Talk:Silicosis

message: Removing these from the list of experimental treatments:
“Chinese Herbal Kombucha[20]
The herbal extract tetrandrine may slow progression of silicosis.[21]”
20 is not a reputable journal. 
21 was twenty years ago and I’ve found no other papers on it in my brief search to lead me to believe this is still an area of active research.
The other experimental treatments still require sourcing.
Revert if you think they’re appropriate, but I don’t think either of those belong here.2601:640:4100:4C70:C13A:9C32:A338:45B8 (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experimental Treatments

message: I removed this section from Pathology: 
"There are now many drug dealers selling cannabis sativa and indica (skunk) it has a gritty coating easily detectable if you roll a bud in your fingers or chew a twig you can feel easily the crystalline coating. The reason for such adulteration is to gain extra weight it does not affect the potency. Please refrain from buying such weed as the only way to combat it is to bycott it."
It does not appear to be related to the Pathology of Silicosis.
However the information may be relavant to the topic.  The nature of the 'gritty vcoating" or "crystalline coating" and its relation to Silicosis would need to be described.  -Synapse001 13:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.gritweed.co.uk/ everything about it is there, and there are concerns that this may cause silicosis in some users. i think it is relevant to the article, however I am not sure where to add it, nor of specifics. --insertwackynamehere 15:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *It certainly does not belong in the form it was when removed! Wikipedia by necessity and consensus is not a place for medical advice, starting or promoting social movements, illegal drug commerce reform, etc. It would belong in the appropriate marijuana articles under health effects (or whatever the section is called, I'm sure there is one), and I think the reference as it stands now is appropriate (just noticed it or I wouldn't have bothered with all this, but since I already typed it...) There is now just a single sentence with a reference under "Prevalence." Suggestions regarding action people should take with regards to changing the habits of their drug dealer? Not appropriate if well intended. Fitzhugh 06:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: note

message: Hello all. A recent anonymous edit removed reference to silicosis being a form of pneumoconiosis.
*Could someone confirm this, preferably with a reference, and hopefully explain why?
*I'm even further puzzled when reading the pneumoconiosis article as this states that "Many substances can cause pneumoconiosis including asbestos, talc, coal mine dust, kaolinite, and other metal compounds." Why is lung disease caused by long-term exposure to talc & kaolinite classed as pneumoconiosis but the same to silica does not? And does any know what is meant by "other metal compounds".
Thanks. Theriac 15:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose this idea - "pneumon ... osis" has a radically different history and usage than "silicosis" - it has a quirky life of its own, far outside the medical usage. Combining them would only confuse readers. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The disease section applies that it is a synonym of silicosis?  It looks like mostly trivia.  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Have trimmed that section per WP:DUE as we do have a page on this topic.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Zach! 73.3.90.240 (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Pneumoconiosis=

message: Deleted this part because it's off topic:
, and at 45 letters it is the longest word in any of the major English dictionaries. (The name has been described as a "trophy word"—its only job is to serve as the longest word."A Word A Day" comment on the longest "official" word)
Ste nohype (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted off topic 

message: This is the same term for this condition and I think should be merged here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose this idea - "pneumon ... osis" has a radically different history and usage than "silicosis" - it has a quirky life of its own, far outside the medical usage. Combining them would only confuse readers. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The disease section applies that it is a synonym of silicosis?  It looks like mostly trivia.  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Have trimmed that section per WP:DUE as we do have a page on this topic.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis]]

message: What about Kexiping for the treatment of silicosis?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.252.96 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment 

message: I have removed the sentence:
Furthermore, the surface of silicon dust can generate silicon-based radicals that lead to the production of hydroxyl and oxygen radicals, as well as hydrogen peroxide, which can inflict damage to the surrounding cells.
as it does not make sense chemically to speak of silicon here.  If it is indeed silica dust that can generate silicate-based radicals (which would surprise me), and a sound chemical reference can be provided, the sentence can be reinstated, with the corrections.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrdubwd (talk • contribs) 15:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathophysiology 

message: I have removed the reference to alpha quartz. It refers to the low temperature phase (stable below 573 °C), and this reversible transformation is prompt and unavoidable.  There is no other form at low temps.   Hrdubwd (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silica 

message: Not mentioned in article. 86.179.191.90 (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "pneumosilicosis" redirect here? 

message: Some mention of this should be present, as causative agents?
24.244.32.157 (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amorphorous silica, diatomaceous earth, bedbugs 

message: Shouldn't dust masks be mentioned? 104.162.197.70 (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevention 

message: Asthama 223.196.172.202 (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  N.s 

message: A small addition but it might be useful to place a link to OSHA's 'Table 1' with a brief description of what it is and it's purpose as part of the updated standard from 2016.  Washburn.Mike (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regulation 

message: The first edit saying silicosis is 100% preventable is quite the claim. I went through and looked at your linked article and didn't come to quite the same conclusion as you. I would put some sort of stipulation before such a bold claim like "if proper safety procedures are followed and... silicosis is almost always preventable".
In the "Prevention" paragraph, I really liked the clarifying additions that you made. I can see how the edits really made the paragraph more understandable. Considering this is a public health issue, you might even consider putting in a quick plug for the hierarchy of controls at the beginning of that paragraph. It might help the reader better understand why those preventative measures are in the order that they are.
I like the addition of the link between silicosis and 9/11 first responders. I would suggest adding a bit more info on how they might have been exposed to crystalline silica (simple as mentioning that it was the dust that contained metals and other toxicants).
At the beginning of the first paragraph under "KEY PROVISIONS" I would add what the previous PEL/TLV for respirable crystalline silica was. Since this was such an important thing that happened it would be nice to know what it was at before the change.
"The standard also provides requirements for cleaning up the slurry left behind in types of scenarios." The end of this sentence feels a bit off. I recommend changing the wording just a bit. Maybe with "different types of cutting operations" or something similar.
Your final paragraph feels like it should be split into two different paragraphs. Right where it says "as part of the updated standard".
Overall, I think you did a great job adding information that had been left out and new information. I liked your little edits and I think they helped the original article read a lot smoother. Well done.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zpeditor (talk • contribs) 07:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Zach! 73.3.90.240 (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review