3 ms·
I suspect that stone dust generally will be found to be similarly harmful to asbestos. Asbestos is apparently worse because of the sharp edges of the particles
by londons_explore 3y ago
I suspect that stone dust generally will be found to be similarly harmful to asbestos.
Asbestos is apparently worse because of the sharp edges of the particles, but if I put any angle grinder dust under the microscope I see plenty of sharp bits too.
I think the actually harmful thing is that the dust is 'fresh' rather than being the result of years of chemical weathering which tends to smooth off the sharpest pointiest bits at nanometer scale.
- jaclaz 3y agoYes, they are essentially the same: https://medlineplus.gov/interstitiallungdiseases.html https://medlineplus.gov/interstitiallungdiseases.html
- stephen_g 3y agoI already commented above but no, they aren't - silicosos is similar to one of the several possible diseases asbestos can give you, asbestosis, but mesothelioma is the real horror outcome from asbestos exposure which I don't believe silica has any kind of similar connected disease.
- jaclaz 3y agoYes, maybe I expressed myself improperly, mesothelioma (often originated from asbestos) is slow (like 20 to 40 years from exposure): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelioma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelioma the workers in the article are young and are dying from the effects of "plainer" silicosis (which is similar to asbestosis).
- stephen_g 3y agoThe effects of stone dust are pretty well understood - silicosis is deadly and similarly harmful as asbestosis, and both raise the risk of lung cancer, but I don't believe there is anything like mesothelioma related to quartz dust which is the real horror of asbestos.