Jeff Lawrence on fri 2 may 97
To anyone interested in this thread, I discovered a very enlightening and
candid discussion of refractory ceramic fiber by Marc Ward in the current
issue of Claytimes. Recommended.
My pokings about (to call them research ennobles it unjustifiably) indicate
that everybody into refractory ceramic fiber is very worried about fiber
inhalation during construction and especially tear-down. Firing over 1800 F
makes cristobalite, a known cause of silicosis, so the itchy stuff from
tearing apart is worse than the itchy stuff from putting up. Few people I've
talked to have even considered the issue of fiber floating around during
service. Since all the technicians I talked to are very alive to con- and
destruction dangers, fiber once installed sounds like just the non-issue I
hoped it was. Particularly with a surface coat. Maybe that ITC stuff, maybe
an AP Green product.
Check out the Claytimes.
THanks for the input.
Jeff
Jeff Lawrence
Sun Dagger Design
ph/fax 505-753-5913
Jeff Lawrence on wed 28 may 97
Hi,
Monona Rossol was kind enough to comment on fiber. THanks for the
information on where to go for more data. I'd never heard of the body you
described and am always eager to find unbiased sources.
I have to say that Marc Ward's comments were a lot less sweeping than yours.
He said in that article that these were his opinions on the risks and
benefits of fiber. I would have more faith in Ms. Rossol's observations were
they a bit more perspicuous. Remember Lavoisier's dictum, to never jump in
your conclusions more than a single step past your data.
Ms. Rossol writes:
>Even these manufacturers publications will do a better job at explaining the
>problem than a potter/kiln burner supplier who has a financial interest in
>having customers use RCF without all the manufacturer's recommended
>precautions.
Ms. Rossol is right that the source must be considered in giving weight to
data. Looking through Marc Ward's catalog, fiber is a part -- albeit tiny --
of his business. At the same time, magnifying the risks of fiber materials
looks arguably like a plug for books on risky materials. I didn't find
anything on ceramic fiber in Ms. Rossols book I bought, though.
There aren't any absolutes in risk evaluation. Most things we do are risky
-- driving a car, taking a plane, eating in a restaurant. People fall ill
and die from all these activities. But we do them because the benefits
outweight those risks. Marc's comments took this larger view, and adhered to
the conservatism that underlies the scientific method. Ms. Rossol knows a
trememdous amount about the risks of materials; I sincerely wish that she
would augment that depth of knowledge with a like perspicuity and
judiciousness. This is selfish, of course -- it would make her observations
even more useful to me.
No ad hominem or feminam intent, I assure you all.
Best regards,
Jeff
Jeff Lawrence
Sun Dagger Design
ph/fax 505-753-5913
Jeff Lawrence on sun 1 jun 97
Monona Rossol disagrees with my suggestion that her post was not lucid:
>
>Do you really think I'm not being clear about what I'm saying? Are your in any
>doubt about my meaning? Bet not.
>
I am in the uncomfortable position of admiring the messenger while finding her
message about Marc Ward's article below her standards of clarity.
E.G.
Marc passed on a datum that free silica is reported to be the main health
hazard from refractory ceramic fiber. I've gleaned same from manufacturers.
Ms. Rossol says, "dead wrong!" at the beginning of a paragraph and concludes
the paragraph with the danger of free silica is a danger. Which should I
believe, the beginning or the end of the paragraph?
The pellucid aspect of Ms. Rossol's post was her rejection of Marc Ward's
approach, i.e. that balance of risk and benefit is sensible. This was to be
read clearly between the lines, but wasn't that obvious on a denotative
level. Realistically, comparison of any given risk to other risks we accept
on a daily basis looks much more judicious than branding it evil and
rejecting any further discussion with vaguely ad hominem remarks.
What I'd like to see is an expansion of Ms. Rossol's already well-informed
point of view beyond blanket condemnation of demonstrably or deducibly
hazardous materials. I think incorporating benefits of materials into the
evaluation is imperative if one wishes to be more effective than Cassandra.
Selfishly Suggested Next Project for Ms. Rossol: A discussion of the
effectiveness of remediation methods for risky materials which still get
used in spite of the risks, beginning with encapsulation methods such as
spray coatings on free fiber from RCF.
With equal parts recognition that few people are effective self critics and
admiration for anyone who actually finishes a book.
Jeff
Jeff Lawrence
Sun Dagger Design
ph/fax 505-753-5913
| |
|
