Thread: All Australian timber is carcinogenic?

I have read similar articles. My understanding is that some timbers are more carcinogenic than others, but that from a safety point of view consider them all as potentially dangerous. I have also seen stats on nasal cancer for woodworkers that indicate that the risk is high. So wear protection

Originally Posted by JillB

I have read that All Australian timber is carcinogenic, and that woodworkers have a significantly higher incidence of nasal cancers than the normal population. Can this be correct?

I can understand the carcinogenic nature of MDF, chipboard and some plywoods with the toxic materials that are used in the manufacture, but fail to understand why pine and most other natural timbers would be treated as dangerous.

Everything is dangerous, remember you can even drown in a half inch of water.

There are many aspects to this, one is chemical toxicity (ie poisonous) and the other is physical toxicity such as asbestos fibres embedding themselves and irritating surrounding tissue. Another is where it goes, you can eat a reasonable amount of pine sawdust as your gut will cope (some day I'll do an estimate of how much the average ww eats), but sand it fine enough and breathe it in often enough and it enters nasal passages and lungs and sticks is where it causes other problems.

Eucalyptus oil is used as a medicinal material (very highly promoted by the fruit-loop fraternity) but is has a surprising low toxic dose if ingested. There is not much Euc oil in Aussie wood (it's mostly in the leaves) but there are other oils and resins in wood. Applied topically and in vapour form tree resins can have health assisting properties (how many of you have taken Friars balsam vapours?) but breathing in too much or in the form of solid chips or significant ingestion can be another matter. My reading of the literature is that no one really "nose" the toxicity of Aussie Timber. The fact that woodworkers have a significantly higher incidence of nasal cancers than the normal population could be because of a bunch of other factors, maybe they smoke more, maybe it's the finishes they use (also pretty toxic) or maybe they pick their nose more that others shoving stuff up while the pick stuff out - don't laugh - remember your fingers are feelthee!

Another reason Aussie timber is potentially more dangerous is that it is generally harder than most and so can be sanded finer than most. Even when it is sanded with coarse sandpaper, or worked with blades or chipping tools, or even when just exposed to air a certain amount of it is turned into very fine fibres which pass through all hobby and most professional type dust catching equipment. That is why I advocate exhausting all dust collection equipment outside sheds and leaving DC equipment running for a good while after any dust making activity.

As Bob said. A lot of Ausy timbers grow in silty sandy soils and therefore often have high silica content. Polishes well, but bluntens the tools and gets up your nose

There are a few more details, put together by Neil here:
http://www.ubeaut.com.au/badwood.htm

I believe the recommendation is to assume all Australian wood dusts are carcinogenic - I don't think there's enough information to say that a particular one is or isn't, apart from perhaps a couple.

Asked a doctor (whose original degree was in forestry and who worked in occupational health) about the stats on nasal cancer. Apparently, they are significantly higher for cabinetmakers etc., but it's a very low total number.

Could be why, but isnt MDF banned in America.
Common sense in protection of breathing any airborne particles has to go a long way in the prevention of any ill effects.

Originally Posted by dai sensei

A lot of Ausy timbers grow in silty sandy soils and therefore often have high silica content. Polishes well, but bluntens the tools and gets up your nose

I don't see why Australian soils should be any more sandy than other countries soil.
Is there any evidence that trees in sandy soils take up more silica? Or is this an assumption? You may be correct I don't know.
Norfolk Island Hibiscus (to be polite to possibly the worst tree on earth) has very little silica in the wood as the trees get rid of it by making silica fibers in the seed pods and flowers. I worked for many years on these trees growing in sand and in black clay as well and many other soils. I never noticed any difference in fibre content in the pods. True it may have been different I never measured this but I was wondering if this comment was based on research. Silica is not very soluble, perhaps pH may make a difference?

My understanding is that Aussie timbers take up silica due to a stress reaction, and Aussie trees are subject to more stress than most. The ones that happen to be stressed and are on high silica content soils just end up taking up more off it.

What it all boils down to is that your nose and lungs are designed to breath air and nothing else

As regards chemical toxicity: I have read that Bullock Bush, for example, contains enough cyanide to harm cattle and kill sheep. It seems a fair assumption that most would be in the leaves, but are we at substantial risk breathing the dust? I could not find any info on this and do not particularly wish to test a private gas chamber.

There's also some problems using red gum. It can hold a fungus from if's flowers than can be released with sawing and sanding. IT's recommended that dust protection be very stringent when using red gum.

Please get the wording right. The following is the first sentence from our Bad Woods page: http://www.ubeaut.com.au/woodstuf.htm

In Australia all wood dust is now classified as carcinogenic (liable to cause cancer) .

Please note: it says.... In Australia ALL WOOD DUST is now classified as carcinogenic............... Note it'sALL WOOD DUST not just Australian wood (timber) but all wood DUST from anywhere in the world and it's a statement for AUSTRALIA ONLY not for the rest of the world.No idea what the rest of the worlds policy is just the Australian one.

I don't think you'll find (written) anywhere: All Australian timber is carcinogenic as it says in this thread.

Think you'll find almost any sort of dust if inhaled in copious quantities will end up either being carcinogenic or just plain no good for you.

No one (to my knowledge) has ever suggested that timber is carcinogenic. Quite the contrary. In most instances timber is one of the better and safest materials to use for all sorts of applications. There are some timbers that have bad properties.... But that's another story.

Please try and get the facts right before posting stuff like this on the forums. It's almost scaremongering and when picked up by search engines can spread really bad, misinformation, world wide, in no time flat. Just think what misinformation like this could do to the timber industry, building industry and almost every other form of woodworking..

Remember most people are reasonably gullible and for some unknown reason seem to think that most of what they read on the www is the gospel truth. If they didn't, millions wouldn't get sucked into scams every month or make statements like the one that's at the head of this thread.

Cheers - Neil

Please try and get the facts right before posting stuff like this on the forums.

I stand by my original posting, gentlemen. I was using this Forum to find information about what I had heard and read, not scaremongering as Neil implies.

You will find the heading of my thread was a question:

All Australian timber is carcinogenic?

I was looking for some information, or links to research and articles on this topic, not having previously seen or heard of Neil's posting here on all the timbers and their ill effects. What better place to start than this forum. Isn't this what forums like this are all about, sharing information and expertise for the benefit of others?

I do believe that I have achieved my goal.

regards,
Jill

May have been better to ask a proper question like "Are all Australian timbers carcinogenic?" rather than a statment with a question mark at the end.