Should WW Forums have a position on dust hazards and practices?

[nick_b00]

I can understand the benefit of a FAQ on this topic and appreciate the efforts. It's coming along nicely.

But, to play devils advocate, how far does it go? Do you put references in the FAQ about smoking massively magnifying the far lesser risk of inhaling fine dust particles alone for instance?

Nick

[Chris Parks]

Smoking, why should that be in it. Just because I use it as an analogy does not give any creedence it for being placed in the FAQ. It seems a bit of common sense would produce an FAQ that is concise and too the point.

[Groggy]

Nick,

my intention, and I hope that of most here, is to provide a short, sharp statement that will give the reader a factual answer (in the broadest sense) to general questions.

These answers will be supplemented by links to far more authoritative and detailed sites such as Bill's. Hopefully, some blunt and brief answers will encourage the reader to follow a link to find out the 'why'.

'How far' will have to be determined by readability. If the FAQ degenerates into War and Peace then no-one will read it. Similarly, if it does not cover the majority of questions it will be of little use. Somewhere in between is where we need to be and reader feedback will help.

If there is a reference that applies to smokers it may be worthwhile putting that in too; they may not realise they are a high risk group. Do you have a reference?

[Groggy]

You are welcome and have my permission to be quoted and hyperlinked...

Also, you are welcome to make suggestions toward my web pages rewrite.

bill

Thank you Bill. I will include a comment in the FAQ inviting members to help with suggestions that will be removed after a few months. EDIT: Done.

[nick_b00]

Smoking, why should that be in it. Just because I use it as an analogy does not give any creedence it for being placed in the FAQ. It seems a bit of common sense would produce an FAQ that is concise and too the point.

Just an opinion, adding to the debate, I dunno, maybe some don't quite realize the magnitude of the risk?

Not certain I see your point though, after all smoking is the single biggest risk factor for cardiovascular and respiratory disease. We are discussing things that increase risk of respiratory disease and by comparison wood dust is far less important than smoking in that regard. The combination of the two could be likened to asbestos, smoking and mesothelioma, and I doubt there'd be any reluctance to mention smoking in that vain.

Groggy, there are several studies, the 10 or so I've skimmed are in this lot. More broadly they are related to dust exposure, occupational hazzards, not simply smoking. I thought I'd include others for interests sake. It's not a comprehensive search, they're not all RCTs or systematic reviews, but they're a start.

Nick

[Gunnaduit]

Hi Bill, thanks for giving us a few words of your advice, and for allowing the faq to make use of your website. Although only a small step, having this faq is definitely a step in the right direction, and is inspired by your own work.

Maybe some of us have a few constructive suggestions for your website, since you are planning to give it an overhaul.

~Ian~

[Groggy]

I read a number of them but can't see anything (yet) that states an increased risk to smokers when exposed to wood dust. I'll wait for a good link or study before I put a reference in. I suspect you are right but would like to read it in black and smudge first.

[Chris Parks]

When I read what I wrote above it was a bit curt and abrupt and I apologise, it is sometimes hard to write what you mean.

I use smoking as an analogy only to point out that in all health issues people as a rule do want to address the risks, as obvious as they are. In this regard smoking is the predominant one.

As an aside I wonder in anyone who smokes actually believes in and has installed good dust extraction for the good of his/her health, now that would be a contradiction. Sorry, but I couldn't resist, you may carry on now.

[Gunnaduit]

Nick, nice research list. I'm finding those sorts of papers in Google Scholar (a few of them give the full pdf article too, but most only link to the abstract). The problem is to find one that is more like a recent review paper, that pulls together the main points from these more detailed studies.

If smoking is shown to multiply risk from wood dust exposure, rather than being just an additional risk, that would be pertinent.

[nick_b00]

I read a number of them but can't see anything (yet) that states an increased risk to smokers when exposed to wood dust. I'll wait for a good link or study before I put a reference in. I suspect you are right but would like to read it in black and smudge first.

There is a case control study by Wu et al, however wood dust and smoking seem to be independent risk factors for sino-nasal malignancy and so a direct correlation is often a confounder - and therefore smoking is adjusted out in studies I've seen.

Wu X, Delclos GL, Annegers FJ, Bondy ML, Honn SE, Henry B, Hsu TC, Spitz MR. A case-control study of wood dust exposure, mutagen sensitivity, and lung can- cer risk. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Preven- tion 1995;4(6):583–8.

And there this Canadian Cancer website
https://www.cancercare.on.ca/cms/one...7&pageId=98401

It points out wood may contribute more to adenocarcinoma, and smoking to squamous cell carcinoma, but each will cause both.

Anyway, what started as a half hearted enquiry into people's opinions, has become much more. I wasn't necessarily demanding any information be added, and agree clear, relevant, referenced and concise info is paramount, and better for excluding the irrelevant. Consensus will determine what makes the cut.

I suppose i was also feeling out how socially acceptable my comments were - i wondered if they'd possibly be less well received than suggesting that most amateurs dust extraction is inadequate.

Perhaps a blurb such as on that Canadian website is more appropriate, something along the lines of "Aside from exposure to wood dust particles, there are several other risk factors that may contribute to additional risk of respiratory, ocular or skin disease such as exposure to fumes, chemicals, asbestos, tobacco smoking, alcohol"?

Nick

[Gunnaduit]

Nick

Perhaps a blurb such as on that Canadian website is more appropriate, something along the lines of "Aside from exposure to wood dust particles, there are several other risk factors that may contribute to additional risk of respiratory, ocular or skin disease such as exposure to fumes, chemicals, asbestos, tobacco smoking, alcohol"?

Considering the negative reaction kicked up by suggesting that WWF has any kind of dust hazard message at all, perhaps this would be going too far.

Actually I can sympathise with the sentiment of "oh, well if everything causes cancer, I won't worry about any of it".

Might be better then not to introduce that element, and just stick to dust. Less is more.

[nick_b00]

Nick


Considering the negative reaction kicked up by suggesting that WWF has any kind of dust hazard message at all, perhaps this would be going too far.

Actually I can sympathise with the sentiment of "oh, well if everything causes cancer, I won't worry about any of it".

Might be better then not to introduce that element, and just stick to dust. Less is more.

Exactly why I took the stance of devil's advocate in the first place.

I will agree that initially I too was a little surprised that there was the reaction, but in reading the FAQ I agree its fairly appropriate as is. I am happy to leave it without tangential references.

Nick

[Gunnaduit]

Cool. If you're still in the mood to dig up some nice fat back-up links, don't stop. I'm finding it difficult to find web resources that are worth linking, mainly because it's all so fragmentary, or else the advice is quite old and out of step with the concept of respirable dust.

Gunna

[nick_b00]

A few quick short links. Problem often is that the full text requires subscription. Theses are mainly case reports, but they are Australian.

Really just for general info, don't necessarily think they need to be included.

Deposition of inhaled wood dust in the nasal c... [Inhal Toxicol. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI
Surveillance of Australian workplace Based ... [Occup Med (Lond). 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
Acceptance and effects of nasal lavage in v... [Occup Med (Lond). 1999] - PubMed - NCBI
Dust exposures in the wood proces... [Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1999 Sep-Oct] - PubMed - NCBI
Wood dust exposure during furniture manuf... [Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1991] - PubMed - NCBI
Allergic contact dermatitis to multiple... [Australas J Dermatol. 1997] - PubMed - NCBI

Nick

[Gunnaduit]

Well I'm about to mount a Wikipedia article, which can be used as a reference for the faq.

The advantages of that is
1. then the faq can link to it, keeping the faq a lot shorter
2. anyone can add to it worldwide
So a question:

I am thinking of calling the Wikipedia article:
Health hazards and control of wood dust

Once the title is set, it becomes harder to alter.
So any comments?

And Nick, since you've dug up those references (which may be too much for the WWF faq), would you be interested in adding to the Wikipedia article?