Wood toxicity, how determined?

[Will Blick]

What makes a wood a sensitizer? I understand that a sensitizer makes your system sensitive to many, or any wood dust....but how and who determines if a given wood is a sensitizer, vs. an irritant?

Cherry wood is never listed, does this means it's safe?

It seems every wood dust is problematic..... I assume what this means is, all fine dust is problematic, not just wood. For example, would fine dust from dirt be as problematic as many of the low to mid toxic woods? Same true with grain dust?

I have a suspicion much of this science is at its VERY early stages.....

[Jude Kingery]

Hello Will,

See if this gives any helpful insight? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicology

While it does not answer how or who determines which woods are toxic or the severity thereof, and is not specific to wood in particular, I found the information useful and interesting all the same; and hopefully you will as well. It'll be interesting to see what develops on this topic and I'm glad you brought this up.

While maintaining fairly healthy shop standards (safety glasses, respirator when sanding, filter always on, DC; I keep all elements and shop area clean and vacuumed), I turned cedar one time and broke out in hives on my arms, hands, even with a respirator on, I could walk out into the shop a day later - leaving the filter on all night - and still have red eyes, sneezing, severely. So? I just make it a point to never turn cedar again. Haven't had any sensitivity trouble to any other kind of wood I've turned.

Hope others add some information for you on this topic, I'll be interested to read in anything folks have to say. Thanks, Will. Best to you, Jude

[Gordon Harner]

WOW! That question could take a book or two to answer. That said, The process begins by a scientist or scientific group deciding to study a particular substance. The folks doing the study decide what they want to evaluate and the test methods to be used. There are many types of tests to choose from including the fact that the people doing the study may develop their own testing protocol. Some tests evaluate a hazard on a dose response basis and some look for the presence of known hazardous substances.

After the study is completed a report is written and published for review and comment. A governmental agency (not just the good ole USA) may, based on the study, choose to look at more information or conduct further study toward writing a rule or regulation.

This is by no means a simple process and usually takes a very circuitous path.

I would offer as an example of the complexty, the various studies on coffee. At this point In can't tell if coffe hazard or not. I don't care I'll drink it anyway.

Pardon the pun but, it's as clear as mud. My comments didn't help much huh?

[Peter Quadarella]

There's a pretty good toxicity chart in this informative article:
http://www.gvwg.ca/docs/Articles/WoodToxicity.htm

[Will Blick]

Hi Jude... good article on Wiki.... I am aware of the dose/response issue. But I guess, that is my point... Wiki correctly stated the death of a young women who drank too much water in a short period of time for a radio contest. So in theory, even water can be toxic in the right doses.

It would be interesting to see rat studies for wood dust, as suggested in the Wiki.... but, I am against animal cruelty, so I would not hope for such a study. But if such as study existed, it would shed some light on the differences between the dust by different species of wood... and possibly the dose relationship...as rats have such short life spans.

You mentioned severe reaction to Cedar, which appears you are allergic to it... I am curious... which exotic woods have you turned often, which you do not react to? Just curious if you only use a few different wood types, or many different species. Turners produce dust like no other operation, unless you sand all day :-)

Gordon, I hear ya.... coffee is a good example, after all these years, it's still contradictory whether it's a health hazard or a health tonic. Of course, it could have properties of both. But clearly it's not lethal, we have enough evidence of that due to its widespread use.

What I am most curious about is the sensitizer woods. How do they determine a wood is a sensitizer and not an irritant? In theory, I guess some woods could be both. But it seems the sensitizers hold the most risk, as if you become sensitive to all woods, it will make ww a miserable hobby. Whereas if you only react to one or two types of wood, you can easily avoid these woods and still enjoy the hobby. Yet, if you work with a sensitizer wood, it may be the precursor to permanent reactions to all wood dusts. Hence my question - how does a wood become classified as a sensitizer?

[Will Blick]

Peter, thanks for the link.... interesting that Cherry is not listed in that table either? For such a common wood, it seems to be missing from nearly every wood toxicity chart? Must be some reason why?

[Jude Kingery]

Will, that is an excellent question and good responses; hopefully several more folks will chime in as I knew the toxicology article didn't quite address your question, only information peripheral to it.

I'd say you're right on target there, I'm simply severely allergic to cedar. A variety of juniper (we always called it cedar, but I'm no forrester either) used to eat my lunch when I trimmed juniper bushes for my aunt as a kid, same reaction as when I turned what was called 'yellow cedar' in the shop that time. Just swore off all of any type of wood with 'cedar' in the name! So likely I didn't become sensitized at all, just simply allergic to that particular species of wood.

In answer to your question, I've turned a fair variety of woods with no reactions at all to anything else: cocobolo, zebrawood, purpleheart, osage orange, maybe about 35-40 different types of woods, a few of which are I guess considered exotic and most of which are what I suppose would be domestic. What I turn a lot of is Mesquite (we have a lot of it here, turns wonderfully, nice grain, color and it's, ha, free).

Again, nice thread and thanks for posting this!

Jude

[Jim Becker]

Something I'll add to this discussion is that I believe without a doubt that individual personal chemistry (and specific allergies) are very much a part of the whole sensitivity thing. Walnut, while generally known as a sensitizer, pretty much doesn't bother me...but it's unlikely I'll every work with bubinga again after the nearly immediate physical reaction I had to the fine dust. Yet my locksmith had to completely give up all woodworking (he was a carver, too) due to walnut issues that expanded to all wood dust...he has to wear protection just to drill a wood door out for a cylinder. Poplar never bothers me, but one of the trim carpenters working on our addition has to "gear" up when they mill up the trim work which is almost always poplar for projects like this.

Of course, this further raises the question...to what extent do we "risk" exposure before we find out what our individual sensitizers are?

[David DeCristoforo]

Jim is correct. Even though a particular wood may be considered "toxic" there will be some who are not bothered at all by it while others may have severe reactions to woods generally considered to be "benign". I happen to be one of those who has an extreme reaction to any kind of cedar. And while we appreciate the "science of such things, let's not forget to pay homage to the unknown and "unsung" heros of humanity who were to the first to discover things like that certain mushrooms are poisonous....

YM

[Will Blick]

Jude, that is interesting....you have turned some really toxic woods, specially cocobollo.... Of course, I don't know how often you turn, and how good your dust collection is, so that is a factor also. Hopefully you diagnosed it right, you simply have an allergy to cedar woods....

Jim, I never forgot your locksmith story....which is still why I worry about those sensitizing woods.... unfortunately, a lot of the woods are sensitizers....and, common woods like Cherry are not even listed in these toxicity charts, so we are working with very limited information. In addition, we really don't know how they determine which woods are sensitizers....It could be from someones opinion years ago, and everyone just copied it :-) I have never found any basis for this title.

YM, I fully agree, just like air borne pollens, we all react differently... but as mentioned, my concern is understanding more about sensitizers.

I suggest a permanent sticky - poll, where it lists each wood type, and people can select which ones they react to. Considering the large base here at SMC, it may provide some useful information we can all benefit from. Any support?

[Jude Kingery]

Will, I think that would be extremely interesting information, the poll idea! I'd support that and participate.

Oh on the frequency of turning, winters, not often maybe once a week, spring/summer/fall? Daily. And the DC I only use when sanding, not turning with tools, shavings - it's not a high-end cyclone DC, but a well, medium range sort of DC. Filter's on all the time. Most of the time I use a respirator, say 75% of the time, depends on what I'm doing. Like if I go back out to put maybe a mineral oil finish on something the next morning, I don't wear it to do things like that, or cut cornors on the band saw for 5 minutes and come inside to do something else.

But sure, I think the poll idea is great and would be interesting to lots of people. Best to you, Jude

[Brian Penning]

Pine isn't on the list either. I get these wicked rashes from the stuff lately.

[Will Blick]

Hopefully one of the mods will find this appealing enough and set up a permanent poll that appears on top of page one...

[John Newell]

I can testify from personal experience doing some fairly coarse work with cocobolo (no micron-sized dust) that even modest exposure is capable of some pretty nasty effects.

[Will Blick]

That's not good news John, that is one of the woods I was hoping to work with in the future. Arggggg.... considering you were doing coarse work, what kind of reactions did you experience?