- Joined
- Aug 25, 2014
- Messages
- 14,886
- Reaction score
- 48,445
Bugs
- Thread starter Amy Girard
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2020
- Messages
- 21,041
- Reaction score
- 73,838
- Location
- Here, been banned everywhere else
You should and mostly I don't always wear a mask when applying pesticides. Watch perlite when working with it as well. The dust is not good to breathe in. I always pour a gallon of R/O water into a fresh bag of Perlite before getting into it. The water will go all the way to the bottom of the bag and no dust at all.
One good thing about covid.....I have plenty of masks now. Ha ha!
One good thing about covid.....I have plenty of masks now. Ha ha!
Thats a good idea Pute. I always mix my perlite and back up out of the way of the dust. Water is going in the bag from now on.
Hummm. Not sure what to think.
In a separate study, Maxim, Niebo and McConnell reviewed and published two unpublished works of H.Weill that were reported by Tulane University[6]. The studies were entitled “Summary Report on Perlite Worker Survey”. These were reported in 1990 and 1994, respectively, and presented the results of pulmonary function, respiratory symptoms and chest X-rays studies of workers exposed to perlite. The 1990 study included workers from plants in New Mexico, Colorado and an expanding facility in Illinois. After examination of pulmonary function of 132 workers, and analysis of the chest X-rays of 147 workers, Weill concluded that there was no evidence of pneumoconiosis, and noted that “the working population is healthy, from a respiratory standpoint, not exhibiting undue respiratory symptoms, and having, on average, normal lung function”. The 1994 study included seven perlite production plants and 89 workers with an average duration of 7 years with some exposed as long as 26 years. Weill concluded that “This survey provides substantial reassurance that the currently employed workforce has, to date, been free of any evidence of a silicosis risk, or, indeed, any measurable adverse respiratory effects of perlite exposure”.
Studies have also been conducted of workers occupationally exposed to perlite in plants in Turkey. One of the difficulties of evaluating studies of perlite workers in Turkey is the high percentage of smokers in the population. Cigarette smoking is associated with several adverse effects in the lungs including chronic inflammation typical of chronic bronchitis, structural damage as seen with emphysema, functional impairment resulting in obstructive lung disease, radiographic abnormalities including irregular opacities, and lung cancer[6]. For example, Polatli et al. studied 36 perlite exposed and 22 unexposed (office) workers at a perlite plant in Menderes near Izmir (activities not stated)[7]. All of the considered people were smokers, while dust levels exceeded the OEL, thus assessment of the likely health effect in a well-controlled workplace is impossible. The authors concluded that a 12 year perlite exposure period did not lead to a decrease in mean pulmonary function tests (PFTs) nor exhibit any correlation between PFTs and duration of work in perlite areas. Thus, once again no negative health effects of perlite exposure were identified despite dust exposure levels exceeding the officially prescribed OELs.
The above studies of workers occupationally exposed to both perlite ore and expanded perlite, including some that were exposed to perlite dust at levels well above the present Occupational Exposure Levels (OEL), provide strong evidence that the health effects of occupational exposure to perlite dust are minimal.
Health Effects on Perlite Industry Workers
Perlite miners, and people occupied at perlite production plants or in industries that use perlite, are the most likely to be exposed to the material. Those groups of workers are the first that have been investigated for potential health effects related to perlite exposure. The first comprehensive study, performed by Cooper in 1975, is a radiographic survey of 285 workers from 10 facilities (including mining and expansion operations) in western U.S. states, whose tenure ranged from 1 to 23 years[1]. The researcher was able to review chest X-rays from 240 of the workers and found no individuals having definitive evidence of pneumoconiosis in the cohort other than two workers with prior histories of working with diatomaceous earth (DE). Consequently, he concluded that the results support the position that perlite does not produce pneumoconiosis while cautioning that exposures should be kept at or below nuisance dust levels and to maintain medical surveillance. No data were available at the time on the respirable crystalline silica content of the ores. One year later, Cooper published the results of another study of 117 workers from three plants in the San Luis valley of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado, involving one expansion facility and two perlite mining operations, whose occupational tenure ranged from 1 to 23 years (average of 7.9 years)[2]. After clinical examination and a review of the X-ray films, he again did not find any changes indicative of pneumoconiosis. In 1980, Cooper summarized the conclusion of all aforementioned studies in a workshop organized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) having as topic the substitution of asbestos[3]. Later in 1983, Cooper & Sargent examined chest X-rays from 152 workers who had been employed five or more years in perlite mining and processing. Nearly all of these workers were exposed to dust levels beneath the OEL, but some (those engaged in bagging of expanded perlite) were exposed to dust levels above the OEL. The authors concluded that the chest films of workers with over 5 years of employment gave no indication that any of them was developing pneumoconiosis[4]. The studies of Cooper have been reviewed by Elmes who also confirmed that prolonged perlite exposure produces little if any X-ray change or loss of lung function[5].In a separate study, Maxim, Niebo and McConnell reviewed and published two unpublished works of H.Weill that were reported by Tulane University[6]. The studies were entitled “Summary Report on Perlite Worker Survey”. These were reported in 1990 and 1994, respectively, and presented the results of pulmonary function, respiratory symptoms and chest X-rays studies of workers exposed to perlite. The 1990 study included workers from plants in New Mexico, Colorado and an expanding facility in Illinois. After examination of pulmonary function of 132 workers, and analysis of the chest X-rays of 147 workers, Weill concluded that there was no evidence of pneumoconiosis, and noted that “the working population is healthy, from a respiratory standpoint, not exhibiting undue respiratory symptoms, and having, on average, normal lung function”. The 1994 study included seven perlite production plants and 89 workers with an average duration of 7 years with some exposed as long as 26 years. Weill concluded that “This survey provides substantial reassurance that the currently employed workforce has, to date, been free of any evidence of a silicosis risk, or, indeed, any measurable adverse respiratory effects of perlite exposure”.
Studies have also been conducted of workers occupationally exposed to perlite in plants in Turkey. One of the difficulties of evaluating studies of perlite workers in Turkey is the high percentage of smokers in the population. Cigarette smoking is associated with several adverse effects in the lungs including chronic inflammation typical of chronic bronchitis, structural damage as seen with emphysema, functional impairment resulting in obstructive lung disease, radiographic abnormalities including irregular opacities, and lung cancer[6]. For example, Polatli et al. studied 36 perlite exposed and 22 unexposed (office) workers at a perlite plant in Menderes near Izmir (activities not stated)[7]. All of the considered people were smokers, while dust levels exceeded the OEL, thus assessment of the likely health effect in a well-controlled workplace is impossible. The authors concluded that a 12 year perlite exposure period did not lead to a decrease in mean pulmonary function tests (PFTs) nor exhibit any correlation between PFTs and duration of work in perlite areas. Thus, once again no negative health effects of perlite exposure were identified despite dust exposure levels exceeding the officially prescribed OELs.
The above studies of workers occupationally exposed to both perlite ore and expanded perlite, including some that were exposed to perlite dust at levels well above the present Occupational Exposure Levels (OEL), provide strong evidence that the health effects of occupational exposure to perlite dust are minimal.
Was going to post this in cannabis infirmary but then this is really more a human infirmary topic. The guy in my shop seems to believes that perlite dust is actually fine to breathe as he’s been doing it for years and has no health issues with his lungs - so long as you’re not sticking your head in the bag and hyperventilating for an hour a day - and some other people I know have also played down the dangers of it. But prior to this I always thought it was extremely unsafe when dry and so moistened the bags contents before use, but even then i would get dry power eventually building up in the corner of my grow rooms because of fans etc. I have just read this and I think it settles the argument. At least for me. Just thought some of you fellow farmers would appreciate the info
Ill still stay away from the dust regardless of what those say.
I guess you are talking about one of those large trunk size bag? Does the water just collect at the bottom? And just one time right?
Or, do you mean the water goes in, drains out. carrying the dust with it?
I usually stand back and hold breath....
Bubba
Or, do you mean the water goes in, drains out. carrying the dust with it?
I usually stand back and hold breath....
Bubba
Last edited:
Even if its not toxic,,i dont like breathing in any kind of dust.
For instance if i was around Walt and he farted,,i would want a dust mask.
For instance if i was around Walt and he farted,,i would want a dust mask.
I can remember my dad, when the asbestos thing started up, I pointed out somewhere the heating unit was. It was intact, not loose.
He told me yeah, I've been covered with it, no biggie. He died of mesothelioma.
Bubba
Absolutely!Even if its not toxic,,i dont like breathing in any kind of dust.
For instance if i was around Walt and he farted,,i would want a dust mask.
Bubba
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 11,326
- Reaction score
- 32,454
I worked with a guy in the 80’s who used to mix asbestos and water by hand for refinery bricks. His father owned the company and it was how they did it before they knew it was harmful. At 80 years old, he was one tough old bastid and could keep up with us young un’s at most things. Sorry about your dad though. This was the same guy who laughed his ass off after watching me launch myself unconscious about 10-15 ft into a wall after connecting the anode and cathode of a high power capacitor.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2020
- Messages
- 21,041
- Reaction score
- 73,838
- Location
- Here, been banned everywhere else
I buy perlite in 4 cubic ft bags. I gal is the perfect amount. Perlite srays slightly moist and no water anywhere.
So @Amy Girard what did you end up doing to get rid of them?
I am going to try this, I just figured that the water just rinsed through and collected at the bottom. I had no idea, but sure do like the no dust thing
My dad was healthy as a horse, low blood pressure. That hit him in his 80's. I think he was 83, or just about 84 when he passed.I worked with a guy in the 80’s who used to mix asbestos and water by hand for refinery bricks. His father owned the company and it was how they did it before they knew it was harmful. At 80 years old, he was one tough old bastid and could keep up with us young un’s at most things. Sorry about your dad though. This was the same guy who laughed his ass off after watching me launch myself unconscious about 10-15 ft into a wall after connecting the anode and cathode of a high power capacitor.
If the asbestos isn't dry and flying around, it is a lot safer. I've seen guys scraping up that black mastic under flooring, which is loaded with it. They just kept it sogging wet as they scraped it up.
Bubba
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2020
- Messages
- 21,041
- Reaction score
- 73,838
- Location
- Here, been banned everywhere else
If you do it right there will be NO water at the bottom.
My big ole bag is out in garage. I mainly just use it in bottom of pots. I guess I could add some to the promix.
Bubba
jambamamba
Well-Known Member
You just ain't getting the right dust mi amigo hahaEven if its not toxic,,i dont like breathing in any kind of dust.
For instance if i was around Walt and he farted,,i would want a dust mask.
