health warnings

I'm curious about health warnings. The great majority of minerals have no information in this section (which is probably appropriate). Arsenic, as an example, simply reads: "Contains arsenic - always wash hands after handling. Avoid inhaling dust when handling or breaking. Never lick or ingest."

My question is: is that enough? Should there be more information about nature and severity of effects? Should there be a link to symtoms or treatment? Is there concern about giving too much information? Should there be a greater effort to include cautionary notes on more minerals?

As an example of a new health warning, how about this for Bromellite: "Bromellite, synthetic beryllium oxide, beryllium metal, and possibly other beryllium compounds are dangerously toxic, especially in powder form. The chief danger is from inhalation, with lesser danger coming from skin contact or ingestion. Avoid producing and especially inhaling particles of this and other beryllium compounds. Research berylliosis for more information."

I don't think this is a good idea. It opens up MinDat to all sorts of liability.

I'm not particularly concerned about liability issues (except when we say something is safe when it is not).

So... health warnings for particularly nasty minerals (beryllium carbonate etc) are certainly needed on this site, so that collectors who are collecting, trimming and handling their specimens know which to be particularly careful about.

I don't want it to get as far as "warning! broken quartz crystals have sharp edges and you may cut your fingers", but the sort of entry proposed by Ken is fine.

Jolyon

One can almost always find a MSDS (materials safety data sheet) for the laboratory chemical of the same composition as the mineral(s) in question. The MSDS provides a wealth on information with respect to health hazards of a given compound. Just search for MSDS for the compound (not mineral name) of interest.

Mark has a good point here when he says that you can access the MSDS sheets for the synthetic analogues of minerals. The only "problem" I can see with this is that laboratory chemicals are generally 99% pure or better whereas minerals are in what you might call an "unrefined state". Pyrite, for example, probably has a low toxicity if it is present as pure FeS2. However, some pyrites contain highly toxic elements such as selenium and thallium which, although are generally in very small concentrations, still pose a health hazard especially if the finely powdered mineral was handled regularly.

I would think that a small number of minerals need pretty serious health warnings. I'm not an expert on the subject, so I won't propose a list. The majority probably don't need any more than what is listed, unless taking Alan's advice you include something along the lines of "No specific information on the health effects is listed for this mineral. Research this mineral and its chemical constituents to determine if any special caution is advisable. Note that even minerals that appear to have no documented health effects can be contaminated with other compounds that are dangerous. You should always treat mineral specimens with care."

Doesn't anyone here have more valuable things to do with their time than write safety data sheets for minerals? Among the many thousands of collectors in the world, and millions of stones in collections, has there ever been an actual case of someone poisoned by a mineral specimen? If so, I imagine there are thousands of times as many cases of someone hurting themselves by hitting their thumb with a hammer while field collecting. I demand we have a sticky at the top of the Rockhounds and the Collecting boards warning of the dangers of smashing one's thumb with a hammer! God forbid anyone sue us for enticing them into the hobby without loudly proclaiming the dangers!

We have a generic warning about trespassing on every locality page, whether or not the locality is open or prohibited. Fine. How about a similarly generic warning on every mineral page:

"Mineral specimens are best viewed in closed display cases, locked away from the fumbling fingers of little children. Mineral specimens are best enjoyed outside of the lungs and stomach. Do not inhale mineral dust, and wash hands after handling."

If anyone here seriously wants to cogitate on the individual dangers of each of the 4,500 mineral species, then I hope you don't have kids, because those poor kids must be growing up scared of the whole frightening world around them.

While I completely agree that there should be some health warnings on the nasties, let's not turn this into "Mommy-Dat" either to include every mineral listed or every other danger associated with mineral collecting. Most collectors have the common sense to realise that anytime your dealing with minerals you should a) always wash your hands after handling; b) wear the proper PPE when splitting, powdering, or trimming minerals; and c) never lick a mineral, no matter how much fun the halite is!! :D

I like what you had written Ken concerning Bromellite and perhaps this should be extended to include the other nasties collectors may encounter as well.

P.S.: I just saw what you wrote Alfredo...... Amen, brother!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2011 06:23PM by Paul Brandes.

Ken:

That list could be bigger than you think. I pulled up an MSDS for calcium fluoride and was quite surprised by the hazards depicted. I would have guessed that fluorite was rather inert and posed no health risk. The MSDS viewed shows otherwise. Evidently, its the fine powders that a chemical supplier would ship that are addressed on the MSDS. As we all know (or should) there is a big difference between massive material and powdered or ground up material. Safe to say that any inhalation or ingestion of fine particulates from most (with few exceptions) minerals is not good for us. In any case, it would be nice to know which ones pose the most serious risks from simple handling as opposed to snorting the dust.

Mark

I fully agree with Alfredo. No need to overdo this matter. At last everyone should be intelligent enough and responsible by themselves to avoid health problems by minerals. Toadstools are more dangerous then minerals ;).

Uwe Ludwig

Right on, Paul. Nanny-dat?

Mark

There are likely a few out of the 4,500 species that are dangerous enough to include a little detail in the warning. I'm not talking about thumbs and hammers. I'm talking about clear toxicity hazards. Good to know, and easy to include. If it's all pandering hogwash, then why have a health warning section at all?
Supposedly, only one natural crystal of BeO was ever faceted, and it was done before its identity was known. If they did know what it was beforehand, do you think they might have wanted to know to take precautions?
I do know someone who was exposed to beryllium (in an alloy). Not blaming anyone here, I'm just pointing out that it is easy to include a little more helpful information.

Even more interesting is the MSDS for barium sulfate (barite to us). If you ingest large amounts, you are supposed to see a physician (It is used as a "cocktail" that is drunk before X-raying a person's digestive tract) - I guess it might be a problem if it is too dry.

Not all collectors are as fully knowledgeable as some assume. Some are young or new. Some facet or carve samples. Dust production, anyone? Not using PPE for a mild hazard is one thing. Not using it for the serious ones is another matter. MSDS are interesting, but they may overstate the danger of many compounds (their focus is on industrial and workplace exposure - i.e. probably longer term and higher concentration than a mineral collector would be exposed to). So I'm not suggesting that all materials should be given warnings in accordance with their MSDS. But I stand by my original assertion that some are REALLY dangerous, and should be given more detailed and serious health warnings.

So...even though I'm of the Paracelsus school (that is to say, the dose determines the poison and therefore all minerals should be treated as though they were potentially hazardous), the things that come to mind, by no means comprehensive or legally- or medically-binding.:
-water-soluble minerals, especially if they contain toxic metals. Generally one of the easier routes of exposure. Some fluorides come to mind.
-carbonates of transition and heavy metals. Gastric acid can liberate the metals, witherite comes to mind (in contrast to baryte).
-non-sulphide Tl, Hg, Cd, Pb, and other heavy metals
-Be minerals- berylliosis
-Fe, in large quantities
-Cu, in somewhat smaller quantities
-Ag could theoretically cause argyria
-arsenic secondaries
-antimony secondaries
-selenium secondaries
-tellurium secondaries
-arsenic
-antimony
-selenium
-tellurium
-virtually any silicate if the (in)correct size due to inhalation hazard
-uranyl species, independent of radioactivity
-radioactive species

Are there any recorded instances of where men who have worked in fluorite mines all their lives have been harmed by fluorite? Does anyone seriously thin that any collector will be harmed by handling his fluorite specimens?

Rock Currier
Crystals not pistols.

I did not mean fluorite. I meant villiaumite or griceite. And people have probably been hurt in the mines, although maybe not from the fluorite. I guess var. stinkspat could present a theoretically higher risk, but I would love to have enough specimens to cause risks.
EMJ

Mn can cause manganism, and there are a host of other diseases caused by transition and heavy metals. I guess the general rule there is that transition metals onward, when ionised/in solution can cause problems. In this case, it's probably better to mention Bismuth as the exception as it has pretty low toxicity by normal routes of exposure (I think due to poor absorption).

For the most part, minerals are more hazardous as blunt instruments in the hands of an irate spouse than as hazardous materials ... HOWEVER ... this doesn't detract from the hazards of a notable few.

Most mineral dusts are irritant - which term has a specific meaning in safety terms.

Some minerals (dust or otherwise) are Harmful - meaning they will cause injury by some means (and more so than an Irritant)

Beyond that there are minerals that are classified as Toxic (i.e. there is an acute lethal dose or LD-50 which is attainable by ingestion or inhalation, or else some other risk of acute toxicity). All Uranyl and Thoryl compounds fall into this category, as do many aluminium, arsenic, barium, selenium, chromium, lead and mercury compounds as well as soluble Fluoride. All of these have long-term exposure limits as well as acute exposure limits.

At the top of the heap are the Very Toxic materials which include soluble Beryllium and soluble Thallium compounds. There are no long-term exposure limits to these materials since the acute toxicity limits are so low that you will not be exposed for long enough to determine a safe lower limit.

For reference, SO₂, H₂S and AsH₃ - all gases found either in volcanic, bioreactive or underground fire conditions - are Very Toxic - having rapid and terminal effects on the human organism. S₈, arising from fumaroles, is by comparison, classed as an Irritant.


Clearly, the presentation of a material is critical - Asbestiform minerals are classed as Harmful, but once processed, the dust is classed as Very Toxic. Quartz, an uncategorised solid becomes Harmful when powdered. Limonite is Irritant by inhalation.

Halite is listed as an irritant (it causes skin damage after prolonged exposure), but the dust is classed as Harmful - and has a fairly low exposure limit. It can even become toxic under the worst conditions (causing osmotic shock to the system).


It is reasonable to state a general caution for all minerals (dusts are hazardous, minerals may be harmful by ingestion etc.), but it is folly to suggest that every mineral should have a detailed risk analysis on the database. A broad hazard analysis is good enough for the majority of minerals.
It is only when elevated risk of injury from exposure exists that any further hazard information is necessary. Elevated risk would typically arise from chronic exposure (radioactives and volatiles), chronic contact (copper halides, for example), acute toxicity (e.g. witherite etc.) or other acute exposure (e.g. hokutolite, radian barite) .

Whatever is decided, please remember that all information provided by Mindat is as a service to readers - there is no requirement for toxicity data, handling requirements or anything else to be placed on the database - but for various reasons (completeness, moral imperative, paranoia or whatever) I think we would all appreciate seeing at least the more hazardous minerals highlighted for safety.

If anyone wants, I have a set of european chemical safety flashes in WMF format that I'd be willing to donate. ;)

When you invited me to see your etchings, I didn't expect to see so much degraded quartz. Really.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2011 07:43PM by Alysson Rowan.

Normally avoid chipping in to this kind of thread, but couldn't ignore some of the comments above.

Like others here, I get fed up with unhelpful MSDS's that tell you everything is going to harm you. This kind of thing only serves to obscure real risks when they arise.

I also get fed up with the "nanny state" telling us to be over-cautious about everything. Wrapping everyone in cotton wool is not a solution.

BUT

IMHO, minerals are a bit of a special case.

(1) It's very easy to get hold of some quite nasty things with little or no warning. Some items you can find in the field or in mineral shops should, even by the most pragmatic standards, carry risk statements.

(2) There is a misperception that just because something is natural, it is basically safe. Asbestos, radon, ...

(3) Often sellers appear to be ignorant themselves. The purchaser is then left exposed, and it's not really their fault.

As an example of all three of the above, not long ago I came across a relatively bona fide website offering a herbal remedy (for ingestion) containing the mineral autunite. They didn't realise there was a problem with this.

The thing that concerns me most is not that someone is going to take something home, eat it and keel over. Rather, that they might expose themselves to it (e.g. polishing it, letting kids play with it etc.) THEN find out about its risks later on and be worried sick. Chances are they will never suffer any direct physical ill-effects, but the stress of wondering whether they inadvertently caused later illnesses could be devastating.

-----------
Edit 1:

As to why Mindat should carry risk statements, where they are needed - because it is the first place that most people will be directed by Google when they search for info on a mineral.

Edit 2:

Looking at the entries for some typical "problem" minerals, most of the existing hazard info looks pretty good to me. Simple enough that non-experts can take it in, but more comprehensive than a bland catch-all statement. The only thing I might do myself is to put the info higher up, with a symbol to catch the reader's attention when there's something special to know about.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2011 08:58PM by Antony Glauser.