Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:6913 sci.electronics:6852 sci.med:11021 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!paul.rutgers.edu!jac From: jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,sci.electronics,sci.med Subject: Re: re toner hazards (was Re: Conductive Dust Bunnies) Message-ID: Date: 7 Jul 89 20:22:58 GMT References: <1989Jun14.042949.597@ivucsb.sba.ca.us> <19512@cup.portal.com> <321@cbnewsi.ATT.COM> <1419@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> <1989Jun28.164955.3005@ziebmef.uucp> <41@oink.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 24 jep@oink.UUCP (James E. Prior) > Some folks have mentioned that the toner stuff is probably pretty > inert, and that makes sense to me. Something that baffles me is > why coal dust causes black lung. It seems that coal dust is also > pretty inert. > Is black lung caused by the impurities of coal dust (like sulfur), > or some chemical property of the almost completely, but not > entirely inert carbon, or just the mechanical presence of the > stuff regardless of how chemically inert. Any fine particulate, such as coal dust, photocopier toner, cigarette smoke, or carbon from a diesel engine, will cause lung damage. The problem is not a chemical reaction per se. Rather, it is a physical one. The fine particles, usually ten micron or less, clog up all the nooks and crannies in the lungs, and are too small to be removed by the usual mechanisms. The net effect is to decrease the surface area available to exchange C02 for 02. Bad news. Jonathan A. Chandross Internet: jac@paul.rutgers.edu UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac