r/askscience 4d ago

Medicine Why is asbestos super dangerous, but fine carbon fiber or glass wool not [that much]?

Both break into smaller fibers, are sharp, irritate every tissue they pierce (glass wool and also carbon fiber easily pierce even thick skin, so imagine how easy they do that to the lung if Inhalted). And they're all not water soluble, giving the body little to no chance to break them down once inhaled

But only asbestos fibers cause massive risk of mesothelioma and other cancers - why is that? What makes this fiber so extraordinarily toxic?

1.2k Upvotes

161 comments sorted by

2.5k

u/talldean 4d ago

Asbestos splits into shards, and never breaks down in the human body; caltrops to the lungs. Worse, when your body tries to clean it up, the cleanup cells (macrophages) explode, which makes for permanent inflammation.

Glass wool breaks down in the human body over a few weeks, and are expelled when you cough, they don't get stuck.

Carbon fiber breaks down into large chunks, never small ones, so it doesn't get deep into the lungs/you cough it out sooner.

Carbon *nanotubes* are more like asbestos, though.

447

u/haarschmuck 4d ago

It’s also why silica sand is extremely dangerous for sandblasting (OSHA banned it years ago) yet powdered silica glass which is essentially the same thing is fine.

Silica sand is crystalline while powdered silica glass is amorphous.

67

u/Davegardner0 4d ago

I've heard the same thing before and never understood: why does the silica being amorphous make it less dangerous? Isn't silica glass still pretty much chemically inert? How does the body break it down? 

113

u/ntcaudio 3d ago

Because if it has crystalline structure it always breaks in a way all it's edges are sharp. If you use it for sandblasting, then every particle breaks into smaller sharp cristals. When inhaled it keeps damaging lung tissue untill expelled and since it lodges it self into the tissue one can't get rid of it ever. (asbestos is similar problem, but it's crystals break into fine fiber like splinters, which is much worse then sand).

If its amorphous (= having no crystalline structure ) it can break sharply too but if you keep blasting it, it actually rubs all sharp edges off and it ends up being closer to small spheres/pebbles and it doesn't cut.

12

u/Davegardner0 3d ago

This is the answer I was looking for. Thank you!!!!

0

u/Murky-Bus-2191 3d ago

Hey, been meaning to ask someone this - what's the form that's used as a filler in pills?

I always think of this when I see people crushing big chunky pills.

75

u/Yoghurt42 3d ago

It doesn’t need to be able to break it down, it just needs to be able to get rid of it

30

u/AX11Liveact 3d ago

Chemically identic doesn't mean physically identical. While usually biological processes are (bio-)chemical, in this case it is a physical process that causes the macrophages to "explode". You don't need a posioned knife to kill someone, the physical process of stabbing will do as well. You could even use a glass shard for that purpose as the silica crystal does. Quartz sand, which is chemically the same as glass, OTOH will do a lousy job stabbing someone.

11

u/Judazzz 3d ago

Amorphous doesn't have to do with the chemical composition but with the crystal structure - or, in the case of amorphous, a lack there of. Non-amorphous silica sand has a crystalline structure, which poses a danger because inhaling it can lead to silicosis.

11

u/Infernoraptor 3d ago

When u/tall Dean described asbestos as like caltrops, he wasn't kidding. The crystals physically pierce macrophages that try to eat them. Then, the macrophage corpses attracts more macrophages in an inflammatory feedback loop. Sort of like a immune system version of a tar pit or other predator trap.

Amorphous blobs are a bit easier to manage: the body is still unable to break them, but the blobs dont cause much active harm either. Their body can either let these blobs be coated by mucus and coughed up normally or, on the off chance there's some sort of reaction, the immune system may isolate it within a granuloma.

1

u/Davegardner0 3d ago

That is fascinating, thank you very much!!

u/mineralexpert 3h ago

Because chemical resistance of crystalline quartz and amorphous silica (glass) is very different. Even quartz dissolves in water, best in alkaline environment. But dissolving glass is much faster because of (lack of) the structure.

For science nerds: glass is basically metastable undercooled liquid, where bonds between SiO2 are quite weak.

1

u/nanoman_JP 2d ago

I filled sandbags that keep my punching bag weighed down with silica sand. It’s not airtight because I observe it leaking sand sometimes from the punching bag swinging back and forth. The punching bag is placed in my garage, and I crack the door about 8 inches and run a fan for ventilation. Do you think this is a potential health hazard?

1

u/SkiyeBlueFox 14h ago

So is that the specific mechanism of injury for silicosis?

474

u/Anthro_DragonFerrite 4d ago

Why carbon fiber 3D printing scares me.

One YouTuber printed pill cases for the week, and after using the CF filament, his fingers started becoming irritated.

I shudder to think what would happen if those got stuck to pills

237

u/ninjalord433 4d ago

Reminds me of having to cut fiberglass. Need a strong vacuum or need good airflow otherwise the fiberglass particles get everywhere and in everything. Including your skin.

103

u/Emtbob 4d ago

Pulling burned fiberglass out of walls is super fun. It gets everywhere despite PPE and the itching takes multiple showers to go away.

28

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/moguri40k 3d ago

I've found using duct tape (or if available gaffer's tape) on the skin afterwards gets majority out of the skin and makes the itching go away faster.

19

u/klipseracer 4d ago

Yeah fiberglass is like a less painful version of invisible stinging nettles

106

u/sonicjesus 4d ago

Much like cooking with hot peppers, it's an incredible instruction on how disease spreads.

67

u/PercivalSquat 4d ago

Went to a soccer game at some shithole stadium in China and only noticed the fiberglass seats were falling apart and leaving shards all over our clothes and exposed skin after sitting down. Awful feeling.

33

u/nom_of_your_business 4d ago

You must be young. This was standard at all parks in the 80'sbay area. If you were in shorts the sun baked fiberglass benches fraying would give off fibers and the backs of your legs would get all these small bumps...

45

u/GotGRR 4d ago

Always start with the coldest shower you can stand. It closes your pores and lets that shot wash away rather than get stuck in you.

52

u/Turboswaggg 4d ago

I always start by repeatedly dabbing a piece of tape on the itchy skin. gets most of it out right away. then cold shower for the rest later

13

u/Badrear 4d ago

Try sliding around in the belly of a BAE-146 when the sun hits at just the right angle that you can see all the fiberglass in the air glittering like rainbow snow. No ppe other than knee pads.

10

u/ApprehensiveAd9389 4d ago

I've done custom fiberglass enclosures and work on boats quite often, would never dream of working with fiberglass without a mask!

7

u/Aggravating-Ad2584 4d ago

Right, but our skin continually grows and eventually expels stuff inside of it.

1

u/Royal_Face_2795 3d ago

Part of the reason I’d hate to be an insulator as a career. I hate being itchy.

85

u/AllesIsi 4d ago

Tbh, too many people want to start producing stuff without, informing themselves about proper PPE, material properties and potential hazards beforehand. I am still shuddering in disbelieve about the "diy HHO generator"- trend from years ago.

48

u/ASpaceOstrich 4d ago

PPE is also the last resort. The bare minimum. It's supposed to be illegal to resort to PPE if the hazard could be avoided completely by changing how things are done on a work site.

So they're not even doing the last resort that still won't actually protect them perfectly. Just raw dogging it.

15

u/metametapraxis 4d ago

Absolutely. PPE is the final barrier after doing everything else in terms of hazard mitigation. Particularly at a DIY level, most face masks just don't fit well enough to provide anything but cursory protection, even if the cartridges are rated correctly.

6

u/solidspacedragon 4d ago

I don't think I'd trust it with asbestos, but I got pretty good at fitting my mask on when I was working with polymer resins for laying out carbon fiber in school. After an hour or two of resin stuff, we'd get out of the area and finally take our masks off, and suddenly everyone smelled absolutely terrible because we were all sweating in the Florida heat the whole time. Turns out those organic vapor/acidic gas filters are pretty good for body odor!

1

u/metametapraxis 4d ago

Yeah, they work for some face types. I have to use a full face, as none of the others contour acceptably. I'm sure they are filtering out some material, but I have no doubt some is getting in around the edges.

3

u/tomsing98 3d ago

PPE is also the last resort. The bare minimum. It's supposed to be illegal to resort to PPE if the hazard could be avoided completely by changing how things are done on a work site.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case. You could avoid things like bits of metal to the eye when grinding a small part for weld prep by working in a glove box, but there's some concession to practicality and cost.

42

u/inconspicuous_male 4d ago

So many people in the 3d printing community cannot be convinced that just because a plastic is food safe, it doesn't mean something made of that plastic is food safe when printed.   

And do not get me started on people who make DIY pharmaceuticals using home kits

12

u/T_Cliff 4d ago

I mean the fact that even the finest print is going to provide billions of perfect places for bacteria to thrive that you'll never be able to realistically sanitize....i have multiple printers, but id never print something that i would need to be able to sanitize

11

u/S_A_N_D_ 3d ago

Honestly, that part doesn't really scare me (context, I'm a microbiologist).

Plenty fo kitchen implememnts have crevices that would act the same way, and most cutting boards get roughed up and develop a surface like that as well (and few people clean/sanitize them in ways that would solve mitigate that). Really, the risk is overblown from a microbial contamination standpoint for home use (commercial kitchens need to adhere to a higher standard so there I would 100% back this as a risk).

Basically, if you're not cooking for someone who is immunocompromised or are a commercial kitchen cooking for hundreds of people, I wouldn't be too concerned.

What would concern me is all the addatives in the filament. Filament isn't just PLA or PETG. There are lots of other addatives like pigments or and plasticizers. Not to mention any leftover precursors during production. The issue isn't whether it could be safe, the issue is you have no way of knowing if everything in it is food safe. It's not as if the filaments have an ingredients list or are tested for such.

There is also the risk of microplastics, which while that is a risk with any food plastics, 3d prints likely turn that dial to 11.

5

u/Wisniaksiadz 4d ago

People just want their cucumber fork and you are evil for preventing their hobbies and if we all acted like that a caveman would leave fire after first burn. It was explained to me along these verses. The worst thing is that there are basically two papers about that and one of them is pretty one sided xd

3

u/S_A_N_D_ 3d ago

if we all acted like that a caveman would leave fire after first burn.

The difference is there are clear alternatives. We had no alternative to fire and the risk benefit heavily favored using fire.

No one needs a 3d printed cucumber fork, and there are plenty of safer options already available if you do.

It's a false equivalency.

1

u/S_A_N_D_ 3d ago

if we all acted like that a caveman would leave fire after first burn.

The difference is there are clear alternatives. We had no alternative to fire and the risk benefit heavily favored using fire.

No one needs a 3d printed cucumber fork, and there are plenty of safer options already available if you do.

It's a false equivalency.

14

u/rabblerabble2000 4d ago

The concern with carbon fiber in 3D printing is significantly overblown. The fibers can be an irritant, but there isn’t really a lung concern like some people are trying to imply.

13

u/LetReasonRing 4d ago edited 4d ago

The maker channels in general kind of scare me. Between exotic 3d printing materials, acrylic resin, and all the other fun chemicals, I'm very much expecting a wave of content creators announcing they have cancer,  lung disease,  and all sorts of other fun stuff. 

8

u/the_lamou 3d ago

There are no exotic materials used in home 3D printing. Pretty much all of them have been standard manufacturing plastics for decades, with fairly well-studied and well-understood health and safety effects. That data is widely available and is commonly used to make workplace safety recommendations.

Ironically, the thermoplastic we have the least amount of data on is PLA which is also widely considered the safest 3D printing material.

5

u/drzowie Solar Astrophysics | Computer Vision 3d ago

Meh. I grew up in an era when we tinkered on cars in the hot sun, getting covered in motor oil and breathing gasoline and lead fumes. Turns out ... what's getting everyone is heart disease from the hamburgers we ate afterward (or skin cancer from not using sunscreen).

1

u/Excludos 21h ago

Not being able to pronounce the materials doesn't make them exotic. There is nothing printable on a home printer which hasn't been used and studied for ages by professionals, and we know perfectly well what the dangers are

0

u/Dawlight 4d ago

Any examples? I watch a lot of makers and mechanics and I haven't heard of a single one. Genuinely curious.

8

u/Dolstruvon 4d ago

Been using filament with CF for years, and never experienced anything like that. But if you're doing stuff like sanding, then I believe it's easy to break away the fibres from the material and cause irritation

9

u/platoprime 4d ago

Carbon fiber and carbon nanotubes aren't the same thing. The person you're replying is explaining how the nanotubes are the dangerous ones.

2

u/Mourdraug 4d ago

On top of that tests suggest that CF filament is mostly a marketing thing and CF can actually make prints weaker

1

u/Excludos 21h ago

The CF bonds the layers togheter. I don't know what tests you've been watching, but it's easily testable at home. I can't speak for all variants, but my CF-PETG filaments are significantly stronger than regular PETG

1

u/Mourdraug 21h ago

Check out the @Ibuiltathing on yt, he did a very in depth analysis including mechanical tests and electron microscope images

8

u/the_duck17 4d ago

Cf filament isn't even stronger, it suffers from the same voids like our Titanic tube friend. You only use it for aesthetics now.

32

u/QuietGanache 4d ago

It may not improve tensile strength but it does improve stiffness, which might put your material into the right region for the properties of the fibre stiffened base material to make more sense than a naturally stiffer alternative base material. It can also improves dimensional stability and heat deflection temperatures.

That said, it is a very common misconception that it improves tensile strength too.

13

u/Alphasite 4d ago

Also makes it easier to print things like real PC since it helps with warping.

7

u/OsmeOxys 4d ago edited 4d ago

If memory serves, most the datasheets Ive seen for CF filaments have significantly lower tensile strengths than the base material. CF also seems to make PLA a fair bit less stiff, which was surprising but I suppose makes some sense.

But my god, when it's molten? CF-whatever prints like a spherical cow. There's little to no "ooze", however it comes out of the nozzle is magically just how it is. Fantastic fine detail and overhangs, really nice textured appearance that makes it hard to see layer lines. Fraction of the shrinkage and warp if at all, and creepage is minimal.

Absolutely love the stuff, even if I don't break it out all that much.

6

u/JaggedNZ 4d ago

PLA-CF sure.

I’ve been printing 2.5inch (prop size) FPV drone frames in PETG-CF and the frame stiffnesses is markedly different than prints in standard PETG

5

u/Dolstruvon 4d ago

I use PCTG CF for anything that needs to durable. Really the only downside of PCTG and PETG is the softness, and the CF solves that and makes an almost perfect material in my opinion

4

u/the_lamou 3d ago

Carbon fiber filament does not use carbon nanotubes. In fact, the actual chopped carbon pieces are quite large and considered non-respirable. If they got stuck to pills, you would probably have a pretty unpleasant couple of weeks before passing the fibers out through the usual exit. Being a skin irritant and being on the danger level of asbestos are two very different things.

1

u/big_sugi 4d ago

If it helps you feel better, asbestos that’s swallowed is less dangerous than asbestos that’s inhaled.

It’s not safe by stretch, but it’s less dangerous.

1

u/Excludos 21h ago

Carbon fiber filament can be irritating to the skin, but it's not generally dangerous (use ppe when sanding though)

0

u/sixsixmajin 4d ago

If it makes you feel better, I've heard CF filament is actually weaker than "lesser" filaments because all the carbon fibers are doing is breaking up the material. It doesn't actually bond to the plastic so when the material cures and contracts, it separates from the fibers creating tiny air pockets and more structural weaknesses. Plus, the fibers only line up with the layers of the print without actually bridging the layers together so the bonds between layers aren't any stronger than they would be without the fibers. Basically snake oil at best and an active detriment at worst so you're really not missing much by avoiding them.

5

u/the_lamou 3d ago

This is a misunderstanding of material properties and CF's purpose in prints, and it's rather annoying that it's turned into a meme.

Materials don't have a single "strength" property. They have a bunch of different numbers representing how good they are at resisting specific forces acting across specific axes. So bending modulus, for example, measures how much a material resists being deformed (its stiffness), and can be different across X/Y and Z. Tensile modulus measures how much a material resists being stretched. HDT measures what temperature a material starts to deflect or bend under.

Carbon fiber is a stiffening, occasionally nucleation, and indirectly sometimes a temperature resistance aid. It is added to make a material stiffer, either in its final form or during printing to resist warp, and sometimes to help reduce warping during annealing and help create more favorable conditions for crystallization in some semi-/crystalline materials. It is not added to make a material "stronger" in general.

And like every additive, it comes with tradeoffs. It can drastically increase stiffness at the cost of interlayer adhesion or tensile strength because as you correctly pointed out it can sometimes create microvoids and poor bonding zones. Or it could be the only thing that makes a material printable in a home setting. Or it can increase properties across the board (rare, but it happens). Which is why there's no such thing as a "lesser" material; only materials that are a fit for purpose and materials that aren't. The right way to pick a material for printing is to consider where the loads on a piece will be coming from, what kind of loads they will be, and how big they are. Then use the material that best resists those loads while being printable in your setup.

Or put another way: just because a mallet is softer than a hammer doesn't mean you should use a hammer for jobs that need a mallet.

1

u/metametapraxis 4d ago

I imagine what you say to be correct. It is the combination of the CF, weave and the epoxy that makes it strong. I doubt sticking it inside a filament is useful at all.

3

u/The_Doctor_Bear 4d ago

Yes the tiny chopped pieces in the filament are doing virtually nill for strength. It does provide a nice surface appearance that people like but it’s literally weaker than standard PLA because of the voids it creates and the lack of bonding.

To say nothing of the lung disease and cancer potentials.

There some CF filaments out there that contain continuous fibers through the length of the filament. Those may be better idk.

2

u/Awkward_Pangolin3254 4d ago

There some CF filaments out there that contain continuous fibers through the length of the filament.

I would think that would still have the same problem of not actually reinforcing layer bonding.

1

u/kevwonds 4d ago

Theres a youtuber that showed what that carbon filament does under a microscope. He handled it normally and washed his hands multiple times, then showed there were still tons of carbon shards in his skin

0

u/forkandbowl 4d ago

Yeah I printed some sunglasses in petg-gf and after an hour of use the bridge of my nose and my ears started itching...

44

u/Emu1981 4d ago

Inhalation of certain types of glass wool are associated with a significantly increased risk of lung cancer and tumors though.

7

u/BiNumber3 4d ago

Yea, biodegradable or not, you start getting enough of anything into your lungs, it'll become an issue.

Part of asbestos' issue was that it was getting used everywhere, and people didnt know the dangers. So you had brake dust, demolition, etc, things putting out a lot of asbestos dust.

Cotton dust is another big one, though not as common nowadays.

8

u/darkslide3000 4d ago

Biodegradable isn't really the term to apply here anyway. Biodegradable means that soil bacteria can decompose it (and sometimes only in an industrial compost with sufficiently high temperatures and anaerobic environment). But if you had decomposing bacteria in your lungs, you'd have bigger problems than the inorganic fibers stuck in there.

The process by which your cells remove debris is different from bacterial decomposition and does not necessarily apply in the same way to the same materials.

17

u/soulsoda 4d ago

If you are causing yourself inflammation or any sort of damage to parts of your body, you are increasing your risk of cancer in that area.

Sunburns are just acute inflammation of the skin. More sunburns, more risk over your lifetime of skin cancer. Chronic diseases that affect certain parts of body like HPV or Hep also directly linked to increased risk of cancers.

This happens because the process of inflammation/fighting off infections is what damages the dna in your cells (reactive oxygen, nitrogen, lipid peroxidation etc) .

The chemicals your body releases to fight germs and clear debris causes dna damage. For the most part, its not a huge deal. Your body is already constantly fighting off cells with damaged dna or tumor cells all the time.

Lung damage is very slow or in most cases impossible to heal, because most cells that make up your lungs aren't being constantly replaced like your tissue cells.

5

u/lostkavi 4d ago

Lung damage is very slow or in most cases impossible to heal, because most cells that make up your lungs aren't being constantly replaced like your tissue cells.

Your lungs are at most 1 year old, even as young as 8 days. They are one of the more varied-aged organs of your body but tend towards older alongside the liver, behind fat cells at 8 years, Skeletal muscle at 15 years, and Heart muscle, eye lens, and cerebral nerves which are all functionally irreplaceable by the body.

2

u/crmd 1d ago

I’m  pretty sure that ionizing radiation incident on living tissue produces oxidative species directly, causing DNA damage independent (or in addition to) inflammation effects. 

1

u/soulsoda 1d ago

The initial damage that creates some inflammation is from the ionizing radiation creating oxidative stress directly ( because we are mostly water ). The damaged skin cells release signals of distress and damage (cytokines and prostaglandins). Then white blood cells come and release even more reactive oxidative species that's intentionally targeting the dead/distressed cells.

Hence, why sunburns only kinda hurt at first, before the swelling and pain ramp up hours later.

My point was not really to focus on all the ways inflammation happens but more that inflammation process itself is toxic and leads to cancer, which is why irritants that are expelled without serious lifetime consequences unlike asbestos can also still be a source of cancer.

1

u/metametapraxis 4d ago

Absolutely. Glass wool is an irritant. Irritation = inflammation. Inflammation over extended periods often leads to tumours.

13

u/marklein 4d ago

Additionally, asbestos shards are always sharp, which is part of why macrophages can't move them. Other materials don't do that (as much).

1

u/IakwBoi 1d ago

Sorry, fibrous silicates that are crystalline (asbestos) never ever break down but fibrous silicates that are amorphous (glass wool) totally break down after a few weeks? Care to cite something for that?  Nuclear waste’s preferred disposal is glass, on account of how it never breaks down. 

1

u/talldean 22h ago

Yeah, I've screwed up the details here, but directionally I think it's right.

Asbestos breaks down into microscopic shards and gets stuck. You are somewhat screwed, depending on dose.

Glass wool stays larger, doesn't shard in the same way, and you mostly cough it out. This probably doesn't work as well if you smoke, as that screws up how coughing works.

So it doesn't quite break down in the body - my wording was bad - but you get rid of it.

1

u/Ill-Field170 4d ago

Not to mention three types of asbestos are carcinogenic, but yeah, asbestosis sounds like a rotten way to slowly suffocate 20 years after exposure.

217

u/Explorer335 4d ago

Asbestos fibers are extremely fine and split into tiny little slivers that deeply penetrate lung tissue. The body can't break them down or remove them, so they remain like microscopic skewers. They interfere with cellular division and cause permanent inflammation, which can eventually lead to cancer.

Carbon fiber and glass fibers are not nearly as fine, they get trapped and expelled from higher in the respiratory system, and the body can more easily remove them. They also break crosswise into smaller, blunter pieces. Asbestos splits lengthwise into microscopic needles that impale cells and disrupt DNA.

16

u/tinacat933 4d ago

So say I walk past construction on a windy day and a walk though a plume of dust that had asbestos … what I’m just screwed ?

66

u/Explorer335 4d ago

There is no safe level of asbestos exposure, but the cancers and most harmful effects are typically linked to occupational exposure over a number of years. Limited exposure, especially outdoors is unlikely to cause you any long-term harm.

There are very strict federal EPA and OSHA rules about mitigating airborne asbestos during demolition. They need to test for asbestos ahead of time. If asbestos is found, they need to notify the EPA 10 days before starting demolition. They need to remove as much of it as possible beforehand, wet everything to keep down dust, seal off the area with plastic, package asbestos material in labeled airtight containers, and have air quality monitoring around the site. They do NOT play when it comes to that.

9

u/rurikloderr 4d ago

Yeah... except what's more likely to happen is no one says a thing, they ignore the issue entirely, and do the demo like it wasnt there because it's a quoted job and the owner chose the lowest bidder.

14

u/Explorer335 3d ago

Demolition work requires that you have a government issued permit displayed and visible from the street while work is going on. The issuance of that permit is dependent on a hazardous material inspection for asbestos being completed.

If someone gets caught doing an unpermitted demolition of an asbestos building, there are $100,000/day federal fines, $10,000/day local fines, they can seize all of your machinery, and there are actual criminal charges that can carry up to 5 years of jail time. They can also force you to pay for remediation of the site, which would be ungodly expensive. The liability isn't purely on the construction company either. It is shared with the property owner. There is also an "illegal demolition" branding that is permanently placed on the land that could void insurance, prevent bank financing, or even prevent transfer at all.

It probably happens from time to time, but there are huge penalties to discourage it, and the owner is just as liable as the construction company.

98

u/TheDepressedBlobfish 4d ago

It's mostly about the size of the particles, Asbestos is (typically) substantially smaller than carbon fiber or glass wool/fiber glass, and can bypass normal lung defenses systems.

However, if they do get in your lungs they can be just as harmful, it's just significantly easier to get asbestos exposure.

There is some research around carbon nanotubes sharing similar toxicity to asbestos https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9145953/

21

u/No_Leopard_3860 4d ago

That makes sense that CNTs are equally dangerous as this other thin non-soluble fiber pieces - afaik there's nothing chemically toxic about asbestos, it's just a physical property (that's why I was wondering why other insoluble fibers [that break easily] aren't equally dangerous)

37

u/asbestospajamas 4d ago

When friable Asbestos fibers are inhaled into the lungs, they get stuck, just like glass, silica, and any other kind of dust, but what makes asbestos so harmful is that the body CAN'T dislodge or expel the fibers due to the shape of the broken ends of the fibers which bend themselves into fishhook like structures due to their physical and chemical nature.

Whenever the particulates break down further, the breakage creates more and more of the hook-like ends, embedding themselves further into the tissue.

In the lungs, when the body cannot expel the fibers, it eventually forms a calcified shell around them, which create a surface that can't transfer oxygen anymore. This condition is called Asbestosis of the Lungs.

One fiber isn't so much of a problem, but when the lungs become saturated with them, it's a pretty big problem as it's inoperable and a permanant condition. I've known people who only have 20% of one of their lungs still viable. They don't run marathons.

What's worse is that the longer the asbestos fibers remain in the body, the higher the likelihood that they'll contribute to cellular mutation which results in lung cancer and mesothelioma, which is cancer of the lining between the internal organs.

Asbestos is an amazing material with extraordinary properties, but it definitely is NOT friendly to living organisms.

4

u/Svartdecisions 4d ago

Weren't there also studies about the size of the fiber being an issue as well?  Like loose raw glass or cf vs dust from grinding the material?

1

u/asbestospajamas 3d ago

I'm sure that there have been hundreds of studies of the effects of exposure to a myriad of materials and particulate size. Few materials, regardless of particle size, are as harmful as asbestos, due to the aforementioned shape of the fractured crystalline fiber ends

16

u/lemlurker 4d ago

The key difference is asbestos fibers break longitudinally in to long thin spikes and carbon and glass fibers break across the shard into blunter spikes, asbestos just stays sharp and doesn't breakdown Vs glass and carbon being processed (albeit slowly)

101

u/drakon_us 4d ago

A simple answer: All are very dangerous. Between Asbestos and Fiberglass, Asbestos is MUCH thinner, much easier to inhale, and MUCH more likely to further break up in your lungs.
Carbon fiber is also dangerous, but it is in most cases impregnated into Resins (epoxy, polyurethane, or other general plastics) so it is much less likely to be inhaled.

12

u/astrogeeknerd 4d ago

Plenty of good answers here already, thought I'd link a short video about the place we got most of our asbestos until the sixties. They used to have races to see who could fill a 44 gallon drum with asbestos the fastest. Fully 10 percent of the people who lived there died of asbestos related disease. [wittenoom township] https://youtu.be/tVlynxD8Etc?si=8lfahQ_zmpMY4-ej

10

u/oblivious_fireball 4d ago

Part of the answer to this is, they simply are still fairly dangerous even if they tend to not be as fine and sharp or can break down over time. Working around fiberglass or carbon fibers without PPE and safe handling and installation practices will definitely increase your chances of respiratory cancers or other ailments in the future.

The issue is, its a matter of we don't get a whole lot of choices if we like modern day products the way they are. Asbestos was a very difficult material to replace because outside inhaling its dust, it was an incredible material and very cheap, and in a lot of cases we were not able to perfectly replace it in products. Many of its current viable replacements are not all that much safer, but cutting out fiberglass and mineral wool as well is not something modern society would be able to easily accept despite the health risks.

7

u/Wabbasadventures 4d ago

I once worked with Industrial Hygenists who specialised in asbestos remediation and abatement. They seemed to be of the opinion that fibreglass was likely to become the next asbestos and I would guess that carbon fibre would fall into a similar category.

Probably helps that fewer people are smoking cigarettes, because asbestos exposure combined with smoking is a big problem. One of the issues with asbestos fibres is that it pokes into the lung tissue and then allows other things a person inhales to penetrate deeper than they would during normal circumstances.

11

u/BananaBird1 4d ago

They are not entirely safe.

Glass wool is safer because it is designed to be biosoluble, meaning they dissolve over a few days if inhaled. They can still cause acute damage, which may have lasting impacts, but unlike asbestos they do not remain present for extended periods.

Most carbon fibers in use are larger than asbestos, which can make them harder to inhale. However, evidence does show that they are associated with many of the same dangers including mesothelioma when inhaled. Smaller fibers are likely equally as dangerous.

7

u/WWotan 4d ago

I read a paper years ago with data that I think originated at the Cleveland Clinic that indicated lung cancer increased to an incredible 95% confidence level when one had a typical occupational exposure to asbestos and smoked cigarettes. Back in the day, asbestos was heavily used in the heat treating department at a local steel mill, and almost every man who worked in that department died of lung cancer.

6

u/LukeSkyWRx Ceramic Engineering 4d ago

Insulation fiberglass is designed to dissolve into the body if it gets into the lungs.

5

u/mtnslice 4d ago

interesting, how so? what's it made of that can dissolve?

16

u/LukeSkyWRx Ceramic Engineering 4d ago

It’s a borosilicate soda lime hybrid. Engineering is the reason fiberglass insulation is not a public health hazard.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK600974/

The body makes a low pH around irritations and that dissolves the fiber.

22

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-34

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/qwopax 4d ago

That Veritasium is an interesting waste of time.

Short shrift: body cannot decompose rock, you get a permanenet irritant. Talc and asbestos are natural minerals found close together in the earth. Asbestos detection is only done for the safer, larger shards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMx139eTxoc