ASHRAE filter test? [Archive] - Sawmill Creek Woodworking Community

Robert Witter

10-08-2006, 11:26 AM

Questions for Bill Pentz,
I think that the below posts make allot of sense and are excellent advice. I visited the Wynn site and looked at the Farr & Torit compatible filters you highly recommend. Maybe I overlooked something but I did not see where these filters were certified. I didn’t see where they reported any testing on these: ASHRAE, BIA ? Where did you purchase the certified filters for your own shop? Where are their ASHRAE tests posted on the Wynn site? Thank you in advance?

99.995% efficient at 1.0 micron and above
Washable
Torit-Style

2B100SBOL
Open Open

No inner Liner
100% Polyester Spun Bond
12.75" x 26" (100 sq.ft..)
126.00

99.995% efficient at 1.0 micron and above
Torit-Style
2A100SBOL
Open Closed

Bolt Hole
No inner Liner
100% Polyester Spun Bond
12.75" x 26" (100 sq.ft..)
134.00

99.995% efficient at 1.0 micron and above
Torit-Style
2C100SBOL
Open Closed

No Bolt Hole
No inner Liner
100% Polyester Spun Bond
12.75" x 26" (100 sq.ft..)
134.00

Sincerely,
Robert Witter
Oneida Air Systems, Inc.

Below are the quotes from Bill Pentz:

“ I also recommend you power it with my recommended impeller, blower design, and heavy duty motor. I tried to help by working out discounted prices on the parts from Clear Vue Cyclones, Electric Motor Warehouse, and Wynn Environmental.

bill

”That careful filter testing left me now only trusting filter ratings provided by an American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) certified independent testing laboratory. ASHRAE is not a government organization, but instead a private, non-profit group of professional engineers that set the standards for their industry. Unable to find any certified dust collector bags and knowing that most bags have so little surface area that then need constant cleaning which exposes me to the very dust I must avoid, I personally use certified cartridge filters with a cyclone to protect those filters. I recommend all others do the same”.

bill

“For commercial dust collection systems that vent inside into facilities that must pass regular government air quality tests, the vendors use filters tested and certified according to ASHRAE standards when new, not after building up this dust cake. A well seasoned filter will filter 20 to 30 times better than a brand new filter. Unfortunately with no oversight on our vendors and the testing being very expensive, most hobbyist filters are advertised with their outdoor fully “seasoned” filtering levels. This means most pass the finest unhealthiest dust most of the time when used indoors. Between moving too little air to capture the fine dust as it is made, hoods that do not control and contain this fine dust, and these open filters, most small shops build up dangerously high levels of fine dust unless they regularly get blown out thoroughly.”

bill

Suppliers from Bill Pentz's site

Clear Vue Cyclones: http://www.ClearVueCyclones.com (http://www.clearvuecyclones.com/) now makes cyclones, material movement blowers, and provides material handling impellers. Ed Morgano who started this small firm has been a pleasure to work with and does excellent work.
Wynn Environmental (Dick & Rick): http://www.wynnenv.com/torit_filters.htm (http://www.wynnenv.com/torit_filters.htm) has the best pricing and service in providing excellent affordable cartridge filters, 3.5", 4", 5" and 6" clear flex hose in 25' lengths and clamps. They are my recommended source for the Farr and Torit compatible filters in both the washable poly and the less expensive blended cartridge filters. They also offer the Donaldson Torit 0.2 micron fine filters that I need to use to take better care of my poor lungs.

John Renzetti

10-08-2006, 12:04 PM

Mike Wenzloff

10-08-2006, 12:45 PM

The content of this post was deleted since the reply only referred to the way the thread was written and was not on topic.

Ken Salisbury

Lee DeRaud

10-08-2006, 1:01 PM

Content of this post was deleted since it was off topic to the thread.

John Shuk

10-08-2006, 1:17 PM

John Shuk

10-08-2006, 1:20 PM

Does Camfil Farr make these Torit filters or are they a knock off.
Not sure since they say "Torit-Style"

Bud Zysk

10-08-2006, 1:23 PM

Content was deleted due to being off topic

Ken Salisbury

Mike Dauphinee

10-08-2006, 1:34 PM

A portion of this post was redacted since content was off topic to the discussion.
Ken Salisbury

I look forward to learning how, when, when and why all these claims are made and sorting them out to become more educated and have prudent safety in my shop. It will be nice to have a two sided conversation to do so. Hopefully no one thinks they have been threatened and the lawyers need to get involved. So far I see facts being questioned in a civil manner.

edit>bad spallin

Mike Wenzloff

10-08-2006, 1:58 PM

Off topic content was deleted - let the moderators moderate, please
Ken Salisbury

Scott Henderson

10-08-2006, 2:35 PM

Off topic content deleted

John Renzetti

10-08-2006, 2:38 PM

This is from the Camfill/Farr website

"Here is a selection of standardisation bodies that we have either set up or been closely involved in: Eurovent 4/5, Eurovent 4/9, Eurovent 4/10 Eurovent Recommendation 1/ LCC 2/ Air Filters and IAQ

CEN EN 779:1993, Proposed revised CEN EN 779:2001, CEN EN 1822, SEM Analysis.
CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) is working to establish common standards throughout Europe.

EUROVENT is leading the development of new and modern test methods that can meet today's requirements in terms of ventilation, air filter installations in indoor environments and other areas.

Hi John, EUROVENT is an organization composed of the manufacturers of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment. Since Farr make filters for so many applications, they might have included EUROVENT as related to the filters they make in this area.
BIA or Berufsgenossenschaftliches Institut für Arbeitsschutz (I didn't make that up) is the agency that handles wood dust emissions for the workplace. It looks like they handle the testing of a complete Dust Collector as a unit and not just the filtration media. To get the BIA sticker the machine must have tested no more than .2mg/cubic meter of air if 50% of the air will be exhausted outside and .1mg/per cm if the air is 100% recycled. I didn't see any mention of particle size but from what I understand the particle size will be from .1m on up. I think they blow quartz dust for an hour for the tests. I think BIA also does fitler media certification. I know two classes G and C. I'll have to look up what each means.
take care,
John

Lee DeRaud

10-08-2006, 2:47 PM

Content had nothing to do with thread subject so it was deleted.
Ken Salisbury

Mike Wenzloff

10-08-2006, 2:59 PM

Are we trying to get to the truth of the matter?
Independent testing by a certified lab is about the only way to arrive at what would approximate the truth.

Who really cares who asked the question. I for one think it is about time we begin actual intellectual discussion over the myths and facts about DC.
This is the "best" we can hope for. And for myself, tis good enough. Not sure I am smart enough to understand what all could be discussed in this thread. But I am willing to have a go.

Take care, Mike

Content that was off topic to the thead subject was redacted.
Ken Salisbury

Alan Simpson

10-08-2006, 3:15 PM

Off topic content deleted
Ken Salisbury

Doug Shepard

10-08-2006, 3:19 PM

Jim O'Dell

10-08-2006, 3:19 PM

John Renzetti

10-08-2006, 3:28 PM

hi, I'll have to admit that when I first saw Mr Witter's message, I really didn't get a warm and fuzzy feeling about the intent. This bothered me since I'm a big fan of Oneida and also a customer. Email is a lousy way to communicate. Ten people read the same message and you get ten different interpretations.
I think that the question should be directed at Wynn Environmental and not Bill Pentz. I've passed the message onto Wynn so maybe they'll respond directly.
I checked out a couple of companies that sell fitlers and dust collectors in the USA. American Fabric Filter doesn't mention ASHRAE nor BIA. CORAL, Martin and Felder mention BIA certification. Looking at the Wynn website their various filters are rated as low as 1 micron. The Donaldson/Torit filter that they carry is rated at .2micron.
take care
John

John Renzetti

10-08-2006, 3:32 PM

Has anyone tried posting Wynn about the ratings on the filters they sell? They may have the information, but not posted on the web site. I'll e-mail them in a minute and report back tomorrow when I get the answer. Jim.

Hi Jim, I just did and even gave them a link to the thread. They might be closed tomorrow due to the Federal Holiday. I'll be gone all day Tuesday, so just post the reply if you don't get it until then. (Here's a bet-will we still be having this so far good discussion by Tuesday).
take care,
John

Ken Salisbury

10-08-2006, 4:58 PM

As you can see, I have done a considerable amount of editing to this thread which I really shouldn't have had to do. Please note that I have explained each edit/delete in each post rather than just delete it all together.

WARNING: Any post/s which do not respond directly to the thread subject will be summarily edited and or deleted. Your posts should have some value add to the discussion.

Please let the moderators moderate. If you have a complaint about a specific post use the "report this post" feature or do so via e-mail or PM.

I will not let this thread get outta hand like the last DC thread. I will jerk it in a heart beat if the non-responsive posts continue.

Do not respond here to any of the actions I have taken. I will summarily delete those without explantion.

Ken Salisbury

Gary Keedwell

10-08-2006, 7:51 PM

When radically more efficient technologies emerge, they are quickly embraced by paying customers without any need for government mandates—embraced not just to displace old ways of doing things, but to do all sorts of new things that previously hadn't been done at all.
—Peter Huber

Just a kewl quote I thought I would share.

Gary K.

John Renzetti

10-09-2006, 8:31 PM

Hi, this was posted as a reply to the How to select a filter thread. Since it is a reply by Ed Morgano of Clearview and Rick Wynn of Wynn Industrial it should also go here since it has to do with filter certification. Thanks to Robert Witter, Rick Wynn and Ed Morgano for contributing so much information regarding this subject.

Hi all,
My name is Ed Morgano and I’m president of Clear Vue Cyclones. I too have a profit motive…..although, at age 64, I don’t have any designs on becoming a millionaire…..unless I win Saturday’s Power Ball drawing. In response to Mr. Witter’s post about how to choose a filter, I’ve asked Rick Wynn from Wynn Environmental, who supplies our filters, to look at the post and give us his comments. Following is his response:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Wynn" <sales@WynnEnv.com>
To: "Ed @ Clear Vue Cyclones" <ed@clearvuecyclones.com>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: Rick Wynn

Ed,

Mr. Witter is correct on all points, but please keep in mind, our primary market for filters is heavy industry, whereas Clear Vue and Oneida target the home/hobby woodworking market. My customers run their systems all day long, five days a week, and many run multiple shifts. I have to be a lot more conservative in my designs than Clear Vue and Oneida. Remember, industrial customers fall under the watchful eye of OSHA, so our industrial systems have to be right...every single time. If we were to sell a bogus filter then we would have to deal with all kinds of problems. The lawyers, insurance companies, and angry engineers would eat me alive. In industry, it's not worth cutting corners, and we simply don't do it. Therefore, all of our designs are *more* conservative that the typical hobby-type filter.

Regarding which method you choose to test a filter, it's completely up to the manufacturer. There is no rule, and no governing law. In the filter market, our main competitor is Torit Donaldson. They are a Billion dollar company....the proverbial 400 lb. gorilla. For that reason, we use the same test standard as Torit Donaldson. There is no value in running an ASHRAE test, since these are not ASHRAE filters. ASHRAE and MERV ratings are used for furnace filters and ambient-type filters, but not dust collectors. It's simply not done...at least not in industry. To the best of my knowledge, Oneida is the only one using ASHRAE efficiency to rate a dust collector filter. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it makes it difficult to do an apples-to-apples comparison with other products on the market. Again, Torit Donaldson is our main competition, so we use their test method. Using their method allows the engineer to make a direct comparison, and an informed decision.

Regarding BIA test standards, yes, they are used in industry...but not here in the US. BIA is an international standard, and we first saw it pop up in European specs for the Spun Bond filter material. The only actual BIA test results I've seen were written in German. Again, it's a valid standard, but we don't use it, because nobody here cares. If it was really important, I could scrounge up the BIA rating of our Spun Bond material, and (surprise, surprise) it would be exactly the same as the Oneida's. For now, however, I'm not really interested in playing "show me yours" with Oneida.

A couple comments about Mr. Witter's "How to Select a Filter":

-While I agree that Spun Bond will work at 15 CFM per sq. ft., that's really pushing the limits of the material. I wonder if it's been efficiency tested at that rate? We would never push Spun Bond past about 7 CFM per sq. ft., but, again, we are more conservative than some of the other guys. That's a good thing right? Am I being criticized for giving people more for their money?

-Based on the results of hundreds (thousands??) of hobbyist cyclone projects, it's been proven that the Bill Pentz/Clear Vue Cyclone removes essentially all of the fibrous material present in wood dust. That allows us to use the more efficient Paper Blend filters as a final stage, without worrying about cleanability. The end result is better efficiency, and lower cost as compared to Spun Bond....and they clean off just fine. How many complaints have you had about cleanability? None right?

There's nothing wrong with Oneida's setup, I just like ours better. Also, there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with what he's saying, and I agree 100% about having a universal standard in our industry. That's not new. I've been in this business for over 20 years, and people have been saying the same thing all along. The fact is, however, we don't have a universal standard, and I'm not about to use the ASHRAE standard just because Oneida wants to. Why don't they adopt the Torit standard instead?

Anyway, so much for a short response.

Rick

I would like to thank Rick Wynn for sharing his time. Beyond what he said, I have one other comment. Bill Pentz was recommending Wynn Environmental long before Clear Vue Cyclones came into existence. I choose to follow Bill’s lead by continuing to use them for a filter supplier and I am very happy I did. They are a very honest, reputable company with great customer service. I don’t believe any of us has the time or ability to check out everything that we buy so we have to place a measure of trust in many companies and individuals. I truly believe that in this case, our trust has been lived up to.

Ed Morgano

Alan Simpson

10-09-2006, 8:46 PM

For that reason, we use the same test standard as Torit Donaldson. There is no value in running an ASHRAE test, since these are not ASHRAE filters. ASHRAE and MERV ratings are used for furnace filters and ambient-type filters, but not dust collectors. It's simply not done...at least not in industry. To the best of my knowledge, Oneida is the only one using ASHRAE efficiency to rate a dust collector filter.

Something is not adding up here... Torit Donaldson most certainly DOES use ASHRAE and MERV ratings for their proprietary filter media. This is an excerpt from their site:

Ultra-Web

® Nanofiber Filter Media

The distinguishing factor in
Donaldson Torit’s cartridge filters is nanofiber filtration technology, which traps more dust
on the surface of the filter than conventional depth loading types of filter media such as
cellulose, polyester or cellulose/polyester blends. The resulting dust cake is easily cleaned
off during the automated collector cleaning cycles, ensuring longest filter life and highest
efficiency rated MERV* 13 based on ASHRAE 52.2 test standards.

Jim O'Dell

10-09-2006, 8:50 PM

Well, I see John got a more lenghty response through Ed at Clear Vue. I'm deleting my information as it is just duplicate and less indepth. The essential information is the same, though. Jim

Alan Simpson

10-09-2006, 8:58 PM

:confused:
He's not sure why a filter manufacturer would have filters tested by (under?) ASHRAE if they were competing agains Torit,

Here is more from the Torit site concerning their ultra web filters:

Ultra-Web MERV 13 efficiency has been certified by independent lab tests
and tested per the ASHRAE Standard 52.2-1999, the most current industry
accepted test method used to evaluate filter performance

It sure seems to me that Torit not only uses ASHRAE testing, they call it "the most industry accepted method". :confused:

Mike Dauphinee

10-09-2006, 9:03 PM

...snip
Based on the results of hundreds (thousands??) of hobbyist cyclone projects, it's been proven that the Bill Pentz/Clear Vue Cyclone removes essentially all of the fibrous material present in wood dust. ....snip-Rick Wynn
Ed Morgano

Okay, I think I am confused. I have read where Bill says to filter outside of the shop. According to this statement, that would not be necessary. Does either the Clear Vue/Pentz design or the Oneida design provide me an atmosphere that is really safe and free of potentially toxic dust? Do they both do this or does NO DC do this for the hobbyist? The statement above seems to claim that the Clear Vue/Pents design does, but I have seen Bill claim different.

Furthermore, if neither do, why would I need a DC at all for clean air? Wouldn't a positive airflow mask and a clean room style entrance be a better answer to health issues? And if some don't think that is practical, how far do we go towards practicality in these DC wars? Would the color of the unit be a better way of deciding?

Certainly the dilemma is clear to some, any help on this?

John Downey

10-09-2006, 9:19 PM

Hi Mike,

My very limited understanding of the subject is that venting to the outside simply makes the whole filter question moot, but at the cost of increased heating or cooling bills. As far as I know, many industrial operators do this and have done so for years, and are not terribly concerned over cyclone performance or filtering capacity. The question of filtering capacity and cyclone efficiency only becomes relevant when it is desired to return the air to the shop.

John

John Renzetti

10-09-2006, 9:20 PM

:confused:

Here is more from the Torit site concerning their ultra web filters:

[font=Sabon-Italic][left]Ultra-Web MERV 13 efficiency has been certified by independent lab tests
and tested per the ASHRAE Standard 52.2-1999, the most current industry
[SIZE=3]accepted test method used to evaluate filter performance

It sure seems to me that Torit not only uses ASHRAE testing, they call it "the most industry accepted method". :confused:

Hi Alan, From reading the literature on the website it looks like that the Ultraweb got a MERV rating of 13 based on lab tests by two companies, not ASHRAE itself. The MERV ratings are based on an ASHRAE standard that you mentioned. It looks like they are stressing MERV ratings which are based on filter efficiency.
In further looking at the Donaldson website it looks like they use their filters in many different applications other than woodchip and wooddust collection. I didn't find any information that says that their Ultraweb fitlers are used in the woodworking machinery they produce.
It looks like ASHRAE establishes some sort of standards for efficiency. It doesn't look like they require a uniform type of testing or testing parameters. That's why I like the BIA testing. It is specifically for wood dust and has a set of testing standards that are uniform.
I'm getting confused myself. :)
take care,
John

Alan Simpson

10-09-2006, 9:25 PM

I didn't find any information that says that their Ultraweb fitlers are used in the woodworking machinery they produce.

All of their wood dust collection systems that use cartridges rather than bags use the ultraweb filters.

I'm not debating if ASHRAE is the best test or not, just pointing out the fact that Wynn stated specifically that they do not use ASHRAE because Torit doesn't. Whu??? That is EXACTLY what torit uses. It makes no sense to me why he would say that...

Mike Dauphinee

10-09-2006, 9:33 PM

Thanks John, I kinda figured that part out. We could send all the air out of my shop, but it would cost me a fortune to replace it here in Fla with more clean air. So, that kinda rules out outside filtering. But is looks like a claim has been made that the Clear Vue design makes it a moot point anyway. I guess I get confused because of the relationship with Bill and his speaking to that point differently.:confused:

If there is a hobbyist DC that can claim negligent toxin such as the quote suggested, I want to know clearly that is the case, because that is what i want. But if the both do, then that is even better. I hope both Mfgs will make a statement to clarify that claim. Actually, I guess only one does now because Clear Vue just did made their statement. Can't get it any better than the owner/President can we?

I'd sure like to have the rest of my questions cleared up.

James Kuhn

10-09-2006, 9:38 PM

I don't petend to know much about this stuff but it does seem that independent testing would pretty much clear it all up.

http://synergy.oneida-air.com/public/docs/BDDocument.asp?Action=View&ID=%7B2D7C69DE-D04C-4D3B-9BC7-4A40623C1706%7D&ReturnTo=BDSearch%2Easp

I have a smaller Super DG and feel a sense of security that, once seasoned, the filter gets at least 98.6% of the super small stuff. Not sure if that meets HEPA requirements, but its close.

Frank Pellow

10-10-2006, 10:45 AM

Mike Dauphinee

10-11-2006, 9:38 PM

Bump, I was hoping that the principals might still offer some answers to what they have said.

TIA

Alan Simpson

10-12-2006, 1:58 PM

Bump, I was hoping that the principals might still offer some answers to what they have said.

TIA

I was hoping as well.

Robert Witter

10-14-2006, 1:40 PM

Bill Pentz says that the only test he trusts is ASHRAE. Except that the filters he tells people to buy are not ASHRAE rated.

We have had ASHRAE tests on our filters posted for many years on our site as a courtesy to the buyer.

Bill P says that his filters are Certified. So I am asking and I think readers would want to know what "certified" Filters he is using.

He also in numerous posts says that if you buy an Oneida cyclone system blow the air outdoors and, "throw out the filter".
So I am wondering why this is so.

We use Izumi axtar spun bonded polyester which is as good or possibly better than the filters he recommends, much better than the paper filters he says to buy. For example, Wynn might be using Kolon a cheaper less efficient media spu bonded media, but they are not identifying the type of media or providing test data.

Sincerely,
Robert Witter

Jim O'Dell

10-14-2006, 2:04 PM

Actually Bill Pentz has advocated here, and on his web site I think, recently to exhaust outdoor if at all possible. Most people don't have that as an option, either because of proximity to neighbors, or losing the conditioned air from their shop in hot or cold climates. I have, in just the last few months, decided to start off with exhausting outdoors, and go to the filters later if I see a need to do so.
I also seem to remember that the Wynn filters were suggested because they are a good filter that will do what Bill's cyclone design needs in the way of a filter, but be a cost effective alternative to other filters that are available. There can always be a better product out there for a higher price. Not all of us need, or can afford, the Lamborgini or Bugatti. If the Chevy or Ford will do the trick, and is a quaility unit, then that may be the best way to go for many of us.

Mr Witter, is there a web site you can point us to that, well, rate is not the best word here, but that maybe describes the different types of filter material that are on the market, and gives a cost/feature/benefit of them? I think information like this would be helpful to all of us. Maybe one of the rating systems has this information already? Thanks! Jim

Bill Boehme

10-14-2006, 3:46 PM

Like Lee, I'm also a bit confused as to which portions are B.Pentz quoted statements and which are responses by R.Witter. I'm all for seeing this stuff brought up here on SMC, but just found the post somewhat confusing.
I also was initially confused due to the font colors and sizes, but after rereading the post, it is clear that everything below the statement " Below are the quotes from Bill Pentz:" are quotes from Bill Pentz except for the bottom paragraph.

If I am not mistaken, ASHRAE does not conduct testing themselves, but develops standards. Test results performed to meet their standards may possibly be submitted to them for approval, but I don't know if they are in the validation business.

Bill

Robert Witter

10-14-2006, 7:54 PM

Thanks for your reply Rick Wynn,

To clarify, I am not recommending a 15 to 1 air to cloth ratio. Only that this would be the upper end for people trying to retro fit. I see DCs with 30 or 40 to 1 ratios.

The ASHRAE test on our Spun bonded filter is at 11.6 to 1 air to cloth ratio.

Bill Pentz says that Oneida filters are no good and to buy Wynn filters. He publicly advises Oneida customers to, “throw the filter out and vent the air outdoors”
Do you share Bill’s view on this?

With all due respect to you and your products, being that you didn’t have your filters actually tested by a lab how is it that you know that
the efficiency is 99.995 % on 1 micron and up as claimed on your site Clearly this isn’t an initial efficiency. What would the pressure drop be at this level of filtration?
Do you stand behind this rating? What spun bonded media are you using?

Do you have direct experience with our cyclone units to know that the Clear vue separates material better?

Yes, WWs do complain about trying to clean tightly pleated filter cartridges, especially when the cage is on the inside. That’s why we went to an open pleat design. I understand that during normal operation
this isn’t a concern, but the day will come when the dust barrel overfills and the pleats will pack hard with fiberous material. How would you recommend dislodging this material on your paper filters?

I’m not trying to be a PITA or rude, but I think it OK to ask Companies to justify or explain the claims they make about their products.

Sincerely,
Robert Witter
Oneida Air Systems Inc.

John Renzetti

10-15-2006, 8:00 AM

Hi, From Robert Witter's post I wasn't sure if the reply from Rick Wynn was something that got deleted, was private or was from the copy of the message that I posted from a post Ed Morgano posted in another thread which was a message from Rick at Wynn. This message was from Oct 9th.
In rereading Rick's message back on page two he says
"If it was really important, I could scrounge up the BIA rating of our Spun Bond material, and (surprise, surprise) it would be exactly the same as the Oneida's. For now, however, I'm not really interested in playing "show me yours" with Oneida."
From this I conclude that the materieal they use has a BIA certification, which means it is tested and certified. The BIA standards are for the wood collection industry and they are standardized.
Also Bill Pentz recommends the highly efficient Torit filters that Wynn also sells. These are the .2-2micron 99.9%. From the Torit website these are tested by an independant lab to ASHREA standards.
Both myself and I believe Jim O'Dell got this from Rick Wynn last week.
(Quote from Rick's Message)
I don't know why a filter manufacturer would choose an
> ASHRAE test for a dust collector filter, but I suppose it could be
> done for a price. The ASHRAE standard, however, is useless if you are
> selling against Torit, so we don't see the need. BIA is a European
> standard, and we don't target that market.
>
> So, yes, the ASHRAE and BIA standards are perfectly valid, and so are
> a couple dozen others. We use the 0.5 micron standard, and another
> supplier might use 1.0 micron. That doesn't mean they are
> wrong...just different. It really depends who your market is. If you
> are selling furnace filters, then ASHRAE or MERV is probably the most
> common. If you are selling in Europe, then BIA is needed. If you
> sell HEPAs, then DOP is the standard. Again, all valid standards, just different.
> Nobody's right, nobody's wrong.
>
> Bottom line...we give our customers the best quality filters, made
> from the very best filter media available, with the most square
> footage, at the best price. We don't sell junk, and we've been doing
> this for a really long time. Heck, we don't even advertise the hobby
> filters. All of that business is strictly word of mouth...from happy customers.
>
> So...I hope that heated discussion has settled down a bit, and I hope
> the above is helpful. (End of quote).

I went over to Grizzly's website and they state that their canister filters are imported from Europe and have an efficiency of .2-2micron at 99.99%. They don't mention any testing or independant lab results. But if they are BIA certified then those claims are valid.
In sorting through all this it appears to me, (and this is my opinion only), that we have a situation where marketing gets thrown in with design and engineering. In this case Oneida feels that showing that their filters meet an ASHREA test is important and maybe will give them a competive edge in the market they are seeking. Wynn doesn't think it's important to use that test. And if the material they use has a BIA certification, they don't have to do another test. Why waste the money. From Rick's message it appears that their primary customers, Industry, doesn't care about this test or that test. They just want results.
This has been educational, but a bit confusing since you have to piece things together from various posts and websites. And on a positive note, this has stayed friendly. :)
take care,
John

Alan Simpson

10-15-2006, 10:13 AM

I don't know why a filter manufacturer would choose an
> ASHRAE test for a dust collector filter, but I suppose it could be
> done for a price. The ASHRAE standard, however, is useless if you are
> selling against Torit

Put me down for still being incredibly confused as to why Rick Wynn is sticking to his comments about ASHRAE being useless if you are competing against Donaldson-Torit. Donaldson-Torit uses ASHRAE and MERV ratings on all of their cartridge type filters.

Robert Witter

10-16-2006, 8:46 AM

Mike Dauphinee

10-16-2006, 3:38 PM

Mr Witter, perhaps you can give your thoughts on the following along with Oneida's stance on how much clean the air is coming from the dust collector.

Mt Wynn stated and it was posted Mr Morgan and I assume he approved the post. So I am guessing that since I have asked for and received no clarification that it stands as their professional belief. (CNP quote follows)

Here is what I refer to:
-Based on the results of hundreds (thousands??) of hobbyist cyclone projects, it's been proven that the Bill Pentz/Clear Vue Cyclone removes essentially all of the fibrous material present in wood dust. (Excerpted from this thread)

My question for you is the same. Is this possible? Does a DC virtually eliminate all dust hazard in a hobbyist WW shop? Does the Oneida also perform as well in this respects? If so, where is the data from any of you on this claim? (Keep in mind that this claim means that I should suffer NO health hazard from airborne dust illness.)

If it does not, why do you or any other dust collector vendor sell them under these pretenses? Is the primary purpose of these devices to collect wood chips? And secondarily return as little as possible to the room air? The implication from previous claims and reading on any of the principals listed in that post are VERY clear and that is the health issues always referred to as the reason to get a better DC. So if the angle is that their DC collector will protect your health, it also stands to reason that others may not.

I want an honest answer from all of you because IMO, this garbage marketing stuff has gone too far. Can your DC eliminate my health risk? And to make it fair, Can your DC eliminate my health risk the SAME or better than the Clear Vue?

They made this claim, but I, the consumer want answers rather than just claims.

I apologize for my wordiness, but I want some answers and I hope my questions are clear.

Thanks,
Mike

Matt Warfield

10-16-2006, 5:26 PM

Hi Mike,

While I'm not associated with either DC camp, perhaps I can add something for the consumer perspective.

I think the key term in the quote you've provided is "fibrous material." Mr. Wynn's quote was in reference to the cyclone's seperation capablilities, not the filters filtering capabilities. IIRC, there's also been reference to wood flour(don't recall from whom). At what point does the waste material from machining wood stop being "fibrous"? I don't know the answer to that but believe it to be very pertinent to the discussion.

As far as eliminating the health risk, I doubt you'll ever hear a stable and reputable company ever make those claims as long as lawsuits are permitted. With varying sensitivities and no exact science on what is dangerous and what isn't. It is fair to say it's common sense that the less air polution, from machining wood or other sources, the better it is for our health. The simple fact that you can smell the wood says that there is some component of that wood in the air but not whether it's unhealthy in any way. Today, 0.2 microns seems to be the lowest number being thrown around for filtration capabilities in relation to hobby shop DC. I suspect our great great grandkids will have the opportunity to be discussing DC which rivals clean room technology.

Personally, I did buy a ClearVue but did not buy the filters recommended. That's simply because I was able to find some super cheap, slightly dinged UltraWeb filters(4) for less than the cost of one that they recommend. I bought the ClearVue because it was highly recommended by owners, it was in my price range, and I was tired of my mucous being the same color as the wood. :eek: :eek: I'm sure that if inhaling a pound of sawdust takes 5 years off your life then I've taken 10-20 off of mine. But at the same time, the fact that my mucous did contain that much sawdust also shows that it's doing its job, IMHO.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on marketing. I think we'd be much happier as consumers if companies were forced to rely on word of mouth marketing. An I personally think that Mr. Whitter feels there is some word of mouth advertising which isn't favorable to him on the whole and isn't entirely factually based. Just my interpretation and I could be off-base in that assessment. He's certainly entitled to clear the air on that issue as would be any manufacturer of any product so long as it's based on actual fact and not manufactured/marketed fact. It appears to me that both Mr. Whitter and Mr. Pentz are firm believers that they are correct in their position. While Mr. Pentz hasn't provided direct feedback(unless I missed it) in this thread, it is clear through other threads that he is attempting to justify any claims for which he hasn't posted scientific claims.

I for one think that you and I and the rest of the WW community is benefiting from this open and civil discussion. As far as eliminating any health risk? Well, in the grand scheme of things, I think you'd be hard pressed to take up any activity or lack of activity for which you couldn't find a health risk. If you can identify one and mention it, I'd almost guarantee you'll see a government grant toward the study of its health risks. Well, maybe I can think of one activity - laughing. :D

Sorry to have drawn this out so long and don't wish to upset anyone with it. Simply my perspective on this whole DC discussion series.

Best regards,

Mike Dauphinee

10-16-2006, 7:48 PM

I have to disagree with you and I have read much of the hype. The talk from these principals is how much of the "other" systems allow fibrous material to get through and theirs does not. Or how much better their filter is and how much better their testing methodology is.

Under your terminology, a HF DC with 30 micron bags gets "all" the fibrous material. Heck a wet/dry vac gets that too as does a broom. But to read Bill Pentz's site, that is NOT what we are talking about here. My question have much to do with this very same ambiguity that causes you to to relate that way and me to see it another way. So why not straight simple answer from Bill Pentz, Robert Witter, Ed Morgano and the others that they all have brought in to muddy up rather than clear the waters?

Perhaps they don't want to give a simple answer, but one REALLY does exist. This stuff can be taken down to black and white if it were not for the marketing needs of all the principals. I cannot believe that there is any other reason, because from a litigation standpoint, the statement quoted is over the top when taken with all the other information. Having some experience, any lawyer worth his money will pin that on them with all the web site info as back-up to intent.

But that is not the point, I just want a simple straight answer to some simple yes/no questions and then some room for explanation of that simple yes/no answer. I hope to not get a long dissertation that avoids these simple questions and their answers.

Being the time that has passed, we can safely assume they have been read. That means one side allowed their statement to stand (as questioned) and the other side avoided the answers altogether. But the questions will not go away. I want answers as a consumer and I think both mfgs owe them to us when they make these statements on an open site.

Mike Dauphinee

10-16-2006, 8:10 PM

Mark, just for the record, I want to add that I am not associated nor do I favor any of them. But the more I read, the more upset I get about what is being put out in the name of education. I for one will just not accept it, rather I am gonna ask where it is unclear to me. Not a bandwagon kind of guy here at all.

Another BTW, Bill Pentz many times has made claims about the necessity of getting the under 0.5 micron "fibrous" stuff because it is what is really dangerous, not the larger stuff. Since they are all in it together, I take their statement together too. If not, that is like saying that one part of a company is not a part of the other....to me the association DOES matter and they all profit from it. So I want a unified answer.

I hope that clears up what I did not previously make evident.

Thanks,
Mike

John Renzetti

10-16-2006, 9:25 PM

Without knowing what filter media is being used in the Wynn filters and without any test results being offered how do we know what the efficiency is on these filters? On the spun bonded filter how do we know that the efficiency is 99.995% on 1 micron or above? There are cheap and less efficient spun bonded medias on the market? Actual test results. These are listed for the hobbyist market, maybe industry is avoiding them.

This is what Bill Pentz has been so passionately preaching for so long that the seller supplies the actual test data; specifically ASHRAE or certified. At least some type of test results.

Direct Quote From Bill Pentz - ”That careful filter testing left me now only trusting filter ratings provided by an American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) certified independent testing laboratory. ASHRAE is not a government organization, but instead a private, non-profit group of professional engineers that set the standards for their industry. Unable to find any certified dust collector bags and knowing that most bags have so little surface area that then need constant cleaning which exposes me to the very dust I must avoid, I personally use certified cartridge filters with a cyclone to protect those filters. I recommend all others do the same”.

bill

Hi Robert, I believe that Bill Pentz did recommend a ASHREA tested filter when he recommended the use of the Torit .2-2micron filter. Torit states that this filter was tested to ASHREA standards. He recommends other Wynn produced fitlers if the individual doesn't think they need the filtration of the the Torit. Wynn sells both.
Rick Wynn in his message stated that he had a BIA certificate for their fitler media stashed away. If he does and I don't doubt him then his media is tested to BIA standards. I've already stated this in a previous message but it appears that you have missed it.
I'd like to get Shiraz from Grizzly in here since the Grizzly ad says their filters are imported from Europe and are rated to .2-2micron. These would have to have a BIA certificate.
Someone mentioned that Bill Pentz hasn't replied to any of this and I'm not surprised. If there is pending litigation here then Bills' attorney would have correctly advised Bill not to respond. If Mr Witter is aware of this then I would question the actual intent of his posts. I do have reservations about all this. But we're getting some great information and the thread is still moving along very nicely.
Finally I'd like to add that no matter what your opinion of Bill Pentz, (I like the guy, and I like Oneida), he sure has made probably a few thousand people aware of the dangers of microscopic wood dust.
I might not have internet access for the next few days, so I hope I don't miss anything good.
take care,
John

Alan Simpson

10-16-2006, 10:58 PM

If there is pending litigation here then Bills' attorney would have correctly advised Bill not to respond. If Mr Witter is aware of this then I would question the actual intent of his posts.

I'm not sure why you are assuming that their is any litigation between the two parties. Even more questionable is why you would question the motives of Mr. Witter's posts. If there WAS litigation, he wouldn't be posting either.

I for one am very dissapointed the Bill Pentz has not addressed the (seemingly)factual statements and questions presented by Mr. Witter. Since he has made numerous posts since the questions were posed, it is likely that he is avoiding this.

Mike D. pretty much summed up my viewpoint with his own. I want to know the truth. I have heard conflicting things for years. Conflicting to the point you would have to believe that there is NO answer. But this is science we are talking about. There IS an answer, but it seems that no one wants us to know it.

James Kuhn

10-16-2006, 11:16 PM

Actually I'm not sure that John is too far off the mark. I did a search and Bill's website has gone through at least one change as far as making references to Oneida. In the updates log:

07/09/05 "Bill, would you please give me your two cents on the new Oneida-Air, Grizzly, and MacIntyre cyclones being sold? I want to buy one, don't have the ..."

Now reads as:

07/09/05 "Bill, would you please give me your two cents on the new cyclones being sold? I want to buy one, don't have the...

I too would like some clarity to all this but I don't forsee that happening...

Alan Schaffter

10-17-2006, 1:50 AM

Gee, does anyone remember Jim Halbert, the guy who arguably made the first big push for and publicized the hobbiest DC and cyclone movement and fortunately or unfortunately, also did a lot to create an atmosphere of distrust of the early DC manufacturers (justifiably?). That is until a lawsuit or threat of one (cease and desist?) by one or more of the manufacturers silenced him, (literally).

I have been using a cyclone based DC for many years. I started with the very inefficient Wood Mag cylcone that I made and which included a spiral inlet ramp before Bill had even found the helix formula for his first cyclone spread sheet, and progressed to more efficient units based on Bills design, so I have been following all the developments for quite awhile.

I know those of you who already have lung problems and others that are paranoid about getting them want assurrances that your cyclone and/or filter will protect you. Frankly you are missing a big point (which I think Bill has discussed somewhere), that is, no manufacturers' system removes all the offending dust- mainly because no system gets all the dust at the source. If you don't believe me, be careful, but cut some wood with a table saw or miter saw, or even better, use a belt or disk sander that has DC hook up, with the lights turned off and a spot light coming from an angle- I bet you'll see plenty of airborne dust!!!! And what about portable belt or random orbit sander dust- is your shopvac or even your Festool getting all of that dust- nope. So what if your cyclone/filter removes 100% of what it sucks up if you are not getting everything at the source? Discharging outside like Bill suggests is only slightly better. So it seems to me that everyone is getting all excited about testing standards, results, and marketing claims, when, for the good systems (insert manufacturers name) it doesn't really matter since they are not all that much different. So what if one system allows a thimble full of dust to pass through and another two thimbles full out of every bushel of dust and chips sucked up. If you want truly clean air to breathe in a woodworking shop the only answer is a really good contaminate mask, a hose supplied air mask, or scuba rig! And yes, side-by-side, end-to-end testing and comparison of DC systems is possible, but to what end?

Final comment about those still wanting anwers. Frankly after reading all the posts, I don't know what the questions are. How about someone coming up with a set of questions that Creekers can agree on (figure the odds), verifying they are technically correct, then submitting them to Mr Wittier, Rick Wynn, Ed Morgano, Pap Griz, Bill, medical community reps, et al. I don't mean to be facetious, but how do those of you who are havng so much problem with specs, ever decide which car to buy?

Bill Boehme

10-17-2006, 3:04 AM

Alan, your post is one of the small number of rational posts that have been made on this thread from the perspective of the woodworking consumer who is trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. I want to say that I greatly appreciate your well stated thoughts on this matter.

I also agree wholeheartedly that a lot of us appear to have gotten wound up tighter than a four-dollar pocket watch over things that are beyond the capability of any DC that I know about, especially the fact that it is not possible to capture all of the dust at the source without some not-yet-conceived extraordinary and probably impractical means. I am sure that if I had a better DC that I could capture more of the dust generated in my shop, but it is obvious that the design of many WW machines, most especially a belt sander leave something to be desired when it comes to capturing the dust that it generates.

I don't think that we can ever expect a DC to be the end-all when it comes to collecting all of the dust being generated. It will still take a multi-pronged attack in dealing with dust. Although I do not have an air-filtration system, I think that it could be part of the solution. Additionally, some sort of mask or respirator would be very effective in keeping the remainder of the dust out of your lungs. I think it also will still be necessary to actually clean your shop out occasionally to get the dust that settles on all of the surfaces and will remain there until you actually vacuum it up.

Currently my shop is too small to hold a cyclone DC, but I have plans to expand it in the not too distant future and when I do, I am considering the Oneida Gorilla DC.

Bill

Alan Schaffter

10-17-2006, 11:43 AM

Thanks Bill.

I have a few other comments.

Except in the case of many of the old bag type DCs which are still around and being sold and which put a lot of dust back in the air, most of the new generation of DCs w/cyclones and cartridge filters are a quantum leap in air improvement over the old days.

Cleaning the shop- every couple of weeks open the doors and windows, get a leaf blower and a BIG fan. Put on a GOOD mask and have at it- clean all the nooks and cranies with the leaf blower to get the dust airborne again and use the fan to exhaust everything outside.

I applaud Bill Pentz., Ed Morgano, Mr Wittier, Rick Wynn and others, who I believe have all really tried to do the right thing with their DC's over the last few years. Not necessarily these folks, but it hasn't always been that way and there still are exceptions. Whatever differences Bill and all parties concerned have, NO ONE can argue that Bill's efforts (and Jim Halbert before him), the open (yes, sometimes acrimonious) discussion, more keen WW hobby interest, AND the industry response, hasn't resulted in a better, safer product for us all.

There certainly is no lack of sensitivity to various statements and claims made by all parties, since competing products are referred to by name these days, and especially since sales can be affected (or perceived to be affected). The power of the INTERNET and forums like this help spread the word (any word, right or wrong) and at times fan the flames. Unfortunately, some folks are getting caught up in the marketing. We all would like our decisions to be easy- be able to compare oranges to oranges and apples to apples, price to price. Almost all other industries (auto, appliance, mattresses, politicians, you name it), have tried their best to make this impossible by using different testing standards, confusing model names/numbers, confusing pricing, different option packages, and yes, half truths (and some lies?). It is a waste of my time to get between the vendors- let them have their healthy competition (marketing wars?), and if a law is broken and a party injured because of intentionally false claims, let them resolve it amongst themselves. Me, except for these two uncharateristically long posts, I'm going back to my shop and build something. Any airborne dust in my shop not handled by my DC is of my own making, and probably not as bad for me as the smoke in some restaurants. Now, everybody get back to work and post pics of projects not rants about DC systems. :)

Robert Witter

10-17-2006, 3:32 PM

Mike Dauphinee

10-18-2006, 5:47 PM

The way to cut through the hype is to get facts from accredited 3rd party agencies. That is what i am trying to do. I don't care if it is ASHRAE or not.
If you sell a filter an make the claim, "99.995% efficient on 1 micron and above" you have to back this claim up with something. I have a test somewhere but can't be bothered to find it doesn't work for me as a consumer. Bottom line

Personally, I want to go one further....If you sell a DC system and make a claim, back it up with an independent test on your system, not just the filter. After all i am gonna use the whole thing, not a lab test on a filter. I am a little tire of techicalities, there used to be a day when folks were up front and honest about their meaning as percieved, not the technicalities they can hide behind.

Mike and kind of a "show me the money" person.

Robert Witter

10-19-2006, 5:40 PM

Mike - Thanks for your question about an independent test. This is what you can expect if the system is setup correctly.

This was an independent before and after test done by the University of Washington on our 3Hp air system. As per Mary Ellen Flanagan, CIH (Research Industrial Hygienist) she stated "Your personal exposure was reduced by over five times - from 7.52 mg/m^3 to 1.36 mg/m^3 [milligrams per cubic meter]."

You can read the full text with the link below.

http://www.oneida-air.com/PDF/University%20of%20Washington.pdf

Jim O'Dell

10-20-2006, 10:42 PM

Mr Witter, in the independant study you posted about (Randy Riley's shop) I have a couple of questions please. While I'm guessing you did not set up the parameters for the test, I'm hoping you can find out, if you don't know, some answers. I'm a little concerned that two different locations were used. The study states the size of the first shop, but only says the new shop is "approximately the same size" Is this the normal way to set up a test of this nature? I would think that at the minimum, the size of the second building should be stated, and most scientific studies would have been conducted on the exact same building, is this not true?
Along the same lines, the study says that the original shop was in a warehouse building, but doesn't state the type of building the new shop was in. Is it a newly constructed building, or just a new shop in a different building, same or different type of construction? If it is in a different type of construction, wouldn't this have affected the testing in some way?
I understand that the tests were conducted as a typical day in a custom shop. But again, wouldn't a scientific study have controlled the machines, the wood and the amount of time that each machine was used?
The study also stated that the new shop was using the Oneida 3hp system. Was the old shop using any type of dust collection system, and if so, what was it?

Thanks for your time and help in these matters. Jim.

Robert Witter

10-22-2006, 10:25 AM

Jim,

The test was designed by the University or Washington School of Medicine, not Oneida. You are welcome to second guess them as to whether they know how to design a study. The air is collected from a device on the workers shirt collar. It represents the air the worker is breathing during the day. The first test had no dust collection. Our participation was only to find them a customer before and after the DC system was installed.

It puts legs on what you can expect with engineering controls and
without as far as air quality in a wood shop.

For example, it brings down to earth claims like, "a small shop can have
10, 000 times more than allowable dust level as per OSHA."
Unsupported nonsense like this has been circulating on the forums.

You can see from this test that a shop without dust collection was only
7mgM3 or a little over the OSHA threshold of 5 mg M3.
Controls brought it down close to 1mg M3. Far under the reg.

This gives you allot of solid information and helps WWs put dust control in perspective. It is not the only test or necessarily the best test out there.

Sincerely,
Robert Witter

Jim O'Dell

10-22-2006, 12:12 PM

Thanks for your reply, Mr Witter. I agree that the information received has some value for basic information. It would have been a lot more meaningful if it had been in the same shop building. For example, the first shop is in a warehouse building. Could other industry in this same vacinity have contributed to the amount of dust in the air? I don't commonly think of a warehouse building as being very well sealed off from outside sources of polution. If so, then measuring in another shop, another location, a newer building construction that could keep out more of the outside dust, may not be indicative of how much ANY brand or type of dust control could have helped, or hurt, in reducing particulate matter in the air. Measuring before and after in the same shop, using the same machines, cutting the same material, would be a lot more indicative of how, again, any brand or type of dust control helped in the area of cleaning the air.
I do feel that a manufacturer quoting an independant test as proof of how something works, at least indirectly adds credence to it's findings, that may or may not be valid. I think we all, as consumers, would like to have available to us valid independant testing in a clinical setting, with specific controls. I don't think that will happen in either of our lifetimes, unless someone in the proper field of science picks up on this, applies for, and receives, a big government grant to do the study. Even that is a long shot.
Take the study that Bill Pentz is doing on hobby shops in California. Again this is not a clinical study with specific checks and balances, and it doesn't compare different brands of dust control machines or filters, and we don't know yet what type of testing equipment is being used, but it is testing the same shop before cutting wood, including outside air, and after making the same number of cuts on the same type of material. It is already looking like the type of filter material we commonly use as not doing the trick, and/or we have a lot more research and development to do on capturing the dust at the point of it's creation. We may need to take the filters we are using now, and use them as a prefilter and put these in a chamber, with true HEPA filters filtering their output before it goes back out into our shops. If we think good filters are costly now.....just wait!
Again, as I have indicated previously. Thank you for the dialogue. I'm appreciative that it has ben conducted on a professional level, and that hopefully the questions we raise will help spur future developments that will help all of us who love this hobby. Jim

Ed Morgano

10-24-2006, 8:24 AM

Jim,

The test was designed by the University or Washington School of Medicine, not Oneida. You are welcome to second guess them as to whether they know how to design a study. The air is collected from a device on the workers shirt collar. It represents the air the worker is breathing during the day. The first test had no dust collection. Our participation was only to find them a customer before and after the DC system was installed.

It puts legs on what you can expect with engineering controls and
without as far as air quality in a wood shop.

For example, it brings down to earth claims like, "a small shop can have 10, 000 times more than allowable dust level as per OSHA."
Unsupported nonsense like this has been circulating on the forums.

You can see from this test that a shop without dust collection was only
7mgM3 or a little over the OSHA threshold of 5 mg M3.
Controls brought it down close to 1mg M3. Far under the reg.

This gives you allot of solid information and helps WWs put dust control in perspective. It is not the only test or necessarily the best test out there.

Sincerely,
Robert Witter
I just wanted to try to clarify one small point that seems to be escaping Mr. Witter. What I have read is that particle counts not dust levels have been 10,000 times higher than acceptable levels. I believe this is a small but important distinction.

Phil Thien

10-24-2006, 9:55 AM

I just wanted to try to clarify one small point that seems to be escaping Mr. Witter. What I have read is that particle counts not dust levels have been 10,000 times higher than acceptable levels. I believe this is a small but important distinction.

Could you elaborate on this a little? First, I think medicine is primarily interested in total inhaled, non-respirable mass, not count. But, I don't understand how particle counts can be 10,000 times higher than acceptable levels while dust levels are still acceptable. I can't get my arms around the distinction you're making.

Ed Morgano

10-24-2006, 4:38 PM

Could you elaborate on this a little? First, I think medicine is primarily interested in total inhaled, non-respirable mass, not count. But, I don't understand how particle counts can be 10,000 times higher than acceptable levels while dust levels are still acceptable. I can't get my arms around the distinction you're making.
Phil,
This was my post in the thread about Bill Pentz's shop tests:
Quoted from Robert Witter's previous post on that thread.
.......For Example:
In 9 tests they recorded zero % of the material was below 1.2 micron in size. On 4 tests the amount of dust below 1.2 micron was one tenth of 1 % of the total air borne material. By weight.
There are 8000 .5 micron particles in one10 micron particle (10/.5 = 20, 20^3 = 8000)…..By weight. So, if you had the equivalent of 12.5 10 micron particles, it would take 100,000 .5 micron particles to weigh the same amount. Maybe that is why Bill is getting such high particle counts?

Ed

(http://www.sawmillcreek.org/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=453247)

Pete Bradley

10-24-2006, 10:51 PM

Phil Thien

10-25-2006, 9:40 AM

Ed, I think your point is escaping a lot of us. I get the difference between volume and mass. Your small but important distinction is that "particle counts not dust levels have been 10,000 times higher than acceptable levels". Is there a separate standard for the number of particles that is different from the mass?

Pete

I think I now get his point. He is saying that it is possible for there to be "huge" particle counts of sub 1-micron particles while the total mass of these sub 1-micron particles is actually quite low.

BTW, I think his math is good for an approximation only. Isn't it possible that a particle that is 10 x 1 x 1 microns would be considered a 10-micron particle for the purpose of these studies? If that is the case, then the math is off my up to a factor of 100. But I digress (and even more importantly, I might be wrong because I don't know for sure what constitutes a 10-micron particle)...

Many studies refer to both count and weight. Bill Pentz's high counts don't necessarily contradict low weights in a different study.

The question is, what is more important, weight or count? I say the total inhaled weight is.

Otherwise, all those atoms you're breathing are gonna kill ya! :)

Bill Pentz

10-25-2006, 1:12 PM

...Is there a separate standard for the number of particles that is different from the mass? Pete

Pete,

You asked a very good question. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers here. Clearly the number of particles to weigh a specific amount will depend upon dust size. Based on my meter readings counts of over 4,275 per cubic foot of air for particles sized less than 5.0-microns exceeded the 0.1 milligram per cubic meter mass standard. Likewise, my meter showed over 0.1 milligram per cubic meter with counts in excess of 1,725,000 for the under 0.5-micron particles. Some air quality management districts also set limits on how many airborne particles are allowed. Most medical experts recommend putting on a mask when the particle levels exceed this same 0.1 milligrams per cubic meter limit, especially when working with woods known to be either toxic or sensitizers. Toxic means poisonous and sensitizer means over time we build up allergic reactions. Many woods are both toxic and sensitizing agents like cocobolo, rosewood, redwood, red cedar, walnut, oleander, etc. Sadly, there is considerable controversy as to what is considered safe.

Between politics, political pressure, large facility owners, woodworker unions, and limited often contradictory research we now deal with no less than four "official" air quality standards for woodworking. The current OSHA standard for the U.S. established in 1989 is 5 milligrams per cubic meter averaged over an eight hour day of respirable dust meaning particles sized 5-microns and smaller not including red cedar. OSHA also included a maximum 15 milligrams per cubic meter of air over a fifteen minute standard. With insurance data showing far too many getting ill at these exposure levels the independent American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) recommends a five times tougher standard of 1 milligram per cubic meter of air. Most large woodworking firms voluntarily meet this higher standard most likely because there is just too much evidence that just maintaining the OSHA standard consistently leaves almost all workers ill with about one in 14 forced into an early medical retirement. Most medical people dislike both of these standards and recommend a 0.1 milligram per cubic meter standard which is the new standard adopted in Europe. Many medical people want to also change the rules on particle sizing. We know that the respirable dust that these standards measure includes particles sized 5-microns and under, but we also know that all airborne dust which includes particles up to about 30-microns, roughly one third the thickness of a human hair, will lead to allergic reactions on the skin and in our respiratory systems. Moreover, the research is very clear that our bodies have a very difficult time getting rid of the 5 to 10-micron sized particles that lodge in our respiratory passages in addition to the under 5-micron particles that get trapped in our lungs and do not readily clear.

Based on medical air quality testing done in my own shop in 1999, I have long contended on my Cyclone and Dust Collection Research web pages that hobbyists who even do minimum woodworking often end up with exposures higher than full time professional woodworkers who work in large facilities that are regularly inspected by OSHA. I was far too busy to do much woodworking at all, but when I did have time I chose to work in expensive woods to make fine gifts for family and friends. Knowing some of this wood is pretty unhealthy, I consistently protected myself using a 3M 6000 series dual cartridge filtered NIOSH approved mask whenever making fine dust. I also ran a top rated air cleaner in my shop. Additionally, I ran the then the best magazine rated cyclone and ducting designed and provided by that same firm. Because I had serious filter plugging problems when using my larger planer, joiner and sander I upgraded from that too small internal filter to a third party external filter recommended by my cyclone maker. That was a high end spun bond thick triple stitched shaker felt oversized fine filter bag advertised as providing 1-micron protection. I still had problems with my cyclone cone plugging when I prepared rough cut lumber on my big joiner and planer. I found my ducting kept plugging in the vertical run near the cyclone and building up huge piles that went surging and blasted right through into the filter when I opened the larger blast gates. Still, my shop always looked very clean. Regardless, I still landed in the hospital from a bad allergic reaction that developed into severe pneumonia eventually costing me over half my lung capacity. Allergy testing before that incident found no significant allergies but testing after showed serious reactions to a number of woods. Medical air quality testing on my shop and home showed serious dust collection problems. Just turning on my cyclone without doing any woodworking for the three months I had been sick pushed the particle counts over what my medical air quality inspector said were safe. Doing a little woodworking left my shop failing the OSHA 15 minute standard and failing the OSHA 8 hour standard. My inspector said the particle counts were over 13,000 times higher than what they consider safe for indoor air quality. The eight hour total dust by weight was more than double the 5 milligrams per cubic meter allowed by OSHA.

The purpose of my current testing is to get more current test results to see if this situation is as widespread as it was when my shop was tested back in 1999.

bill

Alan Simpson

10-25-2006, 1:54 PM

there is just too much evidence that just maintaining the OSHA standard consistently leaves almost all workers ill with about one in 14 forced into an early medical retirement.

In my own research on dust collection, I have only encountered this claim on your website and on your forum postings. However, I have been unable to find any mention of it elsewhere. Could you point us to the studies that prove this finding??? I am most interested in their methods if for nothing else than how they would derive that "almost all" workers become ill from only OSHA standards.

I personally know a great many people who work in the woodworking industry, some of whom work in shops that adhere to OSHA standards, and some of whom work in shops that don't even use dust collection. However, I can assure you that "almost all" do not have wood dust related illness. Are they blaming the common cold or flu season on wood dust??? Otherwise, in no way can I believe that they could every make such a bold claim that "almost all" workers become ill from wood dust.

Bill Pentz

10-25-2006, 4:02 PM

In my own research on dust collection, I have only encountered this claim on your website and on your forum postings. However, I have been unable to find any mention of it elsewhere. Could you point us to the studies that prove this finding??? I am most interested in their methods if for nothing else than how they would derive that "almost all" workers become ill from only OSHA standards.

I personally know a great many people who work in the woodworking industry, some of whom work in shops that adhere to OSHA standards, and some of whom work in shops that don't even use dust collection. However, I can assure you that "almost all" do not have wood dust related illness. Are they blaming the common cold or flu season on wood dust??? Otherwise, in no way can I believe that they could every make such a bold claim that "almost all" workers become ill from wood dust.

Alan,

In reviewing your posts on SMC, I see that you have a history of very confrontational posts, mostly aimed at me and what I say on my web pages. I am not going to play games with you or respond more than once.

If you dig into the ACGIH literature, insurance data, and British Commonwealth air quality testing data, all sustain my comment that virtually every professional woodworker eventually develops some measurable loss of respiratory function. Normally a 10% or greater decline below expected normal is considered significant. As I recall the statistic is something wild like 90% show this level of damage in 4 to 20 years depending upon age, health, type of wood dust exposure, and amount of exposure. I personally fell into the other 10% that often contains those who develop strong sensitivity to particular woods. I only lost 58% lung function, so this is a touch more real to me than most. As for my own testing after interviewing and testing 9 shops in the last few weeks, seven woodworkers or their immediate family have developed allergies, asthma, and some airflow loss that they attribute to woodworking. The 1 in 8 non OSHA compliant being forced into an early retirement and the 1 in 14 being forced into an early wood dust related retirement came from the Australian Ministry of Health and confirmed by information from U.S. woodworking unions citing insurance statistics. If you are serious about digging into this stuff, have at it as most are quite a few hundred pages long and written so any average PhD in the field can understand. I'm sure we would all like to hear what you find out.

Alternatively, if you want simple easy answers, with very little digging you can find many of the best studies that money can buy. These studies show there is absolutely zero danger from wood dust and there is no such thing as fine dust particles sized under about 2-microns.

In short we have a many billion dollar a year industry here where lots is going on below the surface. It took from the early sixties until 1989 for the OSHA standards to finally get approved. My personal experience says it is better to believe the insurance, government and medical studies and then provide yourself with a reasonable degree of protection. Still, what you choose to believe and how much protection you put in place is your business. I personally like that, but it does require more homework on our parts. What I don't like is vendors making promises then not delivering. Personally, it would be nice if more would dive in and help my efforts to add the most current real science as I do get kind of tired carrying much of this alone.

bill

Alan Simpson

10-25-2006, 5:11 PM

Alan,

In reviewing your posts on SMC, I see that you have a history of very confrontational posts, mostly aimed at me and what I say on my web pages. I am not going to play games with you or respond more than once.
Bill, I am throughly offended with your gross mischaracterization of my posts. I did nothing to deserve your insults other than ask a simple question. Is it not reasonable to expect that if you continually cite "studies" without ever giving the actual study or a link to it that someone would eventually ask for it? That is all I did.

If you dig into the ICGIH literature, insurance data, and British Commonwealth air quality testing data, all sustain my comment that virtually every professional woodworker eventually develops some measurable loss of respiratory function. ll

I would love to know how you would expect any of us to dig through these things??? Are you saying you are privy to "INSURANCE DATA"? What is this mystical insurance data? British commonwealth air quality testing?? What on earth is that???

My point is very simple, if you are going to make statements as bold as the ones you have made, EXPECT people to question them. EXPECT people to ask you for your sources. You can't just throw out controversial statements and then tell people to "dig for it" when they ask you to back them up?

In no way at all am I trying to be confrontational. Dust collection and medicine are areas that can be answered with SCIENCE. And when dealing in scientific matters, it is not confrontational to ask you for your sources, it is CUSTOMARY.

To the other members of the creek, I apologize for the tone of this response, however, it is not often that my motives are publicly questioned as they have been today. :rolleyes:

Jim Becker

10-25-2006, 5:39 PM

Be nice, folks. So far, the questions and answers have been relatively civil. Do NOT let this degenerate, please...

Jim
SMC Moderator

Phil Thien

10-25-2006, 7:11 PM

...If you dig into the ICGIH literature, insurance data, and British Commonwealth air quality testing data, all sustain my comment that virtually every professional woodworker eventually develops some measurable loss of respiratory function...

I guess we all need to keep in mind that Bill isn't a trained physicit or engineer that works in a peer-reviewed field. Perhaps he should be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to siting references. Many people that are introduced to a field tangentially, as Bill seems to have gotten into dust collection, don't document their early research. So it is hard for them to later site their sources. He's getting better, though. We'll make him better. B-P v2.0. :)

Just did this via google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=woodworking+disability+dust

These are just a few references I found quite easily:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/woodworking/woodnig/woodnig27.pdf
"Our focus for this year is on reducing disease from wood
dust. Wood dust is currently one of the top eight
asthmagens in UK workplaces, and is the fifth highest
reason for the payment of disability benefit."

http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857200097&nh=0
"Ahman and colleagues (1995a, 1995b, 1996) call attention to the exposure of teachers of industrial arts and woodworking in Sweden. In contrast to unexposed controls, these teachers had notable (but mainly reversible) nasal effects and complaints that increased with the number of classes from the beginning of the week and receded over the weekends, even though the dust concentrations were below the Swedish threshold limit of 2 .

http://www.disability.vic.gov.au/dsonline/dsarticles.nsf/pages/Asthma_and_your_workplace?opendocument
High risk jobs
Some jobs are more likely to affect a person with asthma because of the triggers in the environment. Examples of high risk jobs include:
Baking and pastry cooks - flour, additives and metabisulphate
Car repairs and panel beating - epoxy resins and organic solvents
Electronics - solder fumes
Farming - animal fur, feathers and grain dust
Fire fighting - smoke and combustion products
Foam manufacturers - polyurethane
Garage attendant - car exhaust fumes
Grain handling – fumigants and grain dust
Hairdressing - dyes, perfumes and sprays
Metal refining - acids, chlorines, aluminium and heavy metal salts
Oil refining - hydrocarbon mists
Painting and decorating - paint additives and solvents
Printing - dyes and solvents
Woodworking - wood dust
Working with animals - animal fur and animal urine.

This is very cursory, I only looked at a page or two of results. But it does seem to confirm that people that work within woodworking industries here and abroad are subject to reduced lung capacity.

Am I wrong?

Alan Simpson

10-25-2006, 7:32 PM

Phil... anyone can find evidence that wood dust can cause health problems. you need to look no further than our own governments studies for that info. That is not the area of contention.

Bill has been saying for years that "almost all" woodworkers exposed to even OSHA standards "WILL BECOME ILL" from the exposure. I don't think it's unreasonable to know, specifically, where this very controversial statement comes from.

And by the way... I believe Bill IS a trained engineer.

edit to add: you mentioned (incorrectly) that bill is not a trained engineer in a "peer reviewed field". I believe WE are the peers. :)

Pete Bradley

10-25-2006, 8:05 PM

Bill, thanks for your extensive reply!

No offense intended, but I think your posts are weakened when someone asks for specifics on your numbers and you back up your claims not with specifics, but with your "crusader" credentials (years of dedication, personal health problems, etc.). No one can seriously question your dedication or years of study. However with all that knowledge, it would be great if you would point to specific open studies that support your claims rather than telling people to go digging. Just a suggestion.

Thanks again,

Pete

Mike Spanbauer

10-25-2006, 8:21 PM

Alan, take a look here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&itool=abstractplus&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=10976682

129 results at that one site alone.

mike

Pete Bradley

10-25-2006, 8:41 PM

129 results at that one site alone.

...many of which are not relevant to wood dust and/or Bill's quoted statistics. With Bill's years of research, I'm sure he can provide much more specific references for his numbers than just a pile of articles to dig through.

Pete

Ed Morgano

10-25-2006, 9:23 PM

...many of which are not relevant to wood dust and/or Bill's quoted statistics. With Bill's years of research, I'm sure he can provide much more specific references for his numbers than just a pile of articles to dig through.

[quote=Pete Bradley]

I just did a Google search on "Wood Dust Related Health Problems". I got 2,770,000 hits. Want me to send you the links? :confused:

Ed

Pete Bradley

10-25-2006, 9:45 PM

I just did a Google search on "Wood Dust Related Health Problems". I got 2,770,000 hits.

If one was looking for someone to support the claim "wood dust is bad for you" that might be relevant.

Some posters have suggested that specific claims deserve specific support, and I don't think that's unreasonable.

Pete

Pete Bradley

10-25-2006, 9:54 PM

As a potential buyer, I'm hoping the recognized authorities (not just Bill) can cut through the dust ;) and clarify the hard facts.

Pete

Ed Morgano

10-25-2006, 10:12 PM

Pete,
Who are the recognized authorities? And, authorities of what? If you're looking for dust collector vendors to give you precise definitive medical answers I think you will be disappointed.

Ed

Pete Bradley

10-25-2006, 11:26 PM

This is one red herring after another. I didn't ask if there are lots of articles on wood dust. I didn't ask any vendor for a medical opinion.

My point, like Alan's posts 63 and 65, is very simple. If someone represents themself as an authority (and it would be ridiculous to suggest that Bill or Robert Witter has not), they should back up their claims with specific data. Listing official-sounding but totally unverifiable references like "British Commonwealth air quality testing data" and the "Australian Ministry of Health" just adds to the cloud of uncertainty that has surrounded DC discussions for years.

Pete

Phil Thien

10-25-2006, 11:38 PM

This is sounding like the old "Cave man Lawyer" skit on SNL. When the claims are coming out it's all about test equipment, hard numbers and startling facts. When the claims are questioned, it's "he is just a simple woodworker...".

As a potential buyer, I'm hoping the recognized authorities (not just Bill) can cut through the dust ;) and clarify the hard facts.

Pete

Interesting. I guess my take is a little different.

On the one hand, we have BP who said that 90% of those working in a OSHA-compliant woodworking facility become ill from prolonged exposure to dust.

That comment was challenged by someone that said they know lots of people that work in woodworking facilities and that none of them are ill. We will assume that these facilities are all complying with only the minimum standards, that none of them have voluntarily exceeded OSHA minimum standards.

So, those two statements seem mutually exclusive.

But then two seconds of research w/ google shows that people that work in woodworking plants DO make claims for disability based on exposure to dust. I'm sure I could find some of these claims come from people that work in OSHA-compliant facilities.

You see where I'm going with this? If the exposure made some people ill enough that they received disability, then I would guess that other employees became less-ill and continued to work. Perhaps after working in the plant for twenty years a reasonable percentage do have somewhat diminished lung capacity.

Now, as a potential buyer, should I be concerned that the number wasn't exactly 90% or that BP couldn't site the original source? Or, should I be concerned with the gist of the original statement: That in large plants where big money is spent on dust collection, some people still become ill enough that they are put on disability?

Bill Pentz

10-26-2006, 2:10 AM

[quote=Pete Bradley]

I just did a Google search on "Wood Dust Related Health Problems". I got 2,770,000 hits. Want me to send you the links? :confused:

Ed

Ed,

That's not really fair because the question is who says that OSHA levels are not safe? If you really want to get buried in references try a Google search on “PM health risks”. That gets about 33 million hits.

The medical community and ACGIH are the main contenders that believe the OSHA limits need tightened in the U.S. today. As was pointed out in this thread when I did my original work, I was just trying to come up with practical ways to protect my family and me, so did not diligently document. Moreover, almost all of what I said regarding medical risks came from Oneida Air Systems who laid the groundwork for the risks of fine wood dust as part of their advertising campaign they started in the nineties. My respiratory doctor did the editing for what was said about the medical risks and advice on my web pages. All stood as was with no challenges for at least five years. Recently I was accused of passing bad science. That is not something I want to be guilty of doing, plus I’d rather not waste my time with people challenging much of what the industry has long accepted as fact. I have been looking for the original Fine Wood Working magazine article that Oneida Air authored on the risks of fine dust. I think sharing that article would put all on the same page. At the same time beating this particular issue to death makes zero sense at all simply because we already know ACGIH, the medical community, and European Union all adopted far more stringent standards because too many were showing up ill with the OSHA standard.

I could simply apologize and change my statement to far too many woodworkers get ill when exposed to OSHA allowable wood dust levels and as you pointed out have thousands of references. But to be fair, it would be nice to find the specific references that said almost all woodworkers exposed at OSHA approved levels eventually become ill.

Unfortunately, the closest I can come actually comes from the OSHA standards link (http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/wooddustallsoftandhardwoodsexceptwesternredcedar/recognition.html) and the backup references included with that link.

bill

Darryl Gender

10-26-2006, 7:38 AM

That is not something I want to be guilty of doing, plus I’d rather not waste my time with people challenging much of what the industry has long accepted as fact.

And except for Copernicus and Columbus the everybody accepted the world was flat. Any chance the long accepted fact could be flawed data??

Pete Bradley

10-26-2006, 8:03 AM

Now, as a potential buyer, should I be concerned that the number wasn't exactly 90% or that BP couldn't site the original source? Or, should I be concerned with the gist of the original statement: That in large plants where big money is spent on dust collection, some people still become ill enough that they are put on disability?
Phil,

Now I'm following you. You're saying that even if a number isn't correct, it's ok if the "gist" is right. If that was really the standard for accuracy it would certainly cast claims like "99.995% efficient" in a new light.

Pete

Ron Mexico

10-26-2006, 8:32 AM

[quote=Ed Morgano]

Ed,

That's not really fair because the question is who says that OSHA levels are not safe? If you really want to get buried in references try a Google search on “PM health risks”. That gets about 33 million hits.

The medical community and ICGIH are the main contenders that believe the OSHA limits need tightened in the U.S. today. As was pointed out in this thread when I did my original work, I was just trying to come up with practical ways to protect my family and me, so did not diligently document. Moreover, almost all of what I said regarding medical risks came from Oneida Air Systems who laid the groundwork for the risks of fine wood dust as part of their advertising campaign they started in the nineties. My respiratory doctor did the editing for what was said about the medical risks and advice on my web pages. All stood as was with no challenges for at least five years. Recently I was accused of passing bad science. That is not something I want to be guilty of doing, plus I’d rather not waste my time with people challenging much of what the industry has long accepted as fact. I have been looking for the original Fine Wood Working magazine article that Oneida Air authored on the risks of fine dust. I think sharing that article would put all on the same page. At the same time beating this particular issue to death makes zero sense at all simply because we already know ACGIH, the medical community, and European Union all adopted far more stringent standards because too many were showing up ill with the OSHA standard.

I could simply apologize and change my statement to far too many woodworkers get ill when exposed to OSHA allowable wood dust levels and as you pointed out have thousands of references. But to be fair, it would be nice to find the specific references that said almost all woodworkers exposed at OSHA approved levels eventually become ill.

Unfortunately, the closest I can come actually comes from the OSHA standards link (http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/wooddustallsoftandhardwoodsexceptwesternredcedar/recognition.html) and the backup references included with that link.

bill

Your respitory doctor wrote something about DC? Whats his name? Are we all expected to just take your word for it cause yer a nice guy? BS. You make alot of claims (90%) but offer no support to them other than, "I really care about this stuff and spend alot of time on it". Sorry Bill, that won't do it. xxxxx tell us the sources xxxxx.

GOT THAT, Bill?

Darryl Gender

10-26-2006, 8:51 AM

While I'm not sure I agree with Ron's approach I too have some questions. I spent 35 years as a Cardiac Surgeon, and wrote several Fellowship programs for Cardiac studies. True most of what is being discussed is outside my expertise, I do have some understanding. I find the ambiguous references to information disturbing at the very least. Would it be possible to ask for some detailed information on these references?

Ron Mexico

10-26-2006, 9:09 AM

I have made the same request of Mr Pentz several times in the past. All I get from him are long winded "How dare you question me" replies and ZERO FACTS TO SUPPORT HIS ASSERTIONS.

xxxx

Scott Henderson

10-26-2006, 9:20 AM

Refreshing candor, that.

Darryl Gender

10-26-2006, 9:22 AM

Rather harsh, but I will reserve judgement until I see if my request is met with resistance. I prefer to give the benefit of doubt, at this point. Just allow me to say I am suspect of some claims at this point.

If I am wrong I appologize in advace and will do so again if proven wrong. I am not here to make waves but, when the profession I have devoted my entire adult life to is placed up as validation of an individuals statements I must speak up.

Phil Thien

10-26-2006, 10:04 AM

Phil,

Now I'm following you. You're saying that even if a number isn't correct, it's ok if the "gist" is right. If that was really the standard for accuracy it would certainly cast claims like "99.995% efficient" in a new light.

Pete

Exactly! The gist of 99.995% is that his filter is the most effective. If it is the most effective but doesn't achieve 99.995%, I'm okay with that. Becuase I'm results oriented, and couldn't have purchased a more effective filter.

Wilbur Pan

10-26-2006, 2:30 PM

*snip* -- see next page.

Alan Simpson

10-26-2006, 2:54 PM

I believe I found the source of Bill's claim that "almost all woodworkers will become ill from wood dust". I'ts been awhile since I have been to his website, but I found it. That claim is based on the beliefs of his "doctor".

"My doctor says that after over thirty years of practice he is certain that we receive far higher fine dust exposures than commercial woodworkers. As a respiratory specialist he believes without good fine dust protection almost every small shop woodworker and many of those close to us, including our pets, will eventually develop serious fine dust related health problems, some potentially life threatening. "

It appears this is the reason we have been unable to find the claim in any of the available studies. What is particularly disturbing, is that he includes our loved ones and EVEN OUR PETS! (perhaps his doctor is a veterninarian)

Regardless... it's my humble opinion that, when based solely on the beliefs of one's unnamed doctor's beliefs, it is probably going a bit overboard to very publicly proclaim such a bold claim to such a large audience.

Scott Henderson

10-26-2006, 3:15 PM

You, sir, are a treasure trove of information:D

Phil Thien

10-26-2006, 3:54 PM

...it's my humble opinion that, when based solely on the beliefs of one's unnamed doctor's beliefs, it is probably going a bit overboard to very publicly proclaim such a bold claim to such a large audience.

So you're advocating censorship? I'd rather read the material and form my own opinions, but thanks.

Ron Mexico

10-26-2006, 4:16 PM

He's not advocating censorship, he's advocating facts. Thats all any of us want.

Phil Thien

10-26-2006, 4:30 PM

He's not advocating censorship, he's advocating facts. Thats all any of us want.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you get to determine what constututes a fact, then you're advocating censorship.

Alan Simpson

10-26-2006, 4:54 PM

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you get to determine what constututes a fact, then you're advocating censorship.

Well then it shouldn't be presented as fact.

Pete Bradley

10-26-2006, 4:55 PM

Exactly! The gist of 99.995% is that his filter is the most effective. If it is the most effective but doesn't achieve 99.995%, I'm okay with that.
Sorry Phil, that's where I get off the bus. I don't think it would be ok for a vendor to make up numbers, even if that vendor believed their product was the best.

Pete

Lee DeRaud

10-26-2006, 4:58 PM

If you get to determine what constututes a fact, then you're advocating censorship.Get a grip. Questioning whether a single opinion is a fact is hardly censorship.

Ken Salisbury

10-26-2006, 5:02 PM

Come on fellas - you are getting off base from the thread topic. Nit pickin gets to be a little foolish. If you can't be constructive, at least be invisible.

Phil Thien

10-26-2006, 5:18 PM

Get a grip. Questioning whether a single opinion is a fact is hardly censorship.

Originally Posted by Alan Simpson
...it's my humble opinion that, when based solely on the beliefs of one's unnamed doctor's beliefs, it is probably going a bit overboard to very publicly proclaim such a bold claim to such a large audience.

I think the implication was pretty clear.

Question all you want. Just let's leave the white-out in the drawer, please.

Wilbur Pan

10-26-2006, 5:26 PM

Sorry for the repeat, but it seems like my last post was missed by those who are looking for facts.

I may be walking into a quagmire, but people here have been asking for references. Here are some, all from peer reviewed journals, with summaries of the findings in the articles:

Okwari OO et al. Lung function status of workers exposed to wood dust in timber markets in Calabar, Nigeria. Afr J Med Med Sci. 2005 Jun;34(2):141-5.Found that exposure to wood dust in timber market workers in Nigeria had poorer respiratory function, higher respiratory and nonrespiratory symptoms (skin and eye irritation) than control subjects. 421 people were tested in this study. Workers exposed to wood dust had restrictive pattern of ventilatory function impairment, and the degree of impairment correlated with how long the workers were working in the industry.

Meo SA. Lung function in Pakistani wood workers. Int J Environ Health Res. 2006 Jun;16(3):193-203. 46 non-smoking wood workers found to have significant reduction in lung function as measured by spirometry relative to their matched controls. This impairment was increased with the duration of exposure to wood industries. It is concluded that lung function in wood workers is impaired and stratification of results shows a dose-response effect of years of wood dust exposure on lung function.

Barcenas CH et al. Wood dust exposure and the association with lung cancer risk. Am J Ind Med. 2005 Apr;47(4):349-57. Exposure to wood dust in 1300 lung cancer patients gives an adjusted odds ratio for lung cancer risk for combined wood dust related occupations and industries of 3.15, and 1.60 for overall summary exposure compared to control subjects.

Jansson C et al. Occupational exposures and risk of esophageal and gastric cardia cancers among male Swedish construction workers. Cancer Causes Control. 2005 Aug;16(6):755-64. Exposure to wood dust among 260,000 Swedish construction workers showed an incidence rate ratio of 4.8 for risk of gastric cardia adenocarcinoma.

Malkin R et al. The characterization of airborne occupational safety and health hazards in selected small businesses; manufacturing wood pallets. Ind Health. 2006 Jan;44(1):58-63. Walk-through evaluations at four wood pallet manufacturing companies found total dust measures ranged from 0.86 to 1.67 mg/m3, compared to the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) guideline for wood dust is 1.0 mg/m3.

And here's the one that makes me real nervous:

Hursthouse A et al. A pilot study of personal exposure to respirable and inhalable dust during the sanding and sawing of medium density fibreboard (MDF) and soft wood. Int J Environ Health Res. 2004 Aug;14(4):323-6. The amount of respirable and inhalable dusts from sawing and sanding MDF and softwoods at the operator position in a typical cabinet-making workshop was measured. Exposure levels for the total inhalable fraction (<100 micron) were 6.9-91 mg/m3 for MDF and 2.5-45 mg/m3 for softwood. For the respirable fraction (< 10 micron) levels were 0.4-13 mg/m3 for MDF and 0.4-2.9 mg/m3 for softwood.

Remember, as cited above, the ACGIH guideline for total dust exposure is 1.0 mg/m3 for an 8 hour period. Also, the dust that is thought to be the cause of respiratory problems and cancer risk is the inhalable fraction. This means that one sawing or sanding operation alone could expose a person to more fine dust alone than the amount of total dust he/she should be exposed to for an 8 hour shift.

From this data, one can conclude that exposure to wood dust in people working in the wood industry have measurable effects on your health. The fact that lung function damage from wood dust exposure worsens with time indicates that this effect has a dose-response relationship, and therefore there is no real "safe" exposure level. Once you are exposed to wood dust, your lungs start to worsen. Similar conclusions can be made about cancer risk. Finally, the amount of dust we are exposed to is much higher than we think.

Phil Thien

10-26-2006, 5:41 PM

Phil Thien

10-26-2006, 6:28 PM

Sorry Phil, that's where I get off the bus. I don't think it would be ok for a vendor to make up numbers, even if that vendor believed their product was the best.

Pete

I agree. But just because he refuses to tell us how he arrived at that # doesn't mean he has made it up, that it is incorrect, or that it isn't a good indication of performance compared to other filters on the market.

I'm just keeping an open mind.

Wilbur Pan

10-26-2006, 6:57 PM

Phil,

In the first two studies cited above, it was found that decreased lung function worsened with the length of exposure (time spent working in the industry). This indicates that there is a dose-response relationship for wood dust exposure and loss of lung function. This means that there is no "safe" level of dust exposure -- once you start breathing it in, your lungs start to deteriorate.

To state that there is a "safe" level of dust exposure presupposes that there is a step-like relationship between dust exposure and disease -- that if you keep your exposure below some level, your health will be just fine, and you only have to worry once you go over that line. That's just not the case.

I happen to be a pediatric oncologist as my day job, and there is an example that directly impacts my patients that hopefully will make this a little more clear. There is a chemotherapy drug called daunorubicin that we use for some pediatric cancers. A side effect of daunorubicin can be weakening of the heart muscle so that your heart will not be able to pump as effectively as it used to, and this can lead to heart failure. There is a dose of daunorubicin that is considered "safe", but "safe" is not really an accurate term. I know that if I measure heart function in my patients as they get successive doses of daunorubicin, then I will be able to see a real decrease in the strength of their heart. Not so much that it will cause heart failure, but the difference will be there. I also know that for some patients, they will go into heart failure after only one dose of daunorubicin.

So the question is whether or not my patients have heart disease from exposure to "safe" levels of daunorubicin. If you only define disease in terms of having heart failure or not, then no, these kids will not have disease. But as a group all of them will have a measurable decrease in heart function compared to kids that did not receive this drug. So from that standpoint, these patients have diseased hearts.

So does it matter if my patients have decreased heart function, but not heart failure? It depends. These kids clearly have decreased reserve compared to normal kids. For a couch potato/Playstation playing kid, it probably won't matter. However, I have taken care of teenage athletes who tell me that after their treatment is done, that they can't perform at the same level they used to. Maybe it's because their heart took a hit from daunorubicin, and this group of kids notice the difference because they put more stress on their heart. The thing I'm worried about is not what happens to these kids now, but 20-30 years from now, if it turns out that the damage done to their heart from daunorubicin gives them all heart failure in their 30's-40's.

Of course, I continue to use daunorubicin because the alternative is not treating the cancer, in which case the kid will die. But this is an extreme example.

Let's go back to wood dust and lung function. Wood dust exposure causes a measurable decrease in lung function that is related to the amount of exposure. Again, to suggest that there is a "safe" level presupposes that there is some level of dust that you can breathe in that causes no harm. This is not true. If you breathe in wood dust, measurable acute decreases in lung function can be demonstrated. If your definition of lung disease is limited to the presence or absence of pulmonary fibrosis, then one could say that one does not have lung disease. But like my cancer patients and their heart dysfunction due to daunorubicin, the bottom line is that your lungs can be affected by a single exposure to wood dust. And like my cancer patients, it might not matter now, but it may matter 20 years from now.

How much lung function can one give up and be fine? One of the parameters measured in the first two studies is something called forced vital capacity, or FEV1. In kids with asthma, the FEV1 goes down when they have an asthma attack. We give kids with asthma a gizmo called a peak flow meter that measures how their FEV1 is doing. If they lose as little as 20%, then we start inhalers and nebulizers.

The last two articles I thought were interesting because they show that exposure to wood dust is probably a lot higher than we think.

Given this information, I feel comfortable saying that wood dust exposure can cause lung disease and that given the dose-response behavior of this phenomenon that there is no "safe" dose. And from a lung function standpoint, I'm also comfortable saying that all who work in a woodworking environment will have some measurable lung dysfunction.

It's just a matter of whether one is willing to take the risk or not. I for one am willing to take that risk, otherwise I wouldn't be in the process of setting up a workshop in my basement. But I am also giving a LOT of thought to my dust collection setup. (Side note: Phil, I think you answered a question I had about dust collection over on WoodCentral -- thanks!) I'm also planning to do as much with hand tools as possible -- less dust that way. :D

Oh, as far as citations: go to www.pubmed.gov (http://www.pubmed.gov). This is a searchable database of all biomedically related academic journals. I searched for "wood dust". Most articles have the actual abstracts. But all these articles are peer-reviewed.

Alan Simpson

10-26-2006, 6:59 PM

Sorry for the repeat, but it seems like my last post was missed by those who are looking for facts.

It wasn't missed. It's just that your "facts" are not relevant to the question asked. In fact, the majority of your citations are from foreign countries. I know OSHA covers a lot, but not THAT much. :p

The questions was about the statements "almost all woodworkers will experience major health issues" when they are exposed to levels of dust considered safe by OSHA.

And any one of us can try to deduce the true meaning of the studies in how it relates to Bill's claims, but again, we deserve more than the deductions of members of a woodworking forum. We deserve some scientific facts.

Alex Shanku

10-26-2006, 7:07 PM

Wilbur,

Good response, thanks.

How long after exposure to wood dust does the pleura begin to regenerate and heal, if at all?

Al Willits

10-26-2006, 7:19 PM

""""""""
almost all woodworkers will become ill from wood dust
""""""""

Kinda a bit loaded statement, taken to extremes standing outside will probably make you ill, depending on how you determine "ill".
Anything other than perfectly clear lungs could possibly make you "ill" to some minor degree. just a thought....

Grandfather once told me, figures never lie, but liars sometime figure.
And we all fit somewhere in that statement somewhere. (his words, not mind)
What he went on to explain was, each of us use whatever it takes to present our point, and possibly the points we make will not agree with someone else who uses whatever they need to make their point.

Not necessarly liars, but different views, even if the final point is the same for both parties.

Seems we all want clear lungs here, so I guess we agree on something.

This post has made me more aware of DC, so thanks.
Not much else I can do about DC other than what I have going now, but I do make more effort to use the DC, exhaust fan and mask I have...for that I am greatful to this forum..

And as soon as I quit coughing I'm going back out and cut some wood...

JUST KIDDING....:D

Al

Jim O'Dell

10-26-2006, 7:31 PM

Thank you, Wilber! I for one am appreciative of the information you have supplied. It looks to me that you have given ample information for someone who truly wants to learn more about this to start his or her own research.
I found your analogy of the medicine and the wood dust to be spot on. Different people have different reactions to the same amount of input, be it medicine, dust, alcohol, etc. The difference in our body's chemistry creates this difference.
In the same vein, different people need different levels of proof to be convinced. That's fine. I hope those that are in this percentile are willing to do some research for themselves. If we are not willing to do this for ourselves, then, whatever the subject is about, we obviously don't really care enough about it to be involved. Jim.

Phil Thien

10-26-2006, 8:03 PM

Phil,

...

Given this information, I feel comfortable saying that wood dust exposure can cause lung disease and that given the dose-response behavior of this phenomenon that there is no "safe" dose. And from a lung function standpoint, I'm also comfortable saying that all who work in a woodworking environment will have some measurable lung dysfunction.

It's just a matter of whether one is willing to take the risk or not. I for one am willing to take that risk, otherwise I wouldn't be in the process of setting up a workshop in my basement. But I am also giving a LOT of thought to my dust collection setup. (Side note: Phil, I think you answered a question I had about dust collection over on WoodCentral -- thanks!) I'm also planning to do as much with hand tools as possible -- less dust that way. :D

Oh, as far as citations: go to www.pubmed.gov (http://www.pubmed.gov). This is a searchable database of all biomedically related academic journals. I searched for "wood dust". Most articles have the actual abstracts. But all these articles are peer-reviewed.

...

Okay, I didn't get it but now I do (sorry). Kinda scary but just forces us to be diligent in our dust control efforts. Especially when the kids want to work on projects with me.

Thank you for the clarification.

Wilbur Pan

10-26-2006, 8:05 PM

It wasn't missed. It's just that your "facts" are not relevant to the question asked. In fact, the majority of your citations are from foreign countries. I know OSHA covers a lot, but not THAT much. :p
Alan,

I realize that 3 of the studies I cited are from foreign countries, but all of these studies were controlled. The only difference between the affected individuals in these studies and the control groups was wood dust exposure. So the information here is still applicable.

The facts from the studies I cited are:

1. Wood dust exposure causes a measurable decrease in lung function in a dose-response manner. This means that there is no "safe" level of exposure.

2. Wood dust exposure increases the odds ratio of developing certain cancers. Again, this means that there is no "safe" level of exposure.

3. The exposure of people involved in woodworking to dust is probably worse than we think. OSHA levels for total wood dust exposure are 15.0 mg/m3. ACGIH guidelines for total dust exposure is 1.0 mg/m3. The fact that a sawing or sanding operation can generate dust levels that are 3-6 times the OSHA guidelines makes the OSHA guidelines a bit of a moot point. If you generate 90 mg/m3 of dust while sanding, then to meet OSHA guidelines you'd have to do one sanding operation, then take the next 6 days off. In otherwords, anyone that works in woodworking are automatically subjecting themselves to dust levels higher than what OSHA deems to be acceptable. Then there is the question of whether OSHA guidelines are really acceptable.

By the way, I'm not trying to be an apologist for Bill. I do think that although everything he says about dust collection makes sense to me from a medical and engineering standpoint, and that I am taking many of his recommendations under serious advisement. However, I do think he should cite references if asked, or post them on his website. I chose to do this because even though I don't know much about woodworking yet, I do know something about evaluating medical literature and reports on health risks.

Jim Becker

10-26-2006, 8:32 PM

A
3. The exposure of people involved in woodworking to dust is probably worse than we think. OSHA levels for total wood dust exposure are 15.0 mg/m3. ACGIH guidelines for total dust exposure is 1.0 mg/m3. The fact that a sawing or sanding operation can generate dust levels that are 3-6 times the OSHA guidelines makes the OSHA guidelines a bit of a moot point. If you generate 90 mg/m3 of dust while sanding, then to meet OSHA guidelines you'd have to do one sanding operation, then take the next 6 days off. In otherwords, anyone that works in woodworking are automatically subjecting themselves to dust levels higher than what OSHA deems to be acceptable....

Thanks for this, Wilbur. Those numbers are quite clear and understandable even by a lay-person. Regardless of how each individual person feels about the subject, people involved, etc., I really do hope this thread makes people think a little more about wood dust in their own shops. I try to take pretty good care in this respect, but now am thinking that I could also do better in some areas and situations...

Wilbur Pan

10-26-2006, 8:36 PM

How long after exposure to wood dust does the pleura begin to regenerate and heal, if at all?
Alex,

This is not as simple as a question as you might think. Most of the damage that wood dust does, at least in kids, is inflammatory in nature. Acute inflammatory events are reversible, and go away in a matter of days. If the inflammation is chronic however, fibrosis sets in, and that does not really go away in the lungs.

Then there is the matter of becoming sensitized to wood dust. You may have heard of people being stung by a bee and being annoyed, and then being stung a second time and having a severe allergic reaction to the point that they go into respiratory failure and die. The same thing can happen with wood dust, but not usually to the extent of death. More likely the affected person can wind up with severe lung damage, perhaps requiring frequent respiratory treatments, a permanent oxygen requirement, or mechanical assistance to breathe. The vexing thing is that this can happen at any time, without warning.

Cecil Arnold

10-26-2006, 8:36 PM

Wilber,

Thank you for contributing your expertise to this discussion. Like Jim, I found it to be informative. While there appears to be some here who would argue with a brick wall, it is difficult to overlook peer reviewed research. As someone who has been involved in rule making I'm surprised to find anyone naive enough to think OSHA guidelines even approach adequacy. Again thanks for the effort.

Wilbur Pan

10-28-2006, 7:08 AM

Thanks for the kind words. I've been looking into this not really because of concerns that I'm going to have issues with lung problems (I still haven't really gotten out of that adolescent "I'm never going to die" phase) but because I have a wife, a 3 year old, and a new baby coming along in December. I'm setting up my workshop space in my basement, and not only is there no easy way to exhaust air to the outside, but at least a few heating ducts run across the ceiling, which makes me worry that dust generated in my workshop might wind up being pumped upstairs into the rest of the house. I'd hate to find out that my wife or kids developed asthma because I was generating dust in the basement.

Anyway, glad to have been some help. Just bear with me as I post stupid questions about making dovetails. :D

Bill Pentz

10-28-2006, 1:30 PM

Dr. Wilbur Pan,

Thank you for the very informative information you shared. I agree my web pages need to include more references and detail to back up the various risks discussed. I welcome your input and suggested changes if you can find the time to help. Contrary to what some say, my web pages are a combined effort of hundreds who have helped me try to provide a good source of information for hobbyists and small shop woodworkers to better protect ourselves from fine dust.

My role in this effort has been to collect suggestions then test, refine, enhance, and present this information on my Cyclone and Dust Collection Research (http://billpentz.com//woodworking/cyclone/index.cfm) web pages. This is an effort that I have mostly paid for myself out of my own pocket with a little help from a few who choose to donate. In spite of some claims, I am not a vendor, own no part of any cyclone, dust collector, filter, or woodworking company and am not employed by any of these firms. I do not sell any cyclones, dust collectors or filters and my only income from my web pages is a little money from general woodworking advertising. None of the vendors I recommend pay me for advertising or sales. I do get a small royalty from Ed Morgano with Clear Vue Cyclones for the use of my 1999 design in the cyclones he started selling in 2004. Although I would be proud to be an owner or employee of his firm, I am not. Ed has done such an excellent job on his cyclones and customer support that in just two years with no advertising other than word of mouth and a tiny ad I run for him for free on my web pages his Clear Vue Cyclones are one of the main contenders when woodworkers now choose which cyclone to buy. Likewise, other than a little whining about the challenges of building their cyclones, having to put together better tool hoods and ports, and install appropriate ducting, all feedback on my cyclone design remains very positive with many copying these efforts. Between the success of this design and the growing popularity of my web pages that are viewed by over 16,000 unique visitors a day, I can understand why some vendors feel threatened.

In terms of your own woodworking you face one of the more difficult challenges with your basement shop. Most basement shops share airflow with our homes, so can easily contaminate both if we are not careful. My testing is showing that even if you buy an Oneida Air Systems 5 hp pro cyclone or a 5 hp Clear Vue Cyclone you will generate dangerously unhealthy amounts of fine dust if you don’t start by fixing your tool hoods to block and control the fine dust as it is being made. In fact both of the largest two cyclone based dust collection systems I recently tested failed their air quality tests with well over OSHA allowed 5 milligram per cubic meter of air simply because they had stock poorly made blade guard hoods on their table saws. The second reality with any shop is we know we are going to miss some dust during our woodworking no matter how good the collection system, downdraft table, and air cleaner. That fugitive dust meaning dust missed dusting collection in a basement shop will end up in our homes if there is shared air. Working in basement shops with the more toxic woods, woods known to rapidly cause us to develop sensitivity, failing to wear a good NIOSH approved mask like the 3M 7500 model when making fine dust, and not using very good air filters in our homes and work areas is not wise. I likewise would very much like to see most shops, basement or otherwise exhausting outside whenever possible to minimize the build up of this fugitive dust that we miss during collection or that gets through our filters and lingers for six months or longer.

Please feel free to email me with questions or areas where I can help as you setup your own dust collection system. Again thank you for your very informative posts.

bill