don't have an excellent air filtering system.....you are one!

[Ian Barley]

The problem with the article is that it doesn't expand enough. There is a critical paragraph which says "...he does not expect significant change in industry dust collection procedures...".

That means, as far as I can see, that this study shows that the current regulatory requirement for dust extraction is adequate if you take the rest of the study at face value. That is a whole wide world of difference from saying that wood dust is not harmful or that there are "no health risks".

You get one set of lungs unless you are unlucky enough to have to borrow a set off somebody who doesn't need them anymore. Commonsense says that as your lungs have evolved to deal with gases then putting solids (or liquids) into them in any form is at least questionable wisdom. The fewer solids you put into them the better. I ain't gonna sell my extractor anytime soon.

[Earl Kelly]

This study was a defensive move to stave off OSHA, because they wanted to lower the amount of wood dust allowable per cm by a multiplier of 5. I read some of the literature that was available. This is the conclusion I have drawn from it. If the new OSHA regs had gone into effect the effort and cost to clean the air would have been enormous. The study never says wood dust is not bad. It just states at the facilities they sampled, the employees were not at any significant risk with the current standards in place.

I'm quite sure if a health organization had commisioned a study the same facilities would have probably fared worse. That doesn't mean you can completely discount the study, just weigh it out.

My question is: If wood dust is so Harmful why has there not been for yrs. millions of woodworkers that worked in the cabinet and furniture industry diagnosed with nasal and lung diseases? After all dust collection is a realitively new standard. What about the 100 yrs only a broom and dust pan were used?

My opinion is use reasonable care to work in a dust free enviroment, and if your work place needs, Hospital grade clean air, do something else!!

[Lars Thomas]

Earl, you also have to remember tools used 100 years ago are very different than used today (neaders aside). For example, a plane generates very little sub-10 micron dust; whereas a random orbital sander will fill the air with fine dust.

The concept of a home shop in a closed up basement of garage is relatively new. In years past, I would venture to say home 'shops' where more often then not in barns or other out-buildings.

True, people have been working wood since the beginning of time, but HOW they work wood and WHERE they work wood are very different today. I feel dust collection at the source offers an appropriate level of self-preservation.

[Scott Neblung]

I wonder if Mr Bill Pentz has a comment on this *study*?

If I recall correctly, his website and yrs of research are because of this very subject....with much different results I assure you.

Scott

[Julio Navarro]

This study was a defensive move to stave off OSHA, because they wanted to lower the amount of wood dust allowable per cm by a multiplier of 5. I read some of the literature that was available. This is the conclusion I have drawn from it. If the new OSHA regs had gone into effect the effort and cost to clean the air would have been enormous. The study never says wood dust is not bad. It just states at the facilities they sampled, the employees were not at any significant risk with the current standards in place.

I'm quite sure if a health organization had commisioned a study the same facilities would have probably fared worse. That doesn't mean you can completely discount the study, just weigh it out.

My question is: If wood dust is so Harmful why has there not been for yrs. millions of woodworkers that worked in the cabinet and furniture industry diagnosed with nasal and lung diseases? After all dust collection is a realitively new standard. What about the 100 yrs only a broom and dust pan were used?

My opinion is use reasonable care to work in a dust free enviroment, and if your work place needs, Hospital grade clean air, do something else!!

My answer would be that only recently (say, 10 or 20yrs) have carcinogens such as cyanide been used in the production of MDF, plywood and particle board products where before only wood products were used? If the use of materials such as MDF has gone up due to cost issues I'd say that dust from those types of products is much more dangerous than typical wood dust, barring allergies and such, of course.

Strickly speculation on my part.

[Mark Rios]

Any firefighter who has paid atention to his/her training will inform you of the potential explosion hazard of ANY airborne dust. Milk dust, concrete dust, wood dust, grain dust, ANY dust is explosive. This may not sound plausible to some of you and this can be duscussed in a later thread but I assure you that all firefighters (myself included when I was active) is instructed in this aspect (spontaneous combustion) of fire science.

In any plant that creates a lot of dust, one of the most important airborne particulate concerns will be to reduce the risk of the explosive hazard of dust in the upper air areas of the plant where the dust and air and heat may mix to the right proportion and explode in a fireball. A secondary benefit of dust control is that the workers have a reduced exposure as well. Workers can wear breathing apparatus to control what enters their body while working in the plant but the plant MUST control the airborne dust to prevent ignition.

There is, of course, dust that is still in the air and this is what the plant workers breathe in during their shifts. The dust is controlled to the point of it no longer being volatile but it's still in the air in amounts that may be hazardous to the health of the workers.

My opinion is that it is cheaper for the plants to fund these studies instead of paying for the extra cost of some sort of better breathing apparatus and the health care costs of any adverse exposure to the workers that the plants may have to admit to.

We all know this; if we breath in anything, dust, milk, soda, strips of bacon, ANYTHING except air what happens? Our body tries to cough and/or sneeze it out, sometimes violently bringing ourselves to tears right? (Who hasn't shot a liquid out their nose because we forgot NOT to breath while we were drinking? Hmmmm? :D ) That's our body telling us that it's not good for us and please don't do it again.

For the uniformed home hobbyist/woodworker this report, IMO, is quite an injustice at the least and very dangerous at the most.

Excuse me now please, I'm going to go change the filters in my respirator.:D :D :D

[robert baccus]

After turning for 20 years i conclude this is a crock. all woods will put you down if enough fine stuff is ingested. the matter of "durable" woods is another issue entirely. these tropical and domestic hardwoods that resist decay have extractives as serious as creosote ect. in them. many such as cocobolo, produce rashes as severe as poison ivy. i read recently where 1 guywas killed and others hospitilized from breathing "silky oak" dust. i can't stay in the roon with chestnut or cedar dust. these woods should be treated entirely different fron the others. ----------ol forester

[Greg Peterson]

After turning for 20 years i conclude this is a crock.

The key is:
"According to the AF&PA, the study concludes that breathing wood dust does not pose an adverse health risk to respiratory functions, as no significant adverse effects from wood dust were reported at participating facilities."

Wanna bet dollars to donuts these facilities already had industrial grade dust collection?

My take on the report is that current dust collection in industry is adequate. The home hobbyist or semi-pro should not cite this report as evidence that DC is unnecessary.

For the doubters, keep on doubting. I'm not taking my chances, and besides that, a good DC system cuts down on shop cleanup time.

[Russ Filtz]

ANY study sponsored by a trade group is automatically suspect.

[Mark Engel]

The key is:
"According to the AF&PA, the study concludes that breathing wood dust does not pose an adverse health risk to respiratory functions, as no significant adverse effects from wood dust were reported at participating facilities."

Wanna bet dollars to donuts these facilities already had industrial grade dust collection?

My take on the report is that current dust collection in industry is adequate. The home hobbyist or semi-pro should not cite this report as evidence that DC is unnecessary.

For the doubters, keep on doubting. I'm not taking my chances, and besides that, a good DC system cuts down on shop cleanup time.


That quote makes me scratch my head in disbelief. They state that wood dust does not present a problem because they did not find anyone showing any symptoms. That is absolutely ludicrous.

Also look at what else it says (or doesn't say). It doesn't say that Tulane University, or the folks that ran the test are saying wood dust is not harmful. It says that the AF&PA interpretation of the test is that wood dust is not harmful.

Someone told me a long time ago, "Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure".

Someone also told me, "You can buy an air filter, or you can be an air filter.".

[Lee DeRaud]

This horse might have eventually died from inhaling wood dust, but we beat it to death first. :eek:

[Paul Kinneberg]

Before, a day in the shop without any dust collection use to mean blowing saw dust out of my nose for a day or so. Now with a Onieda dust gorilla, Festool vacum, and 2 JDS air cleaners nothing! You be the judge, I know in my mind that it makes a huge difference and is as important to me as my saftey glasses.

[Steve Sawyer]

Just to add my $0.02 in personal observation...

I installed the common DC setup, running a flex hose from a portable Delta 1 HP 650 CFM collector to each machine as it was used.

I noticed the amount of dust that was NOT being collected, either from stuff thrown off a blade above the table rather than below where it was collected, as well as from hand operations like planing and drilling.

Next I noticed that I could return to the shop 24 hours after doing any kind of wood cutting, doing only assembly work requiring no machinery with spinning blades or bits, and I'd have a dry cough after an hour in the shop.

I added a nice Jet ambient air filter to the space, and I eliminated that problem too.

[Mark Engel]

For anyone interested in reading the final report as written by the people who actually did the study, here it is:

www.trefokus.no/Doc2132_Annex_JEkEm.pdf.file (http://www.trefokus.no/Doc2132_Annex_JEkEm.pdf.file)

By the way, notice the date, October, 2005.

[Greg Funk]

For anyone interested in reading the final report as written by the people who actually did the study, here it is:

www.trefokus.no/Doc2132_Annex_JEkEm.pdf.file (http://www.trefokus.no/Doc2132_Annex_JEkEm.pdf.file)

By the way, notice the date, October, 2005.
That's an exec summary of the report not the actual report. I don't believe this study was accepted for publication in any peer reviewed journals so it is of questionable value.

Greg

[Wilbur Pan]

I've said this before about the Tulane wood dust study, but it bears repeating.

=======

One major 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 that Greg mentioned, 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.

I don't think it's a complete coincidence that in an industry funded study, Glindmeyer comes to an opposite conclusion to his other work.

In addition, 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.

Sometimes I think that this information should belong in a FAQ. ;)

[howard hirst]

Hi
I'm a violin bowmaker working with ebony and pernambuco---caesalpina echinata----and recently I had some eyelid inflamation --diagnosed as blocked glands----I had a minor operation to put things right but it seems to be recurring

Any Ideas??????

[Mike Heidrick]

Hi
I'm a violin bowmaker working with ebony and pernambuco---caesalpina echinata----and recently I had some eyelid inflamation --diagnosed as blocked glands----I had a minor operation to put things right but it seems to be recurring

Any Ideas??????

Buddy has this and he does no WW at all. Check with a specialist.