Talk:Sawdust

Ash hazard when used as fuel
Some engineers such as Diesel engine can combust sawdust directly (or mixed with fuel) and power your machines, though the ash - which makes a good fertilizer if scattered thinly over a forest from an airplane to replenish the trace-minerals, but dumped into high concentration local pits - can cause an even worse environmental issue. Sillybilly 19:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hydroponic Use of Sawdust
Canada has used its cheap supply of sawdust as a medium for hydroponic industry to rasie strawberries and tomatoes. Warning: for logs that have been transported in ocean water, the salt needs to be leached out to make the sawdust useable. Note: red cedar cannot be used as it is toxic to plants.

Sawdust is one of several media that is used in column culture, where the medium is placed in a column that has openings space along the sides where crops like strawberries and tomatoes can grow. Nutrient fluid is driped or pumped from the top, and collected at the bottom for reuse. Occasional adjustments on the nutrient fluid must be made. 71.114.182.236 (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

no helpful info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.112.68 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Book: Saw-Dust by Leonard Sargent
Saw-Dust by Leonard Sargent was so named because a many of the true tales involve lumberjacks and the impact of timber operation at the turn of the twentieth century. Sawdust is the by-product of cutting timber. Sawdust was used to absorb grease, to clean locomotive engines, to soak up spills on saloon floors and as compost.

This book follows the Sargent family from Vermont in 1860 as they move to Wisconsin. Life was different before there were highways, radio or television, but certain elements of business, economics, politics, religion and education remain the same. Along the way, the family improves its situation by moving from general labor to lumberjacks, to owning farms, to running saloons and operating hotel owners. They also become intertwined with the local lumber baron, W. D. Connor who was the Lieutenant Governor of Wisconsin. Sawdust1885 (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC) < Saw-Dust by Leonard Sargent >

Filler
Add glue and you've got woodfiller. Often used.

Also wood particle and plastic composite materials are becoming more popular. 82.31.207.100 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

YEAH I DID THIS WITH MY DAD ONCE LOL   IM   VEGETA254  22:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge (2012) in from Wood dust
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Yup, not grow much. --Bejnar (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummmm... can I ask why you feel that way?--Coin945 (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 and Dust explosion articles. --Bejnar (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 CaCO 3, 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 Article titles a Wikipedia policy, not a guideline, for the questions that should be asked about a title.. --Bejnar (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Merge per KarlB. Insufficient notability to warrant its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

Oga coal
On 31 January 2012‎ Buster7 added a section entitled "Oga coal", without any documentation as to source, except the enigmatic translated and transferred. It read in full ''Oga (sawdust) coal, Ogalan, is produced by compressing and molding sawdust under heat into charcoal. Oga coal is uniformly shaped machine-made charcoal. There is a general low awareness of Oga coal and they are often mistaken for charcoal briquettes.'' There are several problems with these statements: (1) I have found no reliable source documenting use of the term "oga coal". (2) The Japanese term is ogatan (オガ炭), not ogalan, and it means charcoal briquette. (3) Charcoal briquettes are made from sawdust and have been since their invention, see citation in the article's text. (4) The only difference between Japanese charcoal briquettes and American or European charcoal briquettes seems to be the shape. Buster7 seems to have based his material on a poor translation of the Japanese Wikipedia article on charcoal briquettes, ja:オガ炭. Apparently some traditional charcoal-grill restaurants in Japan had started using briquettes instead of real charcoal. Anyway, based on the above mentioned problems, I have deleted the section in its entirety. The picture of ogatan existed in the article before Buster7's edits, and serves as a reasonable example of one of the many uses of sawdust, so I have left it in place. --Bejnar (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Wood dust once again
There's currently a draft on wood dust at WP:AFC, apparently written by an expert, well-sourced and very detailed. It is in fact longer than this article, but it's currently stuck in limbo because this article counts as an article on wood dust and we won't create a content fork. The author vehemently argues against a merger; see the discussion at the help desk. He does have a point; wood dust, the particulate matter, is not the same as sawdust, the stuff used on barroom floors or for particle board. Therefore I suggest splitting this article again, with the draft as the basis for the separate article on wood dust. If there are no objections, I'll work on that in a few days. Huon (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * wow. that was some serious snark. Having read through his article, I'm afraid I must agree with your original assessment; this new material (which is good) should be merged. Another option is to have two articles - one called sawdust, and another on Health and environmental impact of wooddust (or similar, since in that case for a purely technical article, the more technical term would be more appropriate); the sawdust article can have the so-called mom&pop stuff, as well as the more detailed technical description of the various particle sizes for wood dust, etc and how it gets created. Also, his assertion that the pros only use wood dust is not true- see this ; there are many articles there that use the word sawdust in the context of health issues, talking about sawdust inhalation, etc. But these are still, no matter what his claim, basically two words for essentially the same concept. I understand his point that in certain technical literature, wood dust is used to mean sawdust made up of small particles, but in common usage outside the technical literature these terms are frequently used one for the other, and sawdust is clearly the more common term. Consensus may change, and in the future the article may be moved to wood dust, but for now a merge makes sense, or a split focused on the item (e.g. sawdust), how it's made, and how it's used, and then a second article, linked from the first, on environmental and health impacts of same. --KarlB (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sawdust. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060428075135/http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/SO05/indepth/environment.asp to http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/SO05/indepth/environment.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge (2019) from Wood flour
Just as wood dust was merged here in 2012, wood flour should also merge here. Wood flour covers the same material, with less detail. The uses of wood flour is covered here already, since it is the same thing -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge - Wood flour as a term is used to refer to sawdust and does not merit its own article. Terasaface (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

"макулатура"
"мозговое вещество" .. ))) 🙀🤸🤕 🛌 85.140.9.69 (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge from Health impacts of sawdust
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 ", which are merely redirects to the item. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Oppose. The article has been expanded substantially and warrants its own page.
 * -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)