talc and asbestos

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

O.K. Talc and asbestos are both silicates. This I know. But, if they are so similar, what is it about asbestos that is so hazardous to your health? Just curious, dontcha know.
P.S. I checked the archives, did a search, etc. and came up empty, so if there is a specific site anyone could guide me to if they don’t feel like answering I would appreciate it.
Thanks.

“God I hate my job”-Me

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Google. “Asbestos FAQ”. 10,900 hits.

Hit #1.
http://www.oklaosf.state.ok.us/~okdol/asbestos/asbestos10.htm
Hit #2.
http://www.epa.gov/r02earth/epd/ques_ans/asbfaq.htm

Total elapsed time: about 20 seconds.

http://www.google.com

[Yossarian]

First, Talc is a mineral; Asbestos is a general term for a group of minerals. Talc and the most common form of asbestos (chrysolite) are both not just silicates, but phyllosilicates–or “sheet silicates”, like micas. The most dangerous common form of asbestos is crocidolite, which is simply asbestiform riebeckite. Riebeckite is an amphibole, all of which are inosilicates–or “chain silicates”. I believe that it’s the long, fibrous chains that pose the risk; the more molecularly “platy” talc and chrysolite are relatively benign.

From the Manual of Mineralogy by C. Klein and C.S. Hurlbut:

About 90% of the past and 95% of the present [1993] world production of asbestos was or is the chrysolite form. This is known as “white asbestos.” The remaining 5% of world production consists of crocidolite (the asbestiform variety of the amphibole riebeckite), known as “blue asbestos”. Other types of asbestos are of little economic importance.

Over the last several years there has been much attention given…to the health hazards posed by asbestos. In such reports, no distinction is made between the various asbestos types… Medical studies on the pathogenicity of the different forms of asbestos show that “blue asbestos”…poses a much greater health hazard…than chrysolite.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

Thanks for the responses.
P.S. DDG, so I’m a lazy incompetent bastard. I’m also kinda new to the net, so cut me a little slack, would ya?

[Sue_Duhnym]

Well, talc IS dangerous.

Cites:

http://www.howtopreventcancer.com/cpc/alerts/talc.htm

Talc is closely related to the potent carcinogen asbestos. Talc particles have been shown to cause tumors in the ovaries and lungs of cancer victims. For the last 30 years, scientists have closely scrutinized talc particles and found dangerous similarities to asbestos. Responding to this evidence in 1973, the FDA drafted a resolution that would limit the amount of asbestos-like fibers in cosmetic grade talc. However, no ruling has ever been made and today, cosmetic grade talc remains non-regulated by the federal government. This inaction ignores a 1993 National Toxicology Program report which found that cosmetic grade talc, without any asbestos-like fibers, caused tumors in animal subjects.1 Clearly with or without asbestos-like fibers, cosmetic grade talcum powder is a carcinogen

Here’s more from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/14807966.html

[Sue_Duhnym]

I should add that I found that stuff with http://www.google.com also.

BTW, everything I’ve read recently says that you should seriously avoid baby powders with talc as the child can inhale it.

Cornstarch has replaced talc in most (if not all) baby powders now.

[Akatsukami]

*Originally posted by Sue Duhnym *
**Well, talc IS dangerous.

Cites:

http://www.howtopreventcancer.com/cpc/alerts/talc.htm

Talc is closely related to the potent carcinogen asbestos. Talc particles have been shown to cause tumors in the ovaries and lungs of cancer victims. For the last 30 years, scientists have closely scrutinized talc particles and found dangerous similarities to asbestos. Responding to this evidence in 1973, the FDA drafted a resolution that would limit the amount of asbestos-like fibers in cosmetic grade talc. However, no ruling has ever been made and today, cosmetic grade talc remains non-regulated by the federal government. This inaction ignores a 1993 National Toxicology Program report which found that cosmetic grade talc, without any asbestos-like fibers, caused tumors in animal subjects.1 Clearly with or without asbestos-like fibers, cosmetic grade talcum powder is a carcinogen

**

We should note, of course, that “tumor” and “cancer” are not synonymous terms. Talc granulomas (a granuloma is essentially a reaction to a physical, foreign body) have been well known for decades.