Timeline for Are there any serious and non-obvious disadvantages to thermally modified wood?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 6, 2015 at 16:44 | comment | added | Graphus | @Damon, I didn't mean to imply that roasted-wood dust is not an inhalation risk; I'd fully expect that it would be at least as dangerous as the dust of the unmodified species, if not likely to be more so. Just wanted to make the point in relation to normal wood dust and lung cancer specifically, as the belief that there's a link between the two is quite widespread.. | |
| Aug 6, 2015 at 13:48 | comment | added | Damon | But with that lung cancer thing I was more thinking the way: If the material becomes more mineral-like, then it probably acquires mineral-like properties in that respect, too. For example silica dust is agreed to be a cause of lung cancer with little or no doubt (at least the IARC says so). It's for the most part not something inherently toxic or such, just something that is hard and brittle, with fine dust (that goes into the alveoles when inhaled). Sounds familiar? | |
| Aug 6, 2015 at 13:43 | comment | added | Damon | Interesting to see how different risks are assessed in different places. We have specific vacuum cleaners classified for type "L" dust (sand, wood, not oak/beech) and type "M" dust (oak and beech, and non-cancerogenous mineral dust) and then "H" for stuff like asbestos. Class M must guarantee 99.9% retention, and class H must guarantee 99.995%. Needless to mention that they have different price tags, too (no class = 60-90€, class L 300-400€, class M 600-800€, class H start at 1,200€). Beech and oak is definitively classified as cancerogenous here (also some tropical woods). | |
| Aug 6, 2015 at 10:12 | history | answered | Graphus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |