From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mineral fibers[edit]

There are currently some 80, plus or minus, known natural occurring mineral fibers. This is probably an exhaustive number with the likelihood of increasing that number by much being unlikely. Unless sub categories of these 80 some fiber types are established. In addition chemical mineral make up allows for fibers such as Tremolite to be considered either as fibrous or non fibrous. Also the Tremolite Actinolite solid state solution, is made up of five fiber types, not two, each differing by one atom. Winchite differs from this solid state solution by one half of one atom. Complicating factors arise in that many of these fibers take on differing aspects when found as weathered fibers or found as non weathered fibers. In my mind this weathered aspect having introduced the completely useless term of "friable" into the lexicon of "asbestos". The selection of 6 mineral fibers to be known and regulated as "asbestos" certainly had something to do with the commonality of these fibers, but today can be thought of as a completely arbitrary decision. Each of these fiber types have different chemical properties, different health consequences, different behaviors (for example fibrous Tremolite remains airborne for far less time than does Chrysotile). The most dangerous of these 80 fiber types for human mesothelioma is a fiber known as Erionite, which remains unregulated notably in the United States and generally around the world. Erionite with a mesothelioma rate in excess of 50% of a given population, is by far one of the most deadly chemical structures our natural world manufactures. The word "asbestiform" if used to delineate between fibrous and non fibrous identical chemical structures, seems the only appropriate use of that term to me. Better staying with the terms "fibrous" or "non fibrous". The word "asbestiform" introduces a near mystical aspect into the study of "asbestos", which as seen from the natural occuring complexity presented above, is not needed. TTrent —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:19, 5 June 2010


How long has it been since asbestos has had to be removed

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asbestos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


I have completely rewritten the introduction, adding proper references, and deleting repeats of information. The introduction was before a conglomeration of copied and pasted paragraphs with dead citations and formatting errors. I haven't really changed the content of the introduction much, but added a few new things of interest in. I know some people were editing the page at the same time so I'm very sorry if I overwrote any of your changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oward98 (talkcontribs) 21:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The lead is at a proper length now and should go into a decent amount of essential detail, but mentioning examples is too much detail. ɱ (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

After a complaint of too much detail and a specific mention to the UK, I have removed those details.~~Oward98~~

@Oward98: I appreciate you trying but I think it's best to have it at this version. Your text simplifies the wording too significantly, removes wikilinks and some references, removes some essential specificity, etc. ɱ (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
What would you want to add or remove to that version? Human deaths per year? I can add that back. Anything else? ɱ (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that there are many things wrong with the old introduction, which is why I edited it into a fresh one rather than changing it slightly:

1. Why does it mention ‘asbestiform habit’ and then continue to define what that means in the very first sentence. It should say what it means, or simply say asbestiform habit, and be done with it. For me, most people reading this article are not going to be familiar with the definition of habit. So the meaning of asbestiform habit should be used rather than making reference to its name, and then saying ‘i.e. etc etc’

2. The first sentence mentions six minerals. The second sentence then only mentions four. What happened to the other two? I understand that only four have ‘colour’ names, but this is surely more ambiguous than it needs to be in the first paragraph. I don’t think the first paragraph should really be mentioning any of them by name.

3. As referenced by myself, asbestos has been used since the Stone Age (750,000 years ago) rather than 4,000 years ago. The reference here mentions 4000 BC rather than 4000 years ago, that is, 6000 years ago. Looking up papers on when asbestos was first mined gives various dates and so it’s perhaps better to mention the more accepted Stone Age date than the various mining dates.

4. You say my introduction was too long by containing a few examples of asbestos use. The whole second paragraph is a list of examples of its use.

5. The last paragraph makes reference to the case of the litigation in the US. Why? My introduction was supposedly too UK-centric by mentioning that even the House of Commons UK contained asbestos, which you are perhaps right about, and so I removed it. But this reference to mass tort in the US has no place in an introduction. The first sentence is also written a bit poorly.

However the references on this introduction are much better - I intended to change my references after doing some research. But most people don’t read the references, they read the introduction. So the introduction’s text is much more important than the quality of references (so long as good references can eventually be found). Oward98 (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The lead should summarise content which is in the body of the article and as such the references should generally appear in the body of the article rather than the lead itself. Also there should be nothing in the lead which is not present in the body of the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for details of what goes to make a good lead. Keith D (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  1. Habit is linked to a full definition of what it is. This Wikipedia uses a mix of technical terms with wikilinks so unfamiliar readers can still understand. The Simple English Wikipedia is more the place to remove these technical terms.
  2. The color aspect is a good point that I'll change.
  3. The Stone Age lasted 3.4 million years, so the lede should have precision. Most sources say about 4,000 years ago.
  4. The second paragraph makes brief mentions of the many unique qualities of asbestos, which help the reader understand why it was so valuable in construction and its other uses.
  5. The last paragraph introduces the article Asbestos and the law, a very notable issue with asbestos. You can try rewording things, but the fact that this massive legal fight is this long-lasting worldwide (especially in the US) is very different from mentioning the UK parliament has asbestos (as do many/most buildings from that time).
Best, ɱ (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)