Chronic Lung Condition After 5 years of BRC

Killbuck · Post by **Killbuck** » Mon May 21, 2007 3:07 pm

Dang... now EVERYbody is gonna want some!!!!!

Ok, a couple dozen skeletons a year.... we handle that just fine, but jeepers, now the demand for Human Skeletal Sheetrock is goona explode. Dunno how we can keep up with the demand.

Lassen Forge · Post by **Lassen Forge** » Mon May 21, 2007 3:14 pm

Is OK, Just don't tell them about source of covering for new Mitts for 2007...

Is called "(U.N.)-Faux-Leather"Â®... Does to steer clear of truth in advertising laws and is required by importation regs to declare the location of origin for the materials...

And you thought it was just suede???

Have nice day...
bb

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Mon May 21, 2007 3:28 pm

It is known medical fact that particulates as part of the local atmosphere predisposes people to respiratory illness. You can't argue that. The only question is how great is the impact from playa dust.

Can I getta cite?

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Mon May 21, 2007 3:32 pm

The only thing I am predisposed to is hangovers...

Lassen Forge · Post by **Lassen Forge** » Mon May 21, 2007 3:34 pm

Isotopia wrote:
It is known medical fact that particulates as part of the local atmosphere predisposes people to respiratory illness. You can't argue that. The only question is how great is the impact from playa dust.
Can I getta cite?

I'd like to see one, too. I know the links between Diatomaceous earth and lung probs, as well as asbestiosis, but from Gypsum?

Not that I'm taking sides, but I know a lot of folk who moved *to* the desert (and specifically northwestern Nevada) because of lung probs that cleared up out there.

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Mon May 21, 2007 3:40 pm

Dust was put here by God to keep city people out of the desert...

Killbuck · Post by **Killbuck** » Mon May 21, 2007 3:50 pm

Only keeps em out for 51 weeks.

But, I spent a glorious 2 days there this past weekend. OPlay surface was solid, dry and dust free. Even vehicles did not make any dust as lond as they were not on those beatn paths.

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Mon May 21, 2007 3:54 pm

lond?

Post by **AntiM** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:16 pm

Gee, Bucky has a middle name now! Bucky Sheetrock!

Bucky at Singularity 07.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:17 pm

I thought the playa was of biological origin?
Anyone know if that is better or worse?

My ex was a specialist in toxic substances.
It's a complicated area.
Asbestos has no safe exposure level, contrary to the new epa limits.
Some can have heavy exposure and not get sick.
Silicosis, on the other hand, is a 100% killer.
The city I am in has average toxicity, but those with lung disease can't stay here.

I can tell you that a building going down is far worse than playa dust for you.
And I'm talking about one that has been prepped.
I was one of the few in the crowd with a mask.
I was coughing for two days after too.

I think nyc was contaminated and the epa test team was kept out to avoid drawing attention to our chemical industry and a situation they consider unfixable.

Remember how they dealt with the unsafe levels of radioactivity in denver?
They raised the "limits".

Does anyone on here actually know anything about the dust?
So far, this sounds like those 'I don't wear a seat belt cause it's safer to be thrown clear' stories.

dana · Post by **dana** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:20 pm

Isotopia wrote:
It is known medical fact that particulates as part of the local atmosphere predisposes people to respiratory illness. You can't argue that. The only question is how great is the impact from playa dust.
Can I getta cite?

Try Medscape.com
Find your own cites. I get sick of pouring over the specific studies for things that I actually do need to learn more on.

And the possible culprit would be silicosis. I believe someone actually dug up information on the main component of playa dust - which was some kind of silica. But like I said earlier, there may be other components to the dust that can produce an even stronger inflammatory response than just silica. It's a dry alkaline lake bed.

And whoever posted that about respiratory problems that cleared up after they moved to the desert - yep, it can help. You move from someplace with heavy amounts of pollen to which you are acutely sensitive, to the desert which tends to have lower pollen counts and everything gets better. Although you could also find something that you have an even stronger reaction to than where you left. And in general the only air that seems better than desert air would have to be Hawaii.

For the record: I don't know for sure how much of an impact breathing playa dust (no mask) for multiple years would have. I do know that it is a definite potential risk - it's a question of inhaled dust load. I do know playa lung is experienced by a fair number (damn it - how many is that? cites?!!!) I also can only recall two times in my life that I totally roached my lungs. One was the first time at BM with no mask for awhile and then I think someone gave me one of those cheesy one band masks. Afterward it felt like it does when you take too big a hit of really harsh pot, only it lasted a few days. Your lungs tell you when you did something to irritate them.
Also for the record, people are taking various injuries to their lungs during their entire life. With some people as they age you will see fibrotic changes on their x-rays, even though the person never smoked. The fibrotic changes are like scar tissue on the lung and definitely reflect a reduced pulmonary capacity. One of those kinds of injuries is the cumulative effect of all the shit they inhaled (again not referring to cigarettes.)
Also I am a health freak. I take excellent care of myself: food, exercise, minimal alcohol, etc. I suspect I probably use more caution than most people posting.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:29 pm

"For the record: I don't know for sure how much of an impact breathing playa dust (no mask) for multiple years would have."

Ask Larry Harvey. He has been to every single one.

"I do know that it is a definite potential risk"

Risk of what? I have not seen a single bit of evidence that a single person has EVER died from playa dust obtained at burning man. You are taking a much GREATER and REAL risk in the driving there and back than in breathing once you get there.

Yes, someone can conjure up some imagined danger that has never been reported and try to scare people to death of it if they want to, it doesn't make it real.

See, here is the basic problem ... you are attempting to claim a risk and force people to prove it isn't there. That is impossible. You can not prove a negative. The onus is on YOU to prove there IS a problem with playa dust. Until you come up with an actual case of someone breathing themself to death at Burning Man, you might have better luck on a phobias tribe at tribe.net.

You have a much better chance of being struck by lightning than breathing yourself to death at BM. So don't go outside 'cause the 'lectricity'll getcha!

dana · Post by **dana** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:37 pm

gyre wrote:So far, this sounds like those 'I don't wear a seat belt cause it's safer to be thrown clear' stories.

No shit! If I hadn't been drunk I'd probably be dead!*

* actual quote from a "juggie". (Oilfield worker)

dana · Post by **dana** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:41 pm

[quote="geekster The onus is on YOU to prove there IS a problem with playa dust. Until you come up with an actual case of someone breathing themself to death at Burning Man, you might have better luck on a phobias tribe at tribe.net.
[/quote]

So is that a yes to my experiment?!!!!!

Oh boy!

[Really, it would be great. I think you would only have to huff about a quarter teaspoon or less per day. A perfectly safe dosage.]

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:55 pm

what experiment?

There have been people going for 20 years. What does it prove if someone has some kind of lung ailment? Might be from smoking too much pot. How are you going to prove anything because you don't know what they are exposed to when they aren't on the playa.

Have at your experiment but I am not seeing how you are going to be able to conduct any kind of meaningful experiment.

You would think that with 21 years of burning out in that desert, it it was a problem, it would have been well known by now. This will be my girlfriends 11th burn. She has no problems.

Even better, why not wait until you actually have evidence of something before you make statements like there is any kind of "real" risk. Prove there is a risk first.

dana · Post by **dana** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:06 pm

geekster wrote:what experiment?

There have been people going for 20 years. What does it prove if someone has some kind of lung ailment? Might be from smoking too much pot. How are you going to prove anything because you don't know what they are exposed to when they aren't on the playa.

Have at your experiment but I am not seeing how you are going to be able to conduct any kind of meaningful experiment.

You would think that with 21 years of burning out in that desert, it it was a problem, it would have been well known by now. This will be my girlfriends 11th burn. She has no problems.

Even better, why not wait until you actually have evidence of something before you make statements like there is any kind of "real" risk. Prove there is a risk first.

Yes, medical research is very often flawed. OK, so this is how we do it. You start off by getting an x-ray and some pulmonary function tests - prehuffing baseline. Basic health survey - no smoking, no significant pre-existing respiratory illness, connective tissue disease, etc. Then one week of good huffing every morning. Followup for at least ten years, preferably longer, with repeat x-rays and pulmonary function tests.

Then I pretend I never suggested any of this.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:30 pm

dana wrote: Particulate size is the key. Really really tiny stuff goes in and right back out. The bigger stuff does get caught in your upper airways and eventually brought out by the cilia (you know, those tiny hairs that you smokers don't have anymore.) It's the in between size that screws you. Settles into the lower airways where the different kinds of white cells try to engulf it and sequester them. That's where the chronic problems start - a long standing inflammation and gradual formation of fibrosis (scarring). Sound nice?

\/
Many people do not have the stanard filters.. The tiny hairs in the throat are gone if your X smoker.. You can suffer from chronic dry mouth if your a X junky..That dry mouth go's all the way into the lungs.. When you get older and your fat you lose lung capacity.. Your lungs are longer and you fat gut cuts the lungs off.. Then if the lungs are scared from life you lose more.. Moses and the gang lived out there 40 years..

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:34 pm

Every metal and jewelry worker I know has lung issues of some type.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Mon May 21, 2007 7:19 pm

Try Medscape.com
Find your own cites. I get sick of pouring over the specific studies for things that I actually do need to learn more on.

Hey Dana, sorry if that put a burr up your ass.

But if you're gonna make a sweeping generalization then you, me or anyone else doing the same should, as a minimum, be prepared to back it up with some valid point of reference - if queried - rather than asking a reader to take a sweeping, declarative statement as fact or that they go chasing down the rabbit hole for data that may or may not exist to buttress your claim.

For instance, you wrote:

It is known medical fact that particulates as part of the local atmosphere predisposes people to respiratory illness.

That's a statement of fact that's as sweeping in its generalization as it's incorrect in its breadth as far as my understanding of suspended particulates in the atmosphere goes. You on the other hand might very well know something that affirms your statement that I and others here aren't aware of that might actually buttress (and confirm) your point. So when I ask for a cite I'm only asking that you provide a link to a resource by which I and others might consider and possibly re-evaluate our understanding of a particular issue. If I'm wrong about something I'd like to know about it. If my informed view can benefit from new information or something I've not read before I'd to know about it.

But until then my understanding of suspended atmospheric particulates does *not* predispose people to respiratory illness unless the particulates in question are of a certain size and composition. It may predispose some people with chemical sensitivities or it may predispose others to physiological reactions if the particles in question are of a certain size, composition or density but particulates in general do not automatically set up people up for a host of maladies by virtue of their existence in the air we breathe.

It's not unlike my making the statement that

It is known medical fact that pollen as part of the local atmosphere predisposes people to allergies and respiratory illness in people.

Of course we can all agree that some folks are gonna be tearing up in April due to allergies and others will be weeping about later on due to hay fever but as a general statement it's wrong.

Steven bradford · Post by **Steven bradford** » Tue May 22, 2007 12:44 am

Burning man sucks. And blows.

Don't go.

wedeliver · Post by **wedeliver** » Tue May 22, 2007 8:26 am

although most of this info is on the preceeding page, I found the additional info worth posting.

Desert fever: A disease also called coccidioidomycosis (CM) due to a fungus called Coccidioides immitis. About 40% of people infected with this fungus develop symptoms. Most often they have an influenza-like illness with fever, cough, headaches, rash, and myalgias (muscle pains). Of those people with symptoms, 8% have severe lung disease requiring hospitalization and 7% develop disseminated infection (throughout the body).

Groups at high risk from the fungus include African-Americans and Asians, pregnant women in the third trimester, smokers, the elderly, diabetics and people with an impaired immune system.

Severe disease tends particularly to strike in HIV-infected persons. The mortality is high in HIV-infected persons with diffuse lung disease. CM meningitis can lead to permanent brain damage.

The fungus is in the soil in semiarid areas (primarily in the "lower Sonoran life zone"). The disease is endemic (constantly present) in the southwestern US and parts of Mexico and South America. Inhalation of airborne spores after disturbance of soil by people or natural disasters (such as wind storms and earthquakes) exposes people (as for example, construction or agricultural workers and archeologists) to the dust containing the spores. A mask helps but does not provide complete protection against the fungus.

The incidence of the disease was 15/100,000 in Arizona in 1995. Of persons living in areas with endemic disease, between 10% and 50% have been found to show a positive skin test to CM. In one outbreak, 35 church members from Pennsylvania traveled to Hermosillo, Mexico, where they stayed a week to build a church. Within 2 weeks of returning home, 27 of the travelers complained of flu-like symptoms and testing revealed exposure to the fungus that causes CM.

The disease is also known by a number of other names including Posadas disease, San Joaquin fever, San Joaquin Valley disease, San Joaquin Valley fever, and valley fever.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Tue May 22, 2007 11:16 am

I generally heard about it as "valley fever" and there seemed to be quite a spate of cases of it in Southern California in the early 1990's. Most of the cases seemed to be in Eastern portions of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties as well as in Arizona in the areas along the Colorado River. As you note, this is not cased by dust but by fungal spores that are blown about and inhaled. The spores then "hatch" (or whatever it is that spores do) and you end up with a fungal infection in the lungs.

I don't know how widespread the information is these days about it, but at one time there were quite a number of warnings about it in Southern California. It seems to be worse in years with certain weather conditions, but I can't remember exactly what those conditions were.

dana · Post by **dana** » Tue May 22, 2007 6:32 pm

Isotopia wrote:
Try Medscape.com
Find your own cites. I get sick of pouring over the specific studies for things that I actually do need to learn more on.
Hey Dana, sorry if that put a burr up your ass.

But if you're gonna make a sweeping generalization then you, me or anyone else doing the same should, as a minimum, be prepared to back it up with some valid point of reference - if queried - rather than asking a reader to take a sweeping, declarative statement as fact or that they go chasing down the rabbit hole for data that may or may not exist to buttress your claim.
.

mmm.... unique new anal sensations!!! Thanks Iso!

Sure you can make a rationalization of who should provide the cites for information that could be in question. Personally I think it makes more sense for the person who sheds doubt. Otherwise you run the risk of dumbing the discussion down too easily. And the other obvious problem is that some people seem to just throw that out all the time as some kind of pat response - cites!! It seems lazy to me, or even a little pissy - like that kid that we all seemed to know growing up who would always yell with the whiney voice - "PROVE IT!"
You don't know me, but I think I'm fairly careful on the information I present. For instance, I clearly state where the question areas are.
By the way, did you bother to go to medscape.com or are you refusing because I won't provide it for you? Hell even google works for a boatload of questions. Look up pnuemoconiosis and silicosis if you're really interested.
Seriously, I spend more time than I like trying to find the latest research on different topics. You wouldn't expect me to come over and clean your house if you didn't feel like it would you? (maybe with a burr up my ass??)

dana · Post by **dana** » Tue May 22, 2007 6:50 pm

....unless of course I'm talking about esoterics, spirtuality, altered states, or philosophy, in which case I'm gonna go way out on a limb. And there aint no cites there!!

Nick Collide · Post by **Nick Collide** » Tue May 22, 2007 8:16 pm

dana wrote:Sure you can make a rationalization of who should provide the cites for information that could be in question. Personally I think it makes more sense for the person who sheds doubt. Otherwise you run the risk of dumbing the discussion down too easily.

The perpetual student in me thinks that the Phds and assorted Academia of the world who publish in professional and academic journals would find your statement curious. Having written a number of papers for psychology classes, I was required to cite nearly every statement I put forth - and I didn't feel dumber for doing it.

But let's get back to that burr up the ass thing...

Nick Collide · Post by **Nick Collide** » Tue May 22, 2007 8:19 pm

helitack wrote:The only thing I am predisposed to is hangovers...

heli - It's all that alcohol in the atmosphere...

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Tue May 22, 2007 9:02 pm

' It seems lazy to me, or even a little pissy - like that kid that we all seemed to know growing up who would always yell with the whiney voice - "PROVE IT!"'

It prevents people making wild claims as if they are some kind of truth. If you are going to make a claim that playa dust is harmful in some way. I suggested you look at populations of people who spend a good portion of their lives exposed to it. People such as the inhabitants of Gerlach and Empire that are towns surrounded by the playa. And as you are on the road between Nixon and Gerlach you will notice dunes of dust that are regularly plowed out by the state road maintenance crews.

Rather than extrapolate that because exposure to certain particulates is hazardous then exposure to ALL particulates is harmful, people are asking you to justify your claim that playa dust is a potential hazard. As far as I know, in my conversations with people who have been attending BM for many years, the topic of any lung disorders due to playa dust has never been raised. Huge cement-like playa boogers, yes, but that is about it. Yes, I have known some people who were very sensitive to it but that manifested very quickly on exposure to it.

How many years have you been on the playa? Do you have a lung ailment? I am starting to suspect this is some kind of troll from the anti-burning man group in here again stirring up trouble where none exists.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Wed May 23, 2007 12:47 am

Turns out Valley Fever is caused by dinosaurs.

cite: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5045a1.htm

Sensei · Post by **Sensei** » Wed May 23, 2007 1:25 am

Personally, I don't think Dana is really a troll, it's just that he's from, you know, Boulder.

dana · Post by **dana** » Wed May 23, 2007 11:25 am

Sensei wrote:Personally, I don't think Dana is really a troll, it's just that he's from, you know, Boulder.

Oh sure. Rub my face in it!!

(Don't worry though. I spend enough time in some incredibly conservative backwaters that the programming starts to wear off. Hang out with my gun loving, conservative christian, republican "bomb the hell out of em" buddies - and it all starts to take on a more balanced perspective.)