Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

Minerals by Properties Minerals by Chemistry Advanced Locality Search Random Mineral Random Locality Search by minID Localities Near Me Search Articles Search Glossary More Search Options

The Mindat Manual Add a New Photo Rate Photos Locality Edit Report Coordinate Completion Report Add Glossary Item

Mining Companies Statistics Users Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations Mineral Shows & Events The Mindat Directory Device Settings The Mineral Quiz

Photo Search Photo Galleries Search by Color New Photos Today New Photos Yesterday Members' Photo Galleries Past Photo of the Day Gallery Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Techniques for Collectorschrysotile health note

16th Aug 2006 17:47 UTCMorris Greenberg

The Mindat entry reads: "There is no specific data on health dangers or toxicity for this mineral..."

This is incorrect, WHO, ILO, IPCS, IARC and EU agree that it causes asbestosis, malignant mesothelioma, and cancers of the bronchus and other tissues. The World Trade Organization accepts the right of countries to ban its importation. The UN Rotterdam Convention will be including it among acknowledged carcinogens. Currently WHO and ILO are working on directives that will lead to world wide cessation of new use and the control of in situ materials containing chrysotile. A WORLD BANK initiative is under way to see that new uses are not financed and that funds will be available for the safe abatement of in situ materials. All these authorities agree that "safe ue" is an oxymoron.

17th Aug 2006 05:01 UTCAlan Plante

I expect this is a case of "chrysotile" being an early entry into the Mindat database - prior to the addition of the health warning section - and no one has gone in and added the health warning info for it. It should be done.

My understanding is that the only health risk that has been proven for the Serpentine Group asbestiform species is mesothelioma; and that the other risks you note are associated with the Amphibole Group asbestiform minerals. I believe that the attribution of these other risks to the Serpentines is a common misconception.

Regards

Alan

17th Aug 2006 06:32 UTCDon Saathoff Expert

Alan, you hit the nail on the head!!!!....do ANY of these organizations know the differences between a serpentine and an amphibole???....do any care???... what about the quantitative values of exposure???....how many days of what level of particulate count????....does ANYONE out there REALLY believe that owning and handling a specimen of chrysotile, lizardite or antigorite will cause them to acquire "malignant mesothelomia"????...what a hoot!!!!

18th Aug 2006 09:29 UTCBruce Grant

None of this is in any way intended to belittle the problems of the huge number of people adversely affected by the originally 'ignorant' and more latterly 'improper' use of asbestos related products.

I am no expert on any of the asbestiform minerals and even less so on the medical risks associated with them. A brief trawl through the web using either mesothelioma or asbestos as the search word brings to light a very large number of responses of which a number seem to be associated with lawyers!

A UK web site which attempts to give clearer guidance to both professional and public alike can be found at (www.asbestoswatchdog.co.uk).

My interest in the subject comes after years of exposure in various workplaces and indeed my own home and my hobby to a variety of asbestiform minerals from source rock to final product and eventually disposal.

Since the house within which I reside was built in the 1950's and my workshop (from where I write this post) had ceilings coated in Artex in 1996, it would appear that I live in a potentially contaminated environment.

It seems therefore that I may be at risk of something in addition to the problems associated with my past and present lifestyle - cigarettes, alcohol, motor vehicles and their fuels, diet (diabetes, cholestrol hypertension) air travel, and of course minerals and the collecting of them to name but a few.

I end this rant by drawing attention to my opening paragraph.

Bruce Grant

18th Aug 2006 10:23 UTCjacques jedwab

I think that one should differenciate between a solid mineral sample kept in a drawer, and ANY finely dispersed mineral which could be inhalated. Talc is harmful for babies (accute bronchitis), some metals are harmful for dentists working with drill-generated aerosols, Touaregs are suffering from silicosis caused by Sahara desert sands, etc., etc.

Years ago, I was a casual participant in European commissions on asbestos-related law-making, and I can assure you that the opinions of attending chemists, mineralogists and microscopists had some influence. The problem was more on how to cope through the recommended methods with false positives (e.g. wollastonite determined as amphibole, fibrous talc determined as chrysotile) and false negatives (due to instrumental shortage).

18th Aug 2006 12:23 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Would someone like to come up with some sensible wording for the health notice that we attach to chrysotile and, more specifically the "asbestos" entry in this database?

18th Aug 2006 13:27 UTCPeter Haas

The following note was (and is still) buried in the Erionite-K file, one of the minerals for which carcinogeneity has been experimentally proven:

Carcinogenic upon inhalation of its dust, due to its fibrous structure (Ref.: IARC Monography 42:225-239, 1987)

For some reason, data entered in the Health Warnings field of the mineral data entry form is not displayed.

18th Aug 2006 14:26 UTCjacques jedwab

When I was involved in the asbestos trade (I mean scientifically), there was suddenly an outcry that erionite from Cappadoce (Turkey) (where lung cancer was known since centuries as endemic), was carcinogenic. The concern among trade-unions was great, since synth. erionite is widely used in petroleum refinery industry. But the people from Sinai Hospital found out that it was the associated amphibole which was the real culprit. I have not read the IARC monograph.

About the fibrous habit: there are about 200 mineral species which may occur as fibers. However, there are only a few species which are definitely carcinogenic; they are all silicates. The fibrous habit is obviously a part of the causality, but it is not sufficient. Nor is the major or trace chemistry, Zeta-potential, admixed trace minerals (there are lots of them), crystallography,.... We are still missing something.

18th Aug 2006 14:56 UTCAlan Plante

Back when the "asbestos" health concerns first arose I followed the emergining information - trying to weed out fact from fiction. At the time, my sense was that the scientific community found that the main problem was with Amphibole Group asbestiform materials (which amounted to something like 10% to 15% of world-wide production of all asbestiform materials). They found that at the microscopic level partilces of these materials were stiff "needles" that easily penetrated tissue, becoming imbedded. On the other hand, the Serpentine asbestiform materials continued to be flexible "threads" even at the microscopic level, and these "threads" did not have sufficient stiffness to penetrate tissue and become imbedded. They could, though, become trapped in little nooks and crannies in tissue surfaces (as can any dust particles we breathe in...) But, on the whole, the Amphibole asbestiform materials were able to become lodged anywhere in airways and lungs, while the Serpentines only became trapped in nooks and crannies, and could actually be flushed from the system naturally to a large degree. As a result of the differences in the way the two materials interact with the body, it was determined that the Amphibole materials are the major cause of "absestos" illnesses, with the Serpentine materials being much less of a problem. - Yet they banned ALL asbestos materials in spite of the fact that only that 10% to 15% of worldwide production was causing the lion's share of the problem.

I don't for a second mean to say that Serpentine asbestoform materials are safe - or even that mesothelioma is nothing to worry about. My point is simply that it was fear and ignorance which drove the movement to ban asbestos materials rather than scientific fact. If the scientists had been listened to, it probably would have only been the Amphibole materials that ended up being banned - while work continued to determine the full extent of the Serpentine material problems before any conclusion was reached as to whether or not to ban them. (Eventually, as we now know, they did link the Serpentine materials to increased levels of mesothelioma. - Although to this date I am not sure if the actual increase is truely sufficient enough to warrant banning the use of Serpentine asbestiform materials. - Nor would it matter if it wasn't: The fear people have when they hear the word "asbestos" would be enough for them to not want to "take the chance" - even if the "chance" was only something like one in a million. Industry would have to give the Serpentine materials a new name - no longer call the stuff "asbestos"...)

Alan

18th Aug 2006 15:48 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

Asbestos is only a problem once it has been rendered "friable." This means that tiny fiber particles have been liberated from the massive material. This is intentionally done with the milling process used to create the fine asbestos fibers used in forming the insulation, floor tile, siding, or whatever. This process may also occur by other means - natural weathering of the host rock, or mechanical abrasion of gravels or crushed aggregates used for landscaping on pathways, etc. This latter condition was proven a problem in a park and adjacent school here in New Jersey when a study was done to identify the source of asbestos particles in dust at the school. The dust on the park benches and on school shelves contained a remarkably high number of asbestos fibers, all liberated from a crushed, decorative aggregate used to line bike and jogging paths in the park, and in the sand in the school's sandbox!

Handling, viewing or photographing clean specimens of massive fibrous asbestos should be quite safe provided that you employ the recommended practice of washing your hands thoroughly after handing any minerals in all instances!

The earth is nature's laboratory and nature does not work in a clean lab. There is asbestos all around us in the environment - it is quite natural. There is also radon to concern oneself about. The particularly unlucky among us live in an area where there are asbestos-bearing rocks in a highly eroded condition, on a radon-producing formation such as the Reading Prong here in the eastern USA.

18th Aug 2006 16:03 UTCBruce Grant

I agree with Alan and apologise for missing out the word 'some' between 'use of' and 'asbestos' in the first paragraph of my earlier post. It is my opinion that in the UK a very large industry has sprung up to deal with the perceived asbestos problem. Thus, when largely cemented asbestos fibres in ceiling coatings such as 'Artex' are now treated for the purposes of pricing site clearance on the same basis as the amphibole minerals, the probability is that cowboy operators with minimal if any scientific knowledge will spot an opening market. Standards in removal and containment of any asbestos related material will become impossible to regulate and dumping rather than proper dispoal will become a major problem. Indeed, I suspect there are already more asbestos removal companies operating in the UK than there are suitably qualified scientists to assess whatever risk might be present. Local recent experience has done nothing to change that view. Recent correspondence in the 'Times' newspaper would tend to suggest that I am not alone in my thoughts.

Bruce Grant

18th Aug 2006 21:18 UTCJ. R. Hodel Expert

Hi:

I work with an environmental agency, and follow health-related Env. news pretty closely both professionally as well as because I'm interested in it.

I suspect that the difficulty in telling hazardous forms of asbestos from less-dangerous forms of asbestos presents a serious difficulty to the regulators.

As well, any producer of asbestos would immediately claim that their asbestos was "a totally safe form of asbestos, not like that extremely dangerous asbestos produced by our evil competitors!"

So, in the end, the regulatory community may have decided that, given these human tendencies, and the real difficulty in the field of determining whether a given asbestos installation was Serpentine Group or Amphibole Group asbestiform minerals, the only safe choice was to ban the whole group, lest many actually dangerous situations persist far longer than anyone would want.

The regulatory community does have to take human tendencies into account when preparing regulations for public review, after all.

JR

18th Aug 2006 23:02 UTCRussell

"Asbestos" should probbaly be best referred to as "asbestiform silicates" - the issue is not the mineralogy or chemistry as much as the fibre morphology.

"Inhalation of dust or other finely divided forms of asbestiform silicates may induce silicosis, mesothelioma or other respiratory diseases."

Personally I'd add "excessive worrying about exposure to mineral specimens containing asbestiform silicates may cause high blood pressure, premature greying of the hair, and general anhedonia."

Having talked with the nimrods at US EPA many years ago, the failure to discriminate between amphibole-group asbestiform silicates and serpentine-group asbestiform silicates was simply their reliance on the industrial classification "asbestos" versus "not asbestos", rather than any valid epidemiological or mineralogical study.

A generic safety warning would be more useful than a species-by-species discussion of the industrial hygiene involved - the latter being something Mindat is eminently unsuited for. I would suggest:

1) Do not eat da rocks - not even da halite!

2) Do not inhale da rocks

3) Do not use da rocks as suppositories, especially da radioactive ones or da really big ones

4) Do not swallow chunks of da rock that are big enough to choke on

5) Keep da rocks away from little kids

6) Until you can remnove the price tags from da rocks, keep da rocks away from

your spouse as severe injury may result

7) Do not drop da big rocks on ya foot

8) Do not cut yourself on da sharp rocks

18th Aug 2006 23:07 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

Russell,

What a magnificent credo for mineral enthusiasts! I especially like the item regarding removal of the price tag.

Chet

19th Aug 2006 01:00 UTCPhil B.

9) Do not break radioactive or other potentially dangerous minerals in the house or near food / beverages.

10) Wash hands after handling minerals.

#6 is a good one hehe

Phil.

19th Aug 2006 01:20 UTCJustin Zzyzx Expert

Oh man...I've been crushing up my Chrysotille and huffing it. You mean that it is bad for you?

I think the goverment should regulate everything that could kill you...stairs...toaster ovens...driving...hiking along a trail...climbing a ladder...breathing...automatic windows...huffing Chrysotille...water...crossing the street...and especially lawn darts. Oh and football, both american and international versions.

Is this why people are afraid of my homemade chrysotille business cards? Geesh. We are all going to die someday. Heck, I think most things that people eat are full of things that are slowly killing us.

I vote NO to putting a hazardous note on Chrysotille...it only adds more credibility to the lawsuit happy lawyers.

19th Aug 2006 01:32 UTCJohn Sobolewski 🌟 Expert

I remember a presentation on this topic about a decade or so ago at the New Mexico Mineral Symposium. The culprit is not just Chrysotile but ANY non-biodegradable fiber with an aspect ratio (ratio of length to diameter) greater than 30 and small enough to free float in air so that it can be breathed in. Apparently, free floating fibers with this aspect ratio can enter the lungs relatively asily through the nasal passages but cannot be easily exhaled, remaining lodged in the lungs and breathing passages.

This means that besides the minerals already mentioned, zeolites like mesolite or mordenite can cause problems when breathed in large enough quantities over a prolonged period of time. Furthermore, many artificially produced fibers such as fiberglass insulation can cause similar problems.

Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: May 14, 2024 21:57:36

Go to top of page