Tulane Wood Dust Study - "wood dust is bad for you" is a lie?

[Bob Noles]

I am not about to put my dust mask up for auction based on that study.

nuff said......

[Mitchell Scrivener]

I went to Tulane. Yathink they might want to do a study on the effects of wood rot and mildew and lung damage. Willow Street was under quite a lot of water, and any of those researchers will probably be researchee's in about 15 years.

[Uma Duffy]

Who funds the research determines the likely results of the study...industry funded=industry favorable results...see FDA drug tests...another fine example of money talks

[Dan Clark]

The study is BS. Just like the thousands of other studies funded by some industry or trade organization. The cigarette industry funded dozens (hundreds?) of studies PROVING that smoking was NOT hazardous your health. Riiiight!

Follow the money!

Dan.

[glenn bradley]

I would feel really lucky if my shop air quality approached the quality in a local cabinet shop. When you get in the general vicinity of one of their open gates you can feel your hair pulling toward it. Their cyclone looks like it could swallow a Volkswagon and not even notice.

I am lucky and can have the side and large roll up front doors open 9 months out of the year for cross ventilation. I still use DC and wear a mask. Folks who work in areas requiring heated shops or in basements are in a very different environment than those used in the study.

Interestingly, I work with a couple of intelligent and well educated individuals. One religiously refuses to use his turn signals and the other will not wear a seat belt . . . some folks don't use dust collection. Some folks think I'm a dare-devil becasue I don't ground my PVC(?). We all have different comfort levels.

[Wilbur Pan]

Interestingly, I work with a couple of intelligent and well educated individuals. One religiously refuses to use his turn signals....

I have to ask.

I can see not thinking and forgetting to use turn signals. But is there any reason to deliberately not use turn signals?

Of course, here in New Jersey, activating a turn signal seems to mean, "Please speed up on this side of my car."

[Gary Keedwell]

Here in Boston we don't use turn signals because we like to keep the enemy guessing.

Gary

[Art Mann]

Comments on the comments:

1) The study referenced here was done by a prestigious medical school that has much to lose by falsifying research data. The individuals doing the research have much to lose by publishing a bad study with their name on it.

2) Almost all research of any type is privately funded by the institutions that are affected by the results. No new drugs would ever be released if we counted on public funding for research. Anyone who claims that we have not made tremendous progress in the medical field through privately funded research, much of which actually eliminates promising new drugs, is living in a fantasy world. The source of the funding does not affect the results in most cases.

3) Very few people on this board have ever actually been in a wood industry facility that complies with OSHA dust standards. I have. I think people would be astounded at the cleanliness of the air in such a place. The air is often less dust filled than the outside open air.

4) It is extremely difficult to achieve OSHA standards in a home shop environment. In reality, if we could come up to those standards in our hobby shops, we would be extremely pleased.

5) Much of the information spread about on this board about the health effects of dust come from a single individual who a) has had severe respiratory problems that may affect his thinking and b) stands to reap personal financial benefit from the sale of dust collection equipment. Unlike the sponsors of the Tulane study, he is doing all his own "research" hmself with no professional medical qualifications and no peer review. I marvel at the people who would rather trust his opinions than the results of legitimate research.

6) I have read a number of studies that he and others on this boad have referenced in proving their claims about the hazards of wood dust. Several facts come out of those studies. a) Most of the research was done in foreign third world countries 10 to 30 years ago. b) The air quality standards were generally much worse than what is permitted by OSHA. c) In spite of these facts, the increases in dust related illnesses were very slight in most cases.

7) With the exception of allergic reactions, the health risk of inhaling wood dust is related to the amount of exposure. Hobbiests do not spend 8 hours a day, 5 or 6 days a week inhaling wood dust.

My intentions in making all these coments are not to deny the obvious fact that inhaling wood dust is hazardous to one's health. Rather, I am trying to add a little reason to what I believe is largely hysteria whipped up by a few paranoid individuals. As for myself, I have a central dust collection system in my shop and I am improving it all the time. I wear a quality dust mask whenever I am doing high risk jobs. I use an exhaust system to pull in fresh air when weather permits. I would advise others to do the same. I think achieving the OSHA goals in a home shop is a worthy, if very difficult, goal.

[Toney Robertson]

Wow, a voice of reason from the wilderness!

I can not understand why this issue is a hot button issue for so many people. I have asked what I think are reasonable questions in the past and have received mostly unreasonable answers.

Most people seem to think that DC's are the end all and be all and I am sure that if you spend thousands that statement can be true but I have yet to see any empirical evidence showing that an ordinary DC provides a safe working environment.


I was recently at a small commercial shop where a worker was putting strips through a wide belt sander. Even though it had 2 4-5" outlets hooked to a DC and no visible signs of airborne dust, he was still wearing a dust mask. Unless he had an allergy to dust then his willingness to wear a mask IMO states volumes about how we should be approaching wood dust.

IMO DC are nice but to protect your lungs a GOOD dust mask is a prudent measure. Stopping dust before it enters your lungs is the goal.

I would love it if someone can show me evidence of a reasonably priced DC that would eliminate the need for personal dust protection.

Toney

[Louis Rucci]

Just to be a Devil's advocate.

You can't always ignore the report because of who funded it. They may have a valid reason for the study, good or bad, and it's up to us whether to trust the results or not.

[James Ayars]

Art, thanks for your post, specifically points 1 and 2. When I was in grad school, I saw that almost all research funding was from public and private corporations. While the departments of education and sociology got government money, the sciences rarely did. The professors and graduate assistants were not liars that would manufacture data and sell their credentials to the highest bidder.

I saw a lot of research being done to develop new drugs, especially for cancer. It was extremly expensive, slow and often led to a dead end. And it was funded by drug companies. They did not say "Here is xxxxx number of dollars, now make this drug look good." Rather they said "here's xxxxx number of dollars. See if you can find a connection between this protein/enzyme/etc and the growth of certain cancer cells."

If someone or some industry did not have a stake in the outcome, they would have no reason to fund the research.

James

[Ray Turney]

The only thing that should be in your lungs is oxygen. Black lung doesn't show up in miners lungs till it's too late. Stop it before it stops you

[Harry Hagan]

Here's another question you should be asking yourself: What have their unpublished studies determined?

After years of attending medical conferences and reviewing thousands of medical research papers; I’ve concluded that studies sponsored by those who benefit the most should be evaluated with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[John Browne]

I have to agree that to assume that these studies are slanted or inaccurate solely because of the source of the grant money is falling a bit too much into conspiracy theory thinking. Solid researchers will present solid data and conclusions. It may or may not be beneficial to the org which provided funding, that's their risk. They want to deal with policy issues by bring facts, not opinion, to the table.

I use a DC and am concerned about dust, who isn't? But it's hard to know how far one should take it...I used to smoke 2+ packs of cigarettes a day, that was dangerous. I don't smoke at all now. But if someone only smoked one cigarette a day, is that highly risky? How about one per week? or month? Where is the tipping point? No one can say.

And no one can say it about dust, either. I have a client who has an OSHA compliant boat yard, they have PM66 saws hooked up to little 1.5 or 2hp DCs with the cheap nylon bags. Dust on the bags, floor, saws, everywhere. Hardly a dust-free environment. Yet their OSHA inspector said they were the best inspection he'd done in like 20 years. These employers are seriously concerned about the welfare of their employees--if they thought for one second they were hazarding people's health they'd do it better.

Now those saws don't get a lot of use--it's a boat shop, not a cabinet shop. But these people work around that equipment for years and years. And they've never had a dust-related illness (had one allergy from fiberglass exposure, however).

I used my saw for a grand total of maybe 20-30 minutes per week actually cutting, always with the DC on. Sure, there's some dust floating around. But am I killing myself at these levels of exposure to where I should also wear a respirator and get a .5u filter etc? Frankly I doubt it. But what do I (or any of us) actually KNOW?

[Greg Pavlov]

One of the golden rules in reporting research results is to report and publish sufficient detail about an experiment and the conditions it was conducted in to allow someone else to replicate it. This is true regardless of who sponsors the study. If that has been done, most credibility problems can be resolved.

A major problem with most news reports about medical studies is that they don't give enough real information: you can see this in a lot of the questions and comments that came up in this thread. Another is that they very often misinterpret the experiment and the results, most often overstating the results.

Perhaps the most significant credibility issue concerning drug industry trials is something someone alluded to: some studies may never be reported. This has come up in some recent court cases and its very likely that in the future, pharmcos will be legally required to publicly report on all studies regardless of outcome.

I wouldn't equate anything that the tobacco industry has done over the past 50-60 years to anything anyone else has done.