Asbestos is absolutely NOT the same as silica.

No one said it was, but in your typical fashion you jumped to a conclusion. Silicosis and asbestosis have the same deadly effect on your lungs. You could try spending more time on your comprehension skills, you may get more out of conversations. Never the less, asbestos, glass and silica are all of the same base, silicon.

Silica is SiO2 (Silicon Dioxide). Asbestos can be one or more of several different minerals, the most common being a form of Serpentinite, which is MgSiO2, (Magnesium Silicate). Neither of them is a form of glass. Who looked up the molecular structure for you? You obviously havnt completed basic chemistry.

The word used above was siliceous.
si7li7ceousadj.
Containing, resembling, relating to, or consisting of silica.

sil7i7can.
A white or colorless crystalline compound, SiO2, occurring abundantly as quartz, sand, flint, agate, and many other minerals and used to manufacture a wide variety of materials, especially glass and concrete.

silica
Fine particulate dust from quartz rock that is known to cause a progressive lung injury over long-term.

silicate
A salt of silicic acid.

si7lic7icadj.
Relating to, resembling, containing, or derived from silica<\b> or silicon.

silicon
A nonmetalic element analogous to carbon. It always occurs combined in nature, and is artificially obtained in the free state, usually as a dark brown amorphous powder, or as a dark crystalline substance with a metallic luster. Its oxide is silica, or common quartz.continued below

silicon compounds
Inorganic compounds that contain silicon as an integral part of the moleculefor those of you who may not be able to follow the bouncing ball, that would be substances like MgSiO2.

Silicon is silicon is silicon, the source does not matter as the effect is the same. Technically, glass is not even a mineral, but is considered a "supercooled liquid"; it is non crystaline.continued from above Silicon is characteristically the element of the mineral kingdom, as carbon is of the organic world. Symbol Si. Atomic weight 28.

You are again confused. Whether something is a mineral or not is not determined by its state. A mineral, though normally found as a solid, may be a liquid, gas, plasma or other theoretical state. Its state has no bearing on whether it is a mineral, words have meaningshold on, Im sorry JOJ, youre still confused by that whole meaning of the word is thing arent you.

Some forms of Asbestos are worse than others. Im not sure what this has to do with the conversation. This is something akin to saying that its better to be shot in the head by a .38 than a .45. Dead is dead just as asbestosis induced immobility is the same as the effective paralysis caused by silicosis. Im trying to tell her how not to get shot and you are arguing the finer points of muzzle velocity. Ok, Ill entertain this nonsense

The most deadly form is "amphibole" asbestos, which can cause mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the abdomen, which is always (supposedly) fatal.

mes7o7the7li7o7ma
A usually malignant tumor of mesothelial tissue, especially that of the pleura

pleu7ra
A thin serous membrane in mammals that envelops each lung and folds back to make a lining for the chest cavity.

It takes many years of exposure to this before cancer rears its ugly head.

Yes, generally and I stated this also above by saying that it was not fine for long lived animal dwelling. Im sure that Julia and Soni are aware that biologically speaking humans are animals and relatively long lived ones. Now you are supporting my statements

Silicosis, caused by inhalation of silica and other particulate matter, is primarily a disease of miners, glass makers, sand blasters, and other high risk jobs.

This statement is a perfect example of the failure of the public school system. Somehow regurgitation of a dangling factoid proves your point? Understanding of what a fact means in its proper context is the key. Yes, this disease is seen most prevalently in these career fields. Why is that? It is because these people are regularly and significantly exposed. Does that mean that others are immune? Absolutely not. The key is the understanding that those who do not normally contract this disease would in fact contract this disease if exposed to the same factors. Large amounts of a causative agent will cause the effect quickly and low regular doses of an agent over an extended period of time will cause the same effect only more slowly. A core fitter in a foundry who is exposed to the dust and flaking of cores, though he does not work directly with loose sand, will eventually contract silicosis if proper precautions are not taken. A person who sleeps exposed to the elements on an open beach every night for a number of years will eventually contract silicosis. A person living in a cob home that didnt have the proper mixture in the walls to keep it from dusting will certainly after a period of time contract silicosis.

You have to breathe an awful lot of silica dust to get silicosis.

Yes, but it does not require any large dosages or cases of extreme exposure. Small amounts over an extended period of time will cause silicosis.

It generally takes about ten years of serious exposure to cause silicosis.

Or a longer period of time at lower exposure rates. She is talking about building a house. We can assume that this will be a contstant low exposure for a significant number of years (20 or 30?) and therefore does meet the criteria.

If silica were as hazardous as William of Wi says, everyone who ever lived in Lubbock, Texas would have silicosis. We used to breathe what passed for air, filled with silica, for several weeks every spring and every autumn. This is neither the type of significant exposure of your examples nor does it meet the criteria I am discussing. The argument is entirely false.

Asbestosis IS similar to silicosis,

Yup, thats what I said. Silicon (asbestos which is in its more common forms a type of woven GLASS) in the lungs is silicon (sandy quartz crystals) in the lungs.

but again, it is a disease of those who breathe a lot of asbestos dust, such as miners, carvers of asbestos related minerals such as soapstone, talc, and serpentine rock; it, too, is an occupational hazard,

It is an occupational hazard because these careers are guaranteed exposure.

rather than a hazard to an average homeowner.

Because average home owners are not exposed to any significant degree of the causative agent.

The big risk of asbestos exposure to the average worker is cancer,

Certainly the most serious risk but the most likely risk is diminished lung capacity and capability, leaving you alive but effectively non functioning except for the least strenuous tasks.

which can be caused by much, much smaller doses

yes

, such as having a roadway next to your house which is surfaced in Serpentine rock containing asbestos fibers.

Only if you were outside licking the road.

Don't worry about getting silicosis from a cobb house.

Dont worry if everyone in your household is likely to slip this mortal coil in the next 15 years or so, otherwise be very concerned.

Dumb.

According to the medical university professor that I just discussed this with who agreed with my commentary, that would be believing anything JOJ wrote on this subject.

William from Wi., you still haven't answered my question from two months ago, as you promised....

If you are talking about the list of media defined liberal talking points that you had used to level a number of insinuations at me then you are correct. It didnt seem worthy of a serious response. This is not the appropriate thread for that. Carrying arguments over between threads is considered poor netiquette. If you wish to argue those issues then I will start a new thread about those subjects and we can start over.

-- William in WI (thetoebes@webtv.net), October 05, 2000

Bold off.

-- William in WI (thetoebes@webtv.net), October 05, 2000.

I must have missed the previse thread that this is all about .Thanks for all the info and I wish I had all your extra time .

-- Patty Gamble (fodfarms@slic.com), October 05, 2000.

I looked in the archives for the original cob thread. I think this is the case of somebody exagerating things unreasonably.

1) Anybody walking down a dirt road on a breazy day, or when a truck drives by would get more dust in their lungs in a day than anybody living in a cob house would from the walls in a year. Unless you think people will treat their walls like a giant scratch and sniff. Farmers the world over have been breathing the same dirt that cob is made from, it's not a big problem.

2) Up until less than 50 years or less ago, almost everybody lived in houses with plaster walls. The most common plasters were made from lime and sand. I have never heard of the sand causing problems.

3) You can plaster cob if you are so paranoid about dust.

==>paul

-- paul (p@ledgewood-consulting.com), October 05, 2000.

Well, there ya go. Now I'm going to be afraid of going to the beach. All that sand.

-- Toad Shutes (toadshutes@yahoo.com), October 05, 2000.

Gee, I just wanted to know what it was like to live in a cob structure, didn't mean to cause so much controvery. Who knew so much mud slinging could occur over a cob house (ha ha).

-- Julia in Tally (tofubiscuit@excite.com), October 06, 2000.

Well, alrighty then. Probably more information than I'll ever need on a practical level, but scientifically interesting none the less.

-- Soni (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), October 06, 2000.

WOW! Now we know a little more about what J.D. was refering to all those years-people get so upset about nothing!that was really bizarre.m.b.

-- maureenb (firegirl102@hotmail.com), October 07, 2000.

Paul and Maureen,

Please "overreact" your checkbooks over to my house. Pa's medical bills are expensive for me and since Im just overreacting I suppose it couldnt add up to much so you wont mind paying for it...or you start donating to Julia so she can afford some good health insurance just in case she doesnt get the mix quite right while building her cob house.

-- William in WI (thetoebes@webtv.net), October 09, 2000.

Well, William in WI, I guess your information would be of more interest to me if you weren't so busy trying to prove your superiority by putting down the good folks on this forum. As it stands, I tend not to give much credence to people who are incapable of informing without demeaning others. If this is the only way you can teach, I pity your children, and I pity the world that will have to deal with their father-taught nastiness when they grow up.

-- Laura Jensen (lauraj@seedlaw.com), October 09, 2000.

Laura,

Well Laura, I couldnt care less what you think since you obviously didnt read the previous thread. No one is trying to prove their superiority, I think maybe you have an inferiority complex. I havent put down any "good folks" on this forum. When posters give a flip and uneducated responses to a question about a serious situation you endanger the poster who asked the question. I am knowledgeable about this particular subject. The veracity of MY STATEMENTS was questioned by someone who didnt have the vaguest idea of what they were talking about and gave the original poster incorrect if not dangerous information. If you are incapable of reading my posts without wallowing in self pity then skip them. Youre attack on my family was quite unnecessary. But since you bring it up...I pity you. Youre inability to think analytically and your fear of truth. Your ability to comment without bothering to investigate what it is that youre talking about exemplifies the worst failures of our society and educational system. I pity the world that is going to have to deal with the children indoctrinated with your ignorance.

-- William in WI (thetoebes@webtv.net), October 10, 2000.

See what I mean?

-- Laura Jensen (lauraj@seedlaw.com), October 10, 2000.

yes,I do see.thank you for putting it so well.I understand williams frustration about his fathers illness;it is painful to watch those we love suffer from something we feel might have been prevented.It seems that he is trying to warn us about the potential for problems in this building method and we can thank him for that.on the other hand the anger that has been presented on this topic is highly inappropriate and we do not come to this forum to argue.this was a good topic; lets not let this stuff get out of hand and wreck a wonderful forum that brings so much into my days and for many others I'm sure.Maureenb

-- maureenb (firegirl102@hotmail.com), October 10, 2000.

I'm sure when everyone gives advice they believe it to be true at the time .We are only human and as such all make mistakes .William thank you for clearifing that .Maybe it was not necessary to do it in the manner you did .It was a bit of over kill.I think maybe your use of bold print and italics also gave an unpleasent under tone .It is hard to watch a family member suffer and I'm sure this added to it .I hope all goes well for everyone involved .Most of us feel like family and as such get are feathers ruffled when we think someone is not playing nice .

-- Patty Gamble (fodfarms@slic.com), October 10, 2000.

Geesh, I must be thick-skinned or something. I appreciated the concise and complete information William gave. Did not consider it "superior" at all, just thourough. Personally, I'll take that kind of information anyday....

Unless you are personally being attacked, I can't fathom the need to comment on another's style of delivery. If someone takes enough time to explain thouroughly the subject at hand, my hats off to them!! God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), October 10, 2000.

I appreciate all of this information, William. I missed the original thread so I fail to understand the consternation, but when someone takes such time to thouroughly research something, I appreciate it. Most of the time when we are dealing with environmental "poisoning" it's occurring because of lack of knowledge on the effects of the materials over time, ie. outgassing from carpets, voc's in paints, fungus in vinyl sided buildings, and on and on.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@yahoo.com), October 11, 2000.

Patty,

I think maybe your use of bold print and italics also gave an unpleasent under tone.

Italics are used when reposting something that someone else said. Italics are just a courtesy so that when you read a post you dont have to wonder specifically to what a person is responding. The bolding on the second half of the post was a fat fingered mistake. You will note in the definition for silicic that there is the following code, <\b>. That code should be invisible and turn off the bold except that I used a \ instead of a /, which is an improper html code that the system didnt know what to do with so it left the bold turned on. Dont read anything into the bolding.

-- William in WI (thetoebes@webtv.net), October 11, 2000.

Wendy,

Thank you...

-- William in WI (thetoebes@webtv.net), October 11, 2000.

William, your welcome! God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), October 11, 2000.

Boy, William, did I strike a sore spot, or something? You've gone to great lengths to defend your (incorrect) assertion that someone who lives in (or even keeps stock in) a cob structure is facing a serious health issue.

Since you went through my assertions from an earlier post (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_ id=003rp3), I will not repeat what I said there, but I totally stand behind it.

Soni, Julia, and anyone else who may be interested, I am certainly not trying encourage you to do something hazardous. I simply assert that the danger of living in a cob house is no greater than any other house. It's probably less dangerous than sweeping out your garage, or standing on a beach when the wind is blowing strongly. If you choose to get caught up in William's histrionics, that's up to you, but I hope you are wise enough to see through it.

William, you rudely attacked almost everything I said, and called me all sorts of names. I don't appreciate it, and I think you were using this dishonorable means to try to convince someone that you knew what you were talking about, when in fact you have a less than perfect understanding of the issues.

You began your tirade by disputing my statement that "Asbestos is absolutely NOT the same as silica."

Your response was "No one said it was, but in your typical fashion you jumped to a conclusion. Silicosis and asbestosis have the same deadly effect on your lungs. You could try spending more time on your comprehension skills, you may get more out of conversations. Never the less, asbestos, glass and silica are all of the same base, silicon."

William, I believe that my comprehension skills are more than adequate to quote what you said. Look at your original post, whose URL I posted, above:

" Well asbestosis is basically the same thing, glass (modified sand) in the lungs."

Excuse me, William, but aren't you equating asbestosis with "glass (modified sand)"

Fact is, William, glass is NOTHING like asbestos. Asbestos is a class of minerals, most of them associated with serpentine rock formations, and ALL of them having crystaline structure. Glass has no such crystalline structure.

I won't deign to go through all the rest of your baloney, because, frankly, I don't believe you're interested in discussing this in an adult fashion. Your attack on me was puerile at best, bordering on barbaric.

Ladies, I invite you to read the original post, then the current post, and then make your own conclusions. If you have any questions, please feel free to e me. Or I'll try to get back here before this post disappears, and see where we're at.

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), October 13, 2000.

"Asbestos is absolutely NOT the same as silica."

Okay...but protracted exposure and inhalation of asbestos or silica, can lead to pneumonoconiosis (asbestosis and silicosis, respectively) a majorly negative lung condition!

I still don't know what in the world is going on with this thread, but I might start taking wagers if it goes another round... ;)

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), October 13, 2000.

Hi, sheepish,

I guess what's going on is that William in Wi got his feelings hurt because I discounted his terror of cob houses and the alleged risk of silicosis.

The point, as I see it, is that silicosis is an industrial disease, not a household disease. If the literature can be believed, it is necessary to breath a LOT of silicon dioxide for a number of years before you'd get silicosis. Like if you worked around something which generated a lot of silica dust in the air.

I was merely trying to clear up Williams misconception, in order to be helpful to Soni and Julia, who are apparently interested in cob construction, or in Soni's case, interested in the "danger" of cob construction vis a vis silicosis.

Again, if you want to learn about this, please read the original post. I'm not wasting any more time trying to educate a jerk.

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), October 13, 2000.