cccbock
spending too much on rocks
Member since December 2011
Posts: 499
|
Post by cccbock on Jun 7, 2015 7:50:17 GMT -5
has anyone hear ever cut mother of pearl cabs?.....too soft?....please comment.....
|
|
NDK
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2009
Posts: 9,440
|
Post by NDK on Jun 7, 2015 8:43:12 GMT -5
I have cut a few. Works just like a (very) soft stone.
|
|
cccbock
spending too much on rocks
Member since December 2011
Posts: 499
|
Post by cccbock on Jun 7, 2015 20:00:21 GMT -5
NDK , That's what I was thinking but was not for sure..........
|
|
|
Post by orrum on Jun 7, 2015 20:47:27 GMT -5
Is it poisonous or is that Paui shell or both?
|
|
NDK
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2009
Posts: 9,440
|
Post by NDK on Jun 7, 2015 20:52:28 GMT -5
I'm still here so I'm guessing it's not poisonous. Worked It with bare hands lol.
just be careful & use a soft touch. Even the 600 wheel will shape it.
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Jun 7, 2015 20:53:43 GMT -5
Is it poisonous or is that Paui shell or both? Shells in general pick up a lot of heavy meals from the water. Wear a mask when doing shells.
|
|
|
Post by stephan on Jun 7, 2015 23:37:31 GMT -5
Is it poisonous or is that Paui shell or both? Shells in general pick up a lot of heavy meals from the water. Wear a mask when doing shells. The dust is not toxic, per se. It damages lungs, much in he same way as asbestos and silica dusts do. Since I assume we all use wet wheels, I am not too worried about this, as there shouldn't be any dust. If you are worried, wearing a mask can't hurt. Definitely wear a mask if dry-sanding. Biochemically, mother of pearl, or nacre is 95% CaCO3, in the form of aragonite on a matrix of conchiolin (protein) in a bone-like structure. The rest is chitin and lustrin. Paui/abalone shell is similarly non-toxic, but potentially hazardous. -Stephan
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Jun 8, 2015 1:28:08 GMT -5
Shells in general pick up a lot of heavy meals from the water. Wear a mask when doing shells. The dust is not toxic, per se. It damages lungs, much in he same way as asbestos and silica dusts do. Since I assume we all use wet wheels, I am not too worried about this, as there shouldn't be any dust. If you are worried, wearing a mask can't hurt. Definitely wear a mask if dry-sanding. Biochemically, mother of pearl, or nacre is 95% CaCO3, in the form of aragonite on a matrix of conchiolin (protein) in a bone-like structure. The rest is chitin and lustrin. Paui/abalone shell is similarly non-toxic, but potentially hazardous. -Stephan You do not need dust to be a hazard. Aerosols can also carry dust particles. When I cut rocks with the wet saw out in the front yard and the wind is blowing the vehicles in the driveway get covered with the rick minerals from the aerosols. Actually 14 proteins have been identified in abalone shell, which brings up another risk factor, which are allergic reactions to these proteins in people fabricating things from the shells.
|
|
Fossilman
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2009
Posts: 20,681
|
Post by Fossilman on Jun 8, 2015 9:50:37 GMT -5
Always safety first on any cuts or grinding....As some of you-I work outside with cutting,the wind helps with the mist and fumes from some rocks and etc...(I do make sure my wife's is out of the way though-LOL)..Makes life easier for me!
|
|
|
Post by stephan on Jun 8, 2015 10:47:49 GMT -5
The dust is not toxic, per se. It damages lungs, much in he same way as asbestos and silica dusts do. Since I assume we all use wet wheels, I am not too worried about this, as there shouldn't be any dust. If you are worried, wearing a mask can't hurt. Definitely wear a mask if dry-sanding. Biochemically, mother of pearl, or nacre is 95% CaCO3, in the form of aragonite on a matrix of conchiolin (protein) in a bone-like structure. The rest is chitin and lustrin. Paui/abalone shell is similarly non-toxic, but potentially hazardous. -Stephan You do not need dust to be a hazard. Aerosols can also carry dust particles. When I cut rocks with the wet saw out in the front yard and the wind is blowing the vehicles in the driveway get covered with the rick minerals from the aerosols. Actually 14 proteins have been identified in abalone shell, which brings up another risk factor, which are allergic reactions to these proteins in people fabricating things from the shells. True, there is dust in the aerosols. However, aerosols do not penetrate as deeply as dust. That is the whole point of keeping things wet during concrete cutting, asbestos abatement, etc. It's also part of the reason we wet-grind. Again, if it concerns you, wear a mask. If not, don't. I used to work in a respiratory disease research lab, and the data are pretty convincing. Dry dust is dangerous; the aerosols, not so much. The proteins in abalone, could be a problem for people with seafood allergies, I suppose. However, modifying polysaccharides tend to be much more allergenic than the proteins themselves. Offhand, I don't know if the proteins in shells are glycosylated or not. My advice: look at a variety of the information that is available (not just the scare-sites), and then, if you are concerned, dry sanding, or have seafood allergies, wear a mask.
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Jun 8, 2015 14:51:45 GMT -5
You do not need dust to be a hazard. Aerosols can also carry dust particles. When I cut rocks with the wet saw out in the front yard and the wind is blowing the vehicles in the driveway get covered with the rick minerals from the aerosols. Actually 14 proteins have been identified in abalone shell, which brings up another risk factor, which are allergic reactions to these proteins in people fabricating things from the shells. True, there is dust in the aerosols. However, aerosols do not penetrate as deeply as dust. That is the whole point of keeping things wet during concrete cutting, asbestos abatement, etc. It's also part of the reason we wet-grind. Again, if it concerns you, wear a mask. If not, don't. I used to work in a respiratory disease research lab, and the data are pretty convincing. Dry dust is dangerous; the aerosols, not so much. The proteins in abalone, could be a problem for people with seafood allergies, I suppose. However, modifying polysaccharides tend to be much more allergenic than the proteins themselves. Offhand, I don't know if the proteins in shells are glycosylated or not. My advice: look at a variety of the information that is available (not just the scare-sites), and then, if you are concerned, dry sanding, or have seafood allergies, wear a mask. "Dry dust is dangerous; the aerosols, not so much.": Not so much does not mean not dangerous. "My advice: look at a variety of the information that is available (not just the scare-sites)"" So you consider medical studies to be "scare sites"? So what do you consider non-scare site evidence?
|
|
|
Post by stephan on Jun 8, 2015 15:47:40 GMT -5
True, there is dust in the aerosols. However, aerosols do not penetrate as deeply as dust. That is the whole point of keeping things wet during concrete cutting, asbestos abatement, etc. It's also part of the reason we wet-grind. Again, if it concerns you, wear a mask. If not, don't. I used to work in a respiratory disease research lab, and the data are pretty convincing. Dry dust is dangerous; the aerosols, not so much. The proteins in abalone, could be a problem for people with seafood allergies, I suppose. However, modifying polysaccharides tend to be much more allergenic than the proteins themselves. Offhand, I don't know if the proteins in shells are glycosylated or not. My advice: look at a variety of the information that is available (not just the scare-sites), and then, if you are concerned, dry sanding, or have seafood allergies, wear a mask. "Dry dust is dangerous; the aerosols, not so much.": Not so much does not mean not dangerous. "My advice: look at a variety of the information that is available (not just the scare-sites)"" So you consider medical studies to be "scare sites"? So what do you consider non-scare site evidence? james, This is going to be my last response to this, as you are reacting rather than responding. I would suggest that you fully read my responses. Again, I have worked in respiratory disease research. This research included studying exposures to dusts, aerosols, smoke and a host of other pollutants. I am also a departmental safety representative in my current job. I feel adequately knowledgeable to make decisions for myself. I did not say it was not dangerous at all. There is little that falls into that category. I counseled people to gather information, and then to make up their own minds. I am going on medical studies, many of which say that wetting dusts is sufficient to mitigate the danger, as it prevents dusts from entering deeply into the respiratory tract, where it would have to go to cause encystation and scarring. When they are wet, the vast majority dusts are trapped by nose-hairs, the tracheal cilia and mucous. They are subsequently eliminated from the body by functions some polite people would prefer not to discuss. :-) Personally, I feel comfortable simply wetting the dusts of shell, bone, malachite, serpentine and jade. If you do not, feel free to wear a mask. If this is the case, you might also want to wear a mask for jasper and agate, as silica dust is also considered hazardous (unfortunately, the greatest exposure to this hazard, for most people, is playground sand). Also, be aware that most paper masks have limited effectiveness, and are meant to be used once. There are many hazards around us, and I learn what I can, and make up my mind as to which precautions I will take. If I am asked, I will share what I know and feel (making clear the difference between facts/data and what is my position). I do not tell others what they should do. I simply try to give information, and let others make up their own minds. I have no interest in giving information that will lead people to injury, but I also do not wish to over-react. Lastly, scare sites are the non-medical sites which disseminate information that isn't true, usually in large, bright fonts with many capital letters. They tell us that shells are toxic, when they are not. Remember that oyster shells are used as calcium supplements for humans as well as chickens. These shells are mostly just ground up, and often not purified. Anyway, that is enough out of me, and my $0.02 worth. I hope it helps someone. Best, Stephan
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Jun 8, 2015 16:29:15 GMT -5
"Dry dust is dangerous; the aerosols, not so much.": Not so much does not mean not dangerous. "My advice: look at a variety of the information that is available (not just the scare-sites)"" So you consider medical studies to be "scare sites"? So what do you consider non-scare site evidence? james, This is going to be my last response to this, as you are reacting rather than responding. I would suggest that you fully read my responses. Again, I have worked in respiratory disease research. This research included studying exposures to dusts, aerosols, smoke and a host of other pollutants. I am also a departmental safety representative in my current job. I feel adequately knowledgeable to make decisions for myself. I did not say it was not dangerous at all. There is little that falls into that category. I counseled people to gather information, and then to make up their own minds. I am going on medical studies, many of which say that wetting dusts is sufficient to mitigate the danger, as it prevents dusts from entering deeply into the respiratory tract, where it would have to go to cause encystation and scarring. When they are wet, the vast majority dusts are trapped by nose-hairs, the tracheal cilia and mucous. They are subsequently eliminated from the body by functions some polite people would prefer not to discuss. :-) Personally, I feel comfortable simply wetting the dusts of shell, bone, malachite, serpentine and jade. If you do not, feel free to wear a mask. If this is the case, you might also want to wear a mask for jasper and agate, as silica dust is also considered hazardous (unfortunately, the greatest exposure to this hazard, for most people, is playground sand). Also, be aware that most paper masks have limited effectiveness, and are meant to be used once. There are many hazards around us, and I learn what I can, and make up my mind as to which precautions I will take. If I am asked, I will share what I know and feel (making clear the difference between facts/data and what is my position). I do not tell others what they should do. I simply try to give information, and let others make up their own minds. I have no interest in giving information that will lead people to injury, but I also do not wish to over-react. Lastly, scare sites are the non-medical sites which disseminate information that isn't true, usually in large, bright fonts with many capital letters. They tell us that shells are toxic, when they are not. Remember that oyster shells are used as calcium supplements for humans as well as chickens. These shells are mostly just ground up, and often not purified. Anyway, that is enough out of me, and my $0.02 worth. I hope it helps someone. Best, Stephan "This is going to be my last response to this, as you are reacting rather than responding.": That is your opinion. I disagree. "I would suggest that you fully read my responses. Again, I have worked in respiratory disease research. This research included studying exposures to dusts, aerosols, smoke and a host of other pollutants." Then why did I have to point out to you that the danger is still present in aerosols after you implied that wet grinding was safe? "I feel adequately knowledgeable to make decisions for myself." That's fine. But you are not the only one reading this NOR was my response to you. People need to be made aware of the facts so they can make their own informed decisions. "I am going on medical studies, many of which say that wetting dusts is sufficient to mitigate the danger, as it prevents dusts from entering deeply into the respiratory tract, where it would have to go to cause encystation and scarring." Which goes back to my original post. These WERE NOT the dangers I was talking about. I was discussing the heavy metals in the shell, which are not what causes the encystation and scarring. Later I also mentioned the reactions that can occur from the various proteins in shells which you can read about is a little thing called medical studies that can be easily found on a place called PubMed. Again, these proteins are not the cause of the scaring, but rather other immune reactions. "Personally, I feel comfortable simply wetting the dusts of shell, bone, malachite, serpentine and jade. If you do not, feel free to wear a mask. If this is the case, you might also want to wear a mask for jasper and agate, as silica dust is also considered hazardous (unfortunately, the greatest exposure to this hazard, for most people, is playground sand)." Again, silica IS NOT what I was discussing. In your own words " I would suggest that you fully read my responses". "There are many hazards around us, and I learn what I can, and make up my mind as to which precautions I will take. " That's fine, but once again the response was not to you. If someone decides they want to play with gasoline and matches that is their decision. But people should be told of potential hazards so they can decide for themselves what precautions they wish to take. I was simply posting about potential hazards that are completely separate from the hazard you keep posting about as if it were the only potential danger. It isn't!!!! "I do not tell others what they should do." And nobody else here has done that either. Giving information on potential hazards IS NOT the same thing as telling someone to wear or mask or else. "Lastly, scare sites are the non-medical sites which disseminate information that isn't true, usually in large, bright fonts with many capital letters." I guess you did not understand my simple question. So once again, since I got the information from medical journals, which I read a lot of, and you are implying this information came from scare sites then what do you consider non scare sites? gain, my information came from medical journals that are not disseminating information that is not true and DO NOT have large bright fonts with many capital letters. Yet, you implied the information came from scare sites. "They tell us that shells are toxic, when they are not. Remember that oyster shells are used as calcium supplements for humans as well as chickens. These shells are mostly just ground up, and often not purified." Hmmm..... So you don't think the lead content in oyster shell is harmful? Please pay attention to the fact that these ARE NOT scare sites but rather medical abstracts where I get most of my information. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10753088www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10989406And here is another medical study, not a scare site, discussing the 14 potentially antigenic proteins found in abalone shell: www.proteomesci.com/content/8/1/54By the way, you are not the only one that knows about medicine. I have worked in medicine for 36 years, which is one of the reasons I spend so much time reading medical journal studies.
|
|
|
Post by stephan on Jun 9, 2015 0:01:22 GMT -5
Okay, one more reply. Thank you for the links. I read the papers, and there is nothing there that changes my mind. Yes, at the dose of supplementation, the levels of lead might higher than desired. However, the trace amount of exposure one might experience from the spray of a Genie, generated by cutting a couple of cabs is going to be fairly inconsequential. It will also be a route that does not lead to any appreciable absorption, due to the previously mentioned filtration systems. The papers also mentioned lead from dolomite and bone supplements, so there is nothing specific to oyster shells. This shows that heavy metals are going to be present in rocks as well. In California, we have mercury, arsenic, lead, chromium, cadmium.... I suspect this is true elsewhere, as well. Some of this is naturally occurring, but unfortunately, we have also polluted our environment, and heavy metals are in our water, air and food. I would be more concerned about eating oysters, given that they are filter-feeders, but I will sometimes do this as well, as long as I know that they are from relatively clean waters.
I agree, the abalone shell paper mentioned 14 novel proteins. Granted, also, any protein is potentially antigenic, but these do not scream risk. The terms, "antigen," "antigenic," and "immunogenic" do not appear anywhere in the paper. Furthermore, protease inhibitors are suicide proteins that will be quickly degraded by proteases (that is their job), and are generally too short-lived to elicit an immune response, and they do not have highly antigenic secondary structures. That said, people with seafood allergies should probably be more careful than most.
I never claimed I was the only one knowing about medicine, but I have done research in the specific fields of immunology and respiratory diseases, so I was giving information that I have.
I really think you are coming off as aggressive, and are taking my statements out of context. You may not have been discussing silica, but I was saying that it is an equal or greater hazard.
There is a wonderful book, that I recommend to all who are interested in this subject: "The Dose Makes the Poison: A Plain-Language Guide to Toxicology, 3rd Edition," by Patricia Frank and M. Alice Ottoboni.
Again, just my $0.02 worth.
-Stephan
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Jun 9, 2015 1:17:23 GMT -5
Okay, one more reply. Thank you for the links. I read the papers, and there is nothing there that changes my mind. Yes, at the dose of supplementation, the levels of lead might higher than desired. However, the trace amount of exposure one might experience from the spray of a Genie, generated by cutting a couple of cabs is going to be fairly inconsequential. It will also be a route that does not lead to any appreciable absorption, due to the previously mentioned filtration systems. The papers also mentioned lead from dolomite and bone supplements, so there is nothing specific to oyster shells. This shows that heavy metals are going to be present in rocks as well. In California, we have mercury, arsenic, lead, chromium, cadmium.... I suspect this is true elsewhere, as well. Some of this is naturally occurring, but unfortunately, we have also polluted our environment, and heavy metals are in our water, air and food. I would be more concerned about eating oysters, given that they are filter-feeders, but I will sometimes do this as well, as long as I know that they are from relatively clean waters. I agree, the abalone shell paper mentioned 14 novel proteins. Granted, also, any protein is potentially antigenic, but these do not scream risk. The terms, "antigen," "antigenic," and "immunogenic" do not appear anywhere in the paper. Furthermore, protease inhibitors are suicide proteins that will be quickly degraded by proteases (that is their job), and are generally too short-lived to elicit an immune response, and they do not have highly antigenic secondary structures. That said, people with seafood allergies should probably be more careful than most. I never claimed I was the only one knowing about medicine, but I have done research in the specific fields of immunology and respiratory diseases, so I was giving information that I have. I really think you are coming off as aggressive, and are taking my statements out of context. You may not have been discussing silica, but I was saying that it is an equal or greater hazard. There is a wonderful book, that I recommend to all who are interested in this subject: "The Dose Makes the Poison: A Plain-Language Guide to Toxicology, 3rd Edition," by Patricia Frank and M. Alice Ottoboni. Again, just my $0.02 worth. -Stephan " However, the trace amount of exposure one might experience from the spray of a Genie, generated by cutting a couple of cabs is going to be fairly inconsequential." Based on what? In other words do you have any studies backing poor absorption of heavy metals through a respiratory route? Presenting evidence goes both ways. Furthermore, there is more than just lead in oyster shell. " The papers also mentioned lead from dolomite and bone supplements, so there is nothing specific to oyster shells." I guess you do not read medical abstract very often so I will help you out. In the first link when you pull it up see where is says "Free PMC Article"? You click on that link and it brings up the whole study. When you read the whole study they discuss the lead content of oyster shell. "I agree, the abalone shell paper mentioned 14 novel proteins. Granted, also, any protein is potentially antigenic, but these do not scream risk. The terms, "antigen," "antigenic," and "immunogenic" do not appear anywhere in the paper. " That is because THAT PARTICULAR study is ONLY discussing the analysis of abalone shell, not exposure hazards that can be found on OTHER studies. You really think this is the only study in existence?!!! The point of that link was to show that there was much more to abalone shell than the calcium carbonate and the few proteins you mentioned. "Furthermore, protease inhibitors are suicide proteins that will be quickly degraded by proteases (that is their job), and are generally too short-lived to elicit an immune response, and they do not have highly antigenic secondary structures. " Why are you all of a sudden bringing up protease inhibitors when the topic was antigenic proteins in abalone shell? Are you aware of the fact that there are numerous different types with different functions? For example, since we are discussing lungs there is the protease inhibitor alpha 1-antitrypsin that helps prevent the breakdown of lung elastin by elastases. So how does this tie in to your argument that the inhalation of antigenic proteins are not going to be an issue due to protease inhibitors? In other words, what protease inhibitor are you referring to specifically since there are so many and what is its specific role in preventing antigenic responses from the inhalation of abalone dust? While you are trying to figure that one out also ask yourself this question. If inhaled antigens are not an issue to the body then why do we have immune cells on the interior surface of our lungs? "I really think you are coming off as aggressive, and are taking my statements out of context." I feel the same exact way about you.
|
|