Talk:Pneumoconiosis

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Pulmonology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as High-importance). Energy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. project's importance scale .

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Pneumoconiosis. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Is that stuff about black beans real? Or am I just an idiot who got duped. - kaliyarivet

doesn't the lung have mucous and cilia to remove particles like this? - Omegatron 15:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but fine particles do get deposited in the lungs all the time. Particles such as silica dust and asbestos fibers that cannot be removed by the macrophages can cause respiratory diseases. Hfwd 23:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The small particulate matter under 2.5 micrometers in size is not removed by the body, and accumulate over time. Some other sources of this dust include wood dust from woodworking or construction activity, and fiberglass that breaks off of loose or batt fiberglass insulation. Some this dust is large enough to be visible to the naked eye, but some of it is too small to see and is missed by filters. Most air filtration systems and vacuum cleaners are unable to trap much of that dust, and end up pumping more of the dust through the house, unless HEPA filters are used. That this dust will eventually cause respiratory illness is generally agreed by workplace regulatory agencies in the US (OSHA) and Europe. See this source: [1]:

Research shows that exposure to airborne dust affects our health in different ways. The larger airborne dust particles cause skin irritation and rashes, make us sneeze and cough and leave us with watery eyes and runny noses. Continued excessive airborne dust exposure leads to deeper coughs, sinus infections, and lung infections followed by permanent lung damage, emphysema, and worse. Additionally, many dusts such as airborne wood dust contain toxic chemicals that can increase irritation, promote infections, poison us, cause permanent nerve damage, cause us to build up potentially life threatening allergies, and increase our risk of cancer. Before working with any wood we should consult a good wood toxicity table such as [2].

Additionally, some fine particles such as fiberglass, asbestos, and fine invisible wood contain sharp barbed particles. Our bodies do a pretty good job of getting rid of the larger visible particles, but these invisible particles sized under 10-microns, roughly one seventh the thickness of a human hair slip right past our natural protections. The sharp barbed particles then get stuck in our tissues causing damage leading to scaring and long term respiratory capacity loss. These trapped particles also continue to release toxic chemicals long after the exposure ends. Over time this damage builds and our immune systems weaken with age. Like smoking, many woodworkers and others exposed to fine dust will never show worse symptoms, but most develop significant loss in overall respiratory capacity, about one in seven develops serious allergic reactions, and others more severe reactions that lead to eye, ear, nose, throat, respiratory, and skin problems.

76.20.53.8 (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Bill Pentz--76.20.53.8 (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luciuskwok 00:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Research shows the most long term health problems come from exposure to airborne dust." That's crap. :-) The most common long-term health problems, like heart disease, cancers, diabetes, fibromyalgia, arthritis, high blood pressure, irritable bowel syndrome and Alzheimer's have nothing to do with airborne dust. The only common health problem that I can think of that has something to do with dust is asthma, and it might not even be caused by dust (one problem with that is why asthma rates are increasing in areas where the air pollution has decreased). I believe that the person made that statement to sell products that are supposed to reduce airborne dust. He has a big advertisement for one product (they thank him on their website and recommend that people visit his website) and he sells ad space for woodworking products.

People have made similar claims for many other things. For example, people might say that undigested food that stays in your intestines is the number one cause of disease (they call it intestinal plaque, but it does not really exist according to surgeons and coroners). Then they'll sell you some clay that expands inside you when it gets wet. Then you'll have what is probably the most painful bowel movement of your life and think that the black stuff is toxins when it is really the expanded clay. Other people might say that household mold, processed food, lead paint or carbohydrates is the biggest cause of health problems, but it is all nonsense. -- Kjkolb 13:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the discussion from this page is either taken from or paraphrased from my Cyclone and Dust Collection Research pages. A late 1999 exposure to extremely strong sensitizing wood dust gave me a very nasty allergic reaction that evolved into severe pneumonia. I had been thoroughly checked for allergies not long before and the testing showed no allergic reactions. Additionally, just three months prior I installed the then top rated small shop cyclone based dust collection system with vendor designed and supplied ducting and their best finest filter that was the whole basis of their advertising campaign promising excellent health protection. Allergy testing showed with nasty welts I was seriously allergic. Paying a certified air quality inspector showed my garage based shop and attached home were badly contaminated. My pulmonary doctor sent me home for extended bed rest with orders to figure out what happened and how to better protect my family and me. The more I researched the more confused I became because really big name institutions were saying fine dusts, particularly wood dusts were either deadly or only mild irritants. OSHA standards allowed up to 5 milligrams of fine dust per cubic meter or air, but EPA standards only allowed 0.1 milligrams for a cubic meter of air. Two different controlling government agencies, OSHA for industrial work places and EPA for office buildings, hospitals, etc. had a fifty times different level of acceptable. More digging found insurance companies that showed fine wood dust causes all kinds of serious short and long term health problems. After lots of research I discovered what caused my problems. I learned almost all small shop vendors sold filters rated for outdoor use, meaning they are rated after they have built up a cake of particles trapped in the filter matrix that does not come out with normal cleaning. During this seasoning process which can take a year in a typical small shop, fine dust goes right through explaining why my expensive so called fine filters pushed the dust right through. Like an idiot my keeping all closed up let that unhealthiest invisible dust build to dangerously high levels. That fine dust so quickly clogs filters fine enough to protect our health, fine filters need to be huge to avoid plugging right away. Worse, the more we clean filters the shorter they last. I had worked with cyclonic separators since 1994 and had some ideas on how to greatly increase their separation. Improved separation would reduce the loading reducing cleaning and extending fine filter life. It took me a while, but I built a much finer separating cyclone that reduced filter cleaning roughly six fold and extended filter life from a typical three months of full time work to years.

When I shared my solution with my pulmonary doctor he got really excited and talked me into writing with his help a long article on my cyclone with his editing the medical portions. That single post generated over 10,000 emails in just a few weeks, so we wrote two follow up articles which generated even more interest. My Cyclone and Dust Collection Research web pages went up to share our initial articles along with our responses to the most Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)s. This apparently was the right topic at the right time because in short order almost every major name in dust collection and many top medical researchers contacted me with suggestions. The amount of information on how to do things right was overwhelming, and in good faith I just kept adding more and more. Then, one of my fellow university engineering instructors wrote me a really long email that shared lots of what I had been sharing was dead wrong because it was based on how high pressure air behaves instead of how low pressure dust collection airflows behave. He was absolutely correct and I ended up having to redo considerable material. When my site was repaired to show real airflows and dust collection it created a very bad situation as almost every single tool and dust collection vendor offered solutions that actually made small shop dust levels dangerously high. I developed standard procedures for my university and engineer friends to test almost every major brand woodworking shop vacuum, dust collector, cyclone based dust collector, and air cleaner. All results were independently checked with certified test equipment. We found most vendors advertised maximum airflows which are about double working airflows, and almost all sold filters that filtered ten to twenty times worse than advertised. We shared our test results on my site finally giving people a way to do accurate apples to apples comparisons. Within three days of sharing that test information I was threatened with five different law suits and my attorney required me to remove that test data and almost all vendor names from my site. He said we would win every one of those suits, but at a cost of at least $25,000 for each suit, being right would soon wipe me out financially, plus during the suits the courts would force me to not just take down the test data, but also pull down my entire site and all its information.

The above nonsense complaint is exactly what the vendor shills said on almost every woodworking forum. They made one false claim after another about what I said then shot me and my site down for saying something so ridiculous that I never said in the first place. Further, these same vendors used their advertising might to get me banned from almost every Internet woodworking forum. Frankly, my priorities were elsewhere. My health had worsened with so many repeated bouts of pneumonia I was left bedridden on full time supplemental oxygen and not expected to live much longer. While I recovered many knowledgeable people and firms slowly countered that nonsense. Soon I was invited back not only to join most of the forums, a few of them asked me to start specialty groups to discuss how to get good fine dust collection. I also was asked to oversee almost all of the major magazine testing. Even the magazines had problems where their advertisers threatened to stop paying for ads if some of the test results were shared. Regardless, my web pages went back to sharing what I learned about how to get good small shop fine dust collection. Meanwhile, now about 15,000 small shops worldwide follow my advice and use cyclones of my design. I made nothing off this site except a few advertising dollars to help offset the considerable costs to keep this page going. Years after I shared my designs and put this site up and running, I authorized a firm to make cyclones of my design in trade for a royalty on each unit they sell. So, I do now get something from their sales, but still have spent far more on this project than it has ever returned financially. Moreover, I'd gladly trade all the nonsense for not having had to go through these health challenges. Bill Pentz (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Bill Pentz Bill Pentz (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC) ^[1][reply]

The following statement is not quite true:

The term "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" was coined in 1935 as the putative longest word in the English language, but means exactly the same as pneumoconiosis

According to the pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis page, the meanings are slightly different; the longer word is specifically used for a pneumoconiosis due to a volcano. I removed the section, but if someone wants to re-word it to make it more accurate, please go ahead. Alki 16:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally the above also wrongly identified me as someone selling a product. In 1999 I shared my improved cyclone design with building instructions on the Internet. Thousands of woodworkers world wide now use cyclones of my design. Five years after I shared that design I added an advertisement for a firm that builds a clear version of my cyclone. They pay me a small advertizing commission on sales which helps support my efforts, but saying that my efforts were built to or even now just sell a product is more of the same kind of nonsense that the vendor community keeps putting out about their actual airflows, separation ability, and personal protection offered by their cyclones and dust collectors. Those who have been buying the portable particle counters have near universally realized that residual fine dust is a bigger problem than our exposures when making fine dust. Anyhow, just wanted to set the record straight. --76.20.53.8 (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Bill Pentz03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)~[reply]

I propose that the page Dust Pneumonia should be deleted and reference to Dust Pneumonia as a common misnomer for Dust Bowl pneumoconiosis should be added to this page. I am a total Wiki newb and don't know how to go about it, though. Help, please?JLA87 (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Pentz, if you're refering to my post as "the above" then must admit I have utterly no idea what you're talking about, sorry. If you're talking about something else, please ignore. Alki (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I speculate that any as yet unencountered particulates may cause forms of pneumoconiosis. Hardly encyclopaedic though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gowt (talk • contribs) 02:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the

I think pneumoconiosis is important enough to warrant its own entry. Also, I don't agree with the statement that "pneumoconiosis is only a[ ] class of pulmonary fibrosis from occupational origin." The defining characteristic of pneumoconiosis as distinguished from pulmonary fibrosis generally is that pneumoconiosis is caused by dust inhalation. Also, although pneumoconiosis is often occupational, that is not necessarily so or part of its definition. - N'Awlins Contrarian 21:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by N'Awlins Contrarian (talk • contribs)

For some of the basic medical propositions, I added a link to a standard reference. However, I am not aware of how to put pinpoint cites to the pages in the long-ish medical journal article that this article now cites. Can someone do that for me? It should be: "Pneumoconiosis often causes restrictive impairment,[add pinpoint citation to pp. 697 & 700] although diagnosable pneumoconiosis can occur without measurable impairment of lung function.[add pinpoint citation to pp. 691 & 692]" Thanks! N'Awlins Contrarian 04:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Give me a 20 difficult words with meaning 222.127.191.241 (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]