Talk:Sawdust

On 30 April 2012, Dennisthe2 suggested merging in the Wood dust article. Pro: The wood dust article is short and apt not to grow much and is closely related. Con: Wood dust is produced more from sanding than from saws. If merged would this article need a more generic title, like wood particles? --Bejnar (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

In response to the "not to grow much" claim, check this out. Remember, the article as it stands is just a mini-stub. It is a very notable topic in its own right though.--Coin945 (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Excerpt of a couple of the links:

• Wood dust becomes a potential health problem when wood particles from processes such as sanding and cutting become airborne. Breathing these particles may cause allergic respiratory symptoms, mucosal and non-allergic respiratory symptoms, and cancer. The extent of these hazards and the associated wood types have not been clearly established
• Both hardwood and softwood dusts have a Workplace Exposure Limit (WEL) of 5mg/m3 which must not be exceeded. These are limits placed on the amount of dust in the air, averaged over an eight-hour working day. However, you must reduce exposure to wood dust to as low as ‘reasonably practicable’.
• Wood dust on the floor can cause tripping or slipping. Vision can be impaired be airborne dust generated during wood processing. Wood dust is classified by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) as a hazardous chemical and is subject to the Hazard Communication Standard.
• Wood dust linked to at least five mill explosions in B.C.
• Wood dust is known to be a human carcinogen, based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans. It has been demonstrated through human epidemiologic studies that exposure to wood dust increases the occurrence of cancer of the nose (nasal cavities and paranasal sinuses). An association of wood dust exposure and cancers of the nose has been observed in numerous case reports, cohort studies, and casecontrol studies specifically addressing nasal cancer.
• Tropical woods boast great beauty and durability, but they can be some of the worst offenders. Not only are they very dense meaning more fine dust is produced with cutting and drilling them, but their natural insect and weather resistance is because of chemicals in the tree during growth.
• Wood dust is dangerous to health and inflammable--Coin945 (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yup, not grow much. --Bejnar (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ummmm... can I ask why you feel that way?--Coin945 (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Because you have said most of it right there. Even combining in material from the "Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program" OSHA Directive CPL 03-00-008, (March 11, 2008) and "Hazard Communication Guidance for Combustible Dusts", OSHA 3371-08 2009, doesn't make much more than a screen full. All of that can be done within a combined article, with the details of combustibility handled in the Combustibility#Combustible dust and Dust explosion articles. --Bejnar (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

These two topics are quite unique and different. Sawdust ("a by-product of cutting lumber with a saw") just happens to be the same as wood dust (fine pieces of wood). Also, why would you rather have the information for one topic spread out across the Wikiverse? It seems ridiculous and useless. Even if it did end up in repeating material, what's the harm in that? Sooo many Wikipedia topics overlap, and you'll find duplication of information everywhere you go. What makes this case so different?--Coin945 (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

What do you, Coin945, mean when you say Sawdust just happens to be the same as wood dust? I think that that is the point. For me the only question remaining is what should the article be entitled. --Bejnar (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's exactly what I mean. Think about it... hmmm... what's another example.....? The point is that sawdust is an article about the by-product of a particular process (cutting lumber with a saw - and if it isn't at the moment, then it should). That by product happened to be wood dust. But the article is specifically about that process and how it results in that dust. Wooddust is the general article that would link off into sawdust. Wooddust is the general name of the stuff, but can also be produced in countless other ways. --Coin945 (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Something along the lines of Wood ash and Calcium carbonate - they are essentially the same substance (fine, not really... but it's the first example I found..) but one is made as the result of a process while the second one is the substance in general.

So what you have stated is a good argument for the combined article being entitled "wood dust", as sawdust is a proper subcategory of wood dust. All sawdust is wooddust. Wood ash is not a proper subcategory of Calcium carbonate, nor the reverse. While the main component of wood ash may be CaCO₃, as the article points out that is less than half. I still think that there is a good argument to be made for the combined article being entitled "sawdust" as the more common term, although less etymologically precise. The MOS says The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural. See Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title a Wikipedia policy, not a guideline, for the questions that should be asked about a title.. --Bejnar (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Examples of the general use of "sawdust":

Orbital sanders also only require a piece of sandpaper unlike belt sanders and they also suck up the sawdust when sanding through holes in the base of the tool. "Woodwork Basics - A Guide on Power Tools"

Woodworking tools, particularly power sanders, create a considerable amount of airborne sawdust. "How to Make a Dust Collector"

Two methods for collecting sawdust while working on the drill press. One methods collects the chips from above; the other from below. "Collecting Sawdust while Drilling"

What we do is make sure we grind to a foot below ground level, remove the saw dust and back fill with top soil. "Leftover Sawdust From Stump Removal"

So, do you understand my point even if you do not agree with it? --Bejnar (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I totally understand what you're saying, and was just about to agree with you, but looking at the sources you've presented (maybe its just to do with the specific ones you chose), but we've got a few unreliable ones chucked in there. Unfortunately, ehow is a Bad Source of Information (told to me by webupon.com and a forum, ironically both of which are unreliable sources in their own right..). You've also got a forum. The YouTube video is questionably legit... I'm still not entirely sure what Wikipedia's policies on Youtube is... but the uploader seems legit. This one seems fine. I guess it all comes down to what's out there and what the general consensus is on the internet. In my personal experience, I have only ever heard the term "sawdust" used in the context of using a high-powered tool (usually a saw) to cut wood, with the excess little bits coming of and the wind blowing them into people's eyes etc. I'd never actually heard the term "wooddust" before but the internet says it is a very well known term and as far as I can see, the "correct" term for this concept. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps while originally only referring to a sawing context, now the term refers to any type of dust coming off wood. I don't know the answer to that. If this turns out to not be the case, I really think this article has merit.--Coin945 (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Those examples are not examples of reliable sources for content, they are examples of actual usage by regular English speakers, it is research, which is not allowed for creating articles but which is very much encouraged in meta discussions. Cf. Google counts. --Bejnar (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

So, what was your point exactly? That the general public uses the term in the wrong context? I'm not sure that this is the correct way to go. I'd like to think that Wikipedia would correct me if I was using a word incorrectly, rather than perpetuate my false usage....--Coin945 (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, not wrong or incorrect usage, just actual usage. Many words in English have outgrown their etymological origins. Take a look, for example, at "skirt" which originally meant a tunic, and which also became the word "shirt". --Bejnar (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Merge. If at some point in the future, sufficient content is found to separate wood dust from saw dust, then a separate article could be created. Alternately, a single article could be kept at wood dust, then a separate article on Health effects of wood dust could be created in the future, again only once warranted. For now, merge, let the articles grow. I don't have any opinion on saw dust or wood dust, except that sawdust seems to be the more common name, but I'd be ok with either one. --KarlB (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Merge per KarlB. Insufficient notability to warrant its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
• Merge, as the original person who suggested this. To explain, I saw this in NPP at the time that I suggested it for a merge, and the rationale to merge into here (versus merging sawdust to wood dust) was simply that this is a more established article. The fact remains, though - sawdust is wood dust, but wood dust isn't always sawdust. I don't feel that there is enough to warrant two separate articles, but I really don't have any feelings as to where one merges to - my desire is to eliminate the redundancy. Both have sufficient resources to warrant an article combined, so by their powers combined.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I propose to merge Health impacts of sawdust here, to the "Health hazards" section. The Health impacts article is short and mostly overlaps this article, which is much better already. The few extra points can easily be merged. This would follow the pattern of all other "Health impacts of <item>", which are merely redirects to the item. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose as this would be a big enough topic for a standalone article, and it would be WP:UNDUE to pack all health info into this this article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. The article has been expanded substantially and warrants its own page.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply