 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Silicosis.
|
 | A fact from Silicosis appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 November 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 26 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Washburn.Mike (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Zpeditor.
Removing these from the list of experimental treatments: “Chinese Herbal Kombucha[20] The herbal extract tetrandrine may slow progression of silicosis.[21]”
20 is not a reputable journal. 21 was twenty years ago and I’ve found no other papers on it in my brief search to lead me to believe this is still an area of active research.
The other experimental treatments still require sourcing. Revert if you think they’re appropriate, but I don’t think either of those belong here.2601:640:4100:4C70:C13A:9C32:A338:45B8 (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this section from Pathology:
"There are now many drug dealers selling cannabis sativa and indica (skunk) it has a gritty coating easily detectable if you roll a bud in your fingers or chew a twig you can feel easily the crystalline coating. The reason for such adulteration is to gain extra weight it does not affect the potency. Please refrain from buying such weed as the only way to combat it is to bycott it."
It does not appear to be related to the Pathology of Silicosis.
However the information may be relavant to the topic. The nature of the 'gritty vcoating" or "crystalline coating" and its relation to Silicosis would need to be described.
-Synapse001 13:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. A recent anonymous edit removed reference to silicosis being a form of pneumoconiosis.
Thanks. Theriac 15:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted this part because it's off topic: , and at 45 letters it is the longest word in any of the major English dictionaries. (The name has been described as a "trophy word"—its only job is to serve as the longest word.[1]) Ste nohype (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same term for this condition and I think should be merged here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed this section entirely as trivia. This is an article about a lung disease, and sources should be from the medical literature. The fact that there is a Journal of Things Made Up In School One Day does not justify putting them here. 69.107.204.78 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong, but it looks to me that in "Diagnosis", the word "mode" should be "more".
What about Kexiping for the treatment of silicosis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.252.96 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the sentence:
Furthermore, the surface of silicon dust can generate silicon-based radicals that lead to the production of hydroxyl and oxygen radicals, as well as hydrogen peroxide, which can inflict damage to the surrounding cells.
as it does not make sense chemically to speak of silicon here. If it is indeed silica dust that can generate silicate-based radicals (which would surprise me), and a sound chemical reference can be provided, the sentence can be reinstated, with the corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrdubwd (talk • contribs) 15:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the reference to alpha quartz. It refers to the low temperature phase (stable below 573 °C), and this reversible transformation is prompt and unavoidable. There is no other form at low temps. Hrdubwd (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in article. 86.179.191.90 (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some mention of this should be present, as causative agents? 24.244.32.157 (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't dust masks be mentioned? 104.162.197.70 (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asthama 223.196.172.202 (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A small addition but it might be useful to place a link to OSHA's 'Table 1' with a brief description of what it is and it's purpose as part of the updated standard from 2016. Washburn.Mike (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References
The first edit saying silicosis is 100% preventable is quite the claim. I went through and looked at your linked article and didn't come to quite the same conclusion as you. I would put some sort of stipulation before such a bold claim like "if proper safety procedures are followed and... silicosis is almost always preventable".
In the "Prevention" paragraph, I really liked the clarifying additions that you made. I can see how the edits really made the paragraph more understandable. Considering this is a public health issue, you might even consider putting in a quick plug for the hierarchy of controls at the beginning of that paragraph. It might help the reader better understand why those preventative measures are in the order that they are.
I like the addition of the link between silicosis and 9/11 first responders. I would suggest adding a bit more info on how they might have been exposed to crystalline silica (simple as mentioning that it was the dust that contained metals and other toxicants).
At the beginning of the first paragraph under "KEY PROVISIONS" I would add what the previous PEL/TLV for respirable crystalline silica was. Since this was such an important thing that happened it would be nice to know what it was at before the change.
"The standard also provides requirements for cleaning up the slurry left behind in types of scenarios." The end of this sentence feels a bit off. I recommend changing the wording just a bit. Maybe with "different types of cutting operations" or something similar.
Your final paragraph feels like it should be split into two different paragraphs. Right where it says "as part of the updated standard".
Overall, I think you did a great job adding information that had been left out and new information. I liked your little edits and I think they helped the original article read a lot smoother. Well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zpeditor (talk • contribs) 07:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
