Erionite: An Emerging North American HazardPosted on by
Erionite is a naturally occurring mineral that belongs to a group of silicate minerals called zeolites. It is usually found in volcanic ash that has been altered by weathering and ground water. Like naturally occurring asbestos, deposits are present in many Western states (see map).1 Erionite can occur in a fibrous form. Disturbance of this material can generate airborne fibers with physical properties and health effects similar to asbestos. For example, it has long been known that residents of some Turkish villages where erionite-containing rock was used to construct homes have a remarkably high risk for development of malignant mesothelioma.2
Until recently, erionite was not generally considered to be a potential hazard in North America, in part because relatively little risk for exposure was seen. However, evidence has slowly accumulated linking exposure to erionite with serious adverse health effects in North America, and suggesting that some workers may have a greater potential for exposure than previously recognized. The first North American with erionite-related lung disease was recognized in Utah and reported in 1981.3 He was a road construction worker who lived in an area rich in zeolite deposits. He had extensive parenchymal and pleural fibrosis and had a lung biopsy revealing the presence of both fibrous and nonfibrous particles which had compositions determined by energy-dispersive X-ray analysis to be consistent with erionite. In 2008, a mesothelioma cluster was described in the vicinity of a small village in a zeolite-rich region of central Mexico.4 The same year, 2 additional cases were reported from a neighboring Mexican state.5 One of them underwent lung biopsy and examination of tissue showed a high burden of erionite. In 2009, a mesothelioma case associated with pulmonary interstitial fibrosis, pleural plaque formation and substantial lung burden of erionite was documented in a man who had lived in Mexico and the United States.6 In 2011, the results of a study conducted in southwestern North Dakota were reported.7 The study was motivated by the realization that, since the 1980s, gravel pits had been excavated in areas containing erionite deposits and the gravel used to surface local roads and other areas. Ambient and activity-based sampling was performed and demonstrated the potential for airborne fiber exposures. Individuals with potentially high exposures were identified and underwent careful clinical evaluation. Two with histories of road maintenance work (one had also worked in a local gravel pit) were found with mild bilateral localized pleural changes with calcification and minimal unilateral and bilateral lower lobe interstitial changes that could only be seen by CT scan. Other than erionite, neither reported potentially causative exposures.
There are no regulatory or consensus standards or occupational exposure limits (OEL) for airborne erionite fibers. Development of a quantitative OEL awaits development of a standardized, validated exposure assessment method and quantitative evaluation of risks associated with given exposures. Still, The National Toxicology Program has designated erionite to be a known human carcinogen and a study by the U.S. Geological Survey found that erionite fibers from the Cappadocian region of Turkey, North Dakota, and Oregon were chemically and morphologically similar.8,9 Little is known about exposures currently experienced by US workers. However, erionite-related disease has most often been reported in road construction and maintenance workers with potential occupational exposures to erionite-containing gravel used in road surfacing. Also, one case had worked in an erionite-containing gravel pit (but had also been a road worker). Although it is reasonable to be concerned, erionite-related clinical disease has not yet been reported in other US workers engaged in activities that might crush erionite-containing rock or stir up dust in soils/gravel that contain erionite.
Erionite fibers only pose a hazard if they are disturbed and become airborne, and control recommendations should focus on reducing the potential for exposure to airborne erionite fibers. Activity-based breathing zone air sampling has confirmed that when gravels containing erionite are disturbed, erionite fibers can become airborne.10 Intensity of these exposures may vary due to a number of factors, including the weather conditions (damp vs. dry, windy vs. calm), the intensity with which erionite-containing materials are disturbed and the concentration of erionite in the gravels being disturbed. However, bulk gravel erionite concentrations alone are not a reliable predictor of air concentrations, as disturbance of gravels containing erionite in “trace” amounts (< 0.2%) can sometimes result in relatively high airborne fiber concentrations.
These data support the need to implement precautions to protect workers by limiting the generation and inhalation of dust known or thought to be contaminated with erionite. A reasonable approach based on current information would be to take precautions such as those described in existing guidance for working with asbestos (Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] 29 CFR 1910.1001). Existing recommendations for working in areas with naturally occurring asbestos may be particularly relevant to reducing outdoor occupational erionite exposures.11
Risk reduction recommendations to limit erionite exposures of workers who engage in activities that disturb erionite-containing gravel/soil or crush rocks that contain erionite can include:
- Training workers about the potential hazards of erionite and control methods for reducing the potential for exposure
- Knowing where erionite containing material is present and will be encountered prior to beginning any work
- Avoiding the use of erionite containing aggregate whenever possible
- Using wet methods to reduce dust generation for road and other work such as in quarries where erionite is present (e.g., when drilling rock, apply water through the drill stem to reduce airborne dust, or use a drill with a dust collection system)
- Limiting the number of workers who will be engaged in work with erionite
- Establishing decontamination protocols including change of clothing, showering before leaving the worksite, and appropriate cleaning/disposal of personal protective equipment
- Ensuring work clothing is not washed at home to prevent erionite fibers from being brought home on work clothes and boots
- Prohibiting dry sweeping, the use of leaf blowers, or the use of compressed air for cleaning
- Protecting employees with personal protective equipment, including respiratory protection. Note: An occupational safety and health professional should be consulted for specific guidance about the most appropriate personal protective equipment that should be used for the work being conducted.
- Prohibiting eating, drinking, or smoking in dusty work areas where erionite fibers may be airborne. Workers should move away from the work area for breaks and wash their hands and face before eating, drinking, or smoking.
- Establishing protocols for vehicle use on erionite containing roads (drive slowly, vents closed, windows up)
- Wet washing equipment and vehicle exteriors, and wet cleaning/High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter vacuuming of vehicle interiors.
- Following Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) procedures for proper dispose of waste and debris that contains erionite.
- Limiting bystander exposure by preventing visitors and coworkers from standing in work areas where erionite fibers may become airborne.
Although much remains to be learned about erionite in the US, airborne occupational erionite fiber exposures should be considered at least as hazardous as asbestos fiber exposures and similar preventive measures used. We look forward to working with our scientific colleagues to stay informed about further occupational health data relating to erionite as more studies become available, and we invite you to consider what scientific and technical questions you would have about this emerging occupational health issue.
Dr. Weissman is Director of the NIOSH Division of Respiratory Disease Studies.
Mr. Kiefer is Director of the NIOSH Western States Office.
- Sheppard R. Occurrences of erionite in sedimentary rocks of the western United States. Denver, CO: US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey; 1996. Open File Report 96�018.
- Carbone M, Baris I, Bertino P, Brass B, Corertpay S, Dogan A, Gaudino G, Jube S, Kanodia S, Partridge C, Pass H, Rivera Z, Steele I, Tuncer M, Way S, Yang H, Miller A (2011). Erionite exposure in North Dakota and Turkish villages with mesothelioma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108(33):13618-13623.
- Rom W, Casey K, Parry W, Mjaatvedt C, Moatamed F (1983). Health implications of natural fibrous zeolites in the intermountain west. Environ Res 30:1-8.
- Ilgren EB, Ortega Brena M, Castro Larragoitia J, et al. A reconnaissance study of a potential emerging Mexican mesothelioma epidemic due to fibrous zeolite exposure. Indoor Built Environ. 2008;17:496�515.
- Ilgren EB, Pooley FD, Larragoitia JC, et al. First confirmed erionite related mesothelioma in North America. Indoor Built Environ. 2008;17:567�568.
- Kliment CR, Clemens K, Oury TD. North american erionite-associated mesothelioma with pleural plaques and pulmonary fibrosis: a case report. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2009;2(4):407-10. Epub 2008 Nov 25.
- Ryan P, Dihle M, Griffin S, Partridge C, Hilbert T, Taylor R, Adjei S, Lockey J (2011). Erionite in road gravel associated with interstitial and pleural changes � an occupational hazard in Western United States. J. Occup Environ Med 53(8): 892-898.
- NTP-NIEHS. Report on carcinogens, twelfth edition (2011). Erionite. CAS No. 66733-21-9. [http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Erionite.pdf, accessed 11/4/11].
- USGS (2010). Chemical and morphological comparison of erionite from Oregon, North Dakota, and Turkey. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File Report 2010-1286.
- EPA (2007) Analytical results report; Dunn County erionite, Killdeer, Dunn County, North Dakota. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. EP-W-05-050
- ATSDR-CDC. Asbestos: for workers involved in activities that disturb soil or generate dust in areas with naturally occurring asbestos. [http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/noa/docs/Asbestos-workers.pdf, accessed 10/22/2011].
41 comments on “Erionite: An Emerging North American Hazard”
Comments listed below are posted by individuals not associated with CDC, unless otherwise stated. These comments do not represent the official views of CDC, and CDC does not guarantee that any information posted by individuals on this site is correct, and disclaims any liability for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on any such information. Read more about our comment policy ».
For the benefit of blog readers, please provide full citations for the 11 references cited.
Thank you for contacting us. At the time you posted your comment it was necessary to click on “Works Cited” under our signature lines to see the references. Now we have listed the full references in the blog to make it easier for readers.
Any way to get a listing of the sites referenced on the map or did I miss a hyperlink somewhere?
Thank you for you suggestion. The location of all sites listed on the map can now be found by clicking on the map. Specific locations for these sites are also available in reference #1.
I’m working with a newly charged ASTM D22.07 committee to develop analytical methods for erionite testing. I’ll be in Yellowstone (51 on your map) in August 2012. Anyone I can contact about getting some samples to test by our group? Thanks.
Thank you for your comment. We will contact you directly to discuss.
Would you be able to post these sites on Google Earth so we can get a better idea of where they are located and what to avoid?
Our intent was not to encourage people to avoid these areas, but to provide information about the US distribution of naturally occurring erionite deposits as reported by the USGS in 1996 so that employers and workers would be aware of the possibility of a potential for job-related exposure similar to that reported in North Dakota, where gravel used to surface roads came from a pit containing erionite. Those concerned about the possibility of occupational exposure to airborne fibers of such materials should consult with an expert familiar with the geology of their area and knowledgeable about the presence of erionite containing quarry pits.
No mineral is safe for you/us to inhale! Not one.
Yucca Mountain Project the proposed high nuclear repository (YMP) and Erionite In 2004, DOE employees at Yucca Mountain Project YMP complained of exposure to high levels of silica and erionite, a potent carcinogen, erionite were located in various veins at YMP This complain resulatt in a Congregational Hearing in Las Vegas, NV March 16, 2004. About 1200 employees or more were exposed were exposed to eironite they and had X-ray evaluation, but no CT or MRI were taken of these workers what is the medical outcome is unknown.
Figure 1. Congressional Hearing on Exposure to Silica and Erionite dust at YMP (Las Vegas Review Journal March 16, 2004)
There are additional health and safety concerns. During tunneling operations at Yucca Mountain Project the proposed high nuclear repository located 100 mile north of Las Vegas NV. YMP, waste contaminated with erionite was dumped onto the open ground and pose health risks for visitors, employees and the environment. The further use of tunnel boring machines and conveyor belts during tunneling operations would or had increased erionite air contaminant exposure spread within the tunnel. In the Environmental Impact Statement 2008 recommended use of use of “administrative control” to minimize exposure to erionite this method is impractical and is not used in asbestos abatement. Asbestos removal must use personal protection equipment (PPE) that includes respirators and protective clothing. Negative room pressure, and separate room for PPE change is used to prevent releases of asbestos contamination of employees and the releasing asbestos into the environment. The health and Safety precaution in the EIS�s are inadequate and posed health risk to workers and visitors.
Figure 2. OSHA Asbestos Disposal
Figure 3. Erionite Disposal At YMP site
Methods (OSHA.gov) (LV Review The EPA and OSHA have very stringent regulations for asbestos disposal, such as double bagging. Currently, there are no EPA or OSHA regulations for handling, disposal, and health and safety precautions for erionite, the only OSHA regulation applicable is 5 (a)(1).)
Given the map and sites listed as “occurrences of erionite,” I notice that many of these “sites” are identified as: drill holes. Please explain.
Are these “sites” actually locations where core samples were collected from borings? If so, just what is the hazard? If this material is not surficial or near surface…so what! I’ve identified galena, arsinate, tremolite, chrysotile, and cinibar, to name a few “hazardous” minerals, in core samples at drill sites. Given that these mineral were not surficical, there is no risk of inhalation.
Thank you for your comment; our intent was not to make a hazard determination but provide information about the US distribution of naturally occurring erionite deposits as reported by the USGS in 1996 so that employers and workers would be aware of the possibility of a potential for job-related exposure similar to that reported in North Dakota, where gravel used to surface roads came from a pit containing erionite. You are correct, erionite fibers only pose a hazard if they are disturbed, become airborne, and present a risk of inhalation.
Thank you for the data concerning erionite and its potentially causative exposures:the ideal objective is to preclude occupational exposure detrimental to the health …People working in heathful and comfortable environment are more productive…
Hundreds of thousands of tons of sand are being transported to the Eastern United States from the identified region for “fracking” of natural gas wells. The sand is then transloaded to trucks at various rail sidings with considerable sand dust being created. This sand is then transported to drilling site sand hogs for use in the drilling process. Considering the properties described above and the purpose of using this sand it seems possible. Do you have knowledge of these sands being derived from these erionite deposits?
Thank you for your question and for raising this as a potential occupational health issue. If sands are being derived from volcanic ashes in erionite-rich regions, it is possible that erionite could be present in some of these materials. However, currently available information does not allow us to determine if this is, or is not, the case. It has been documented that silica is present in fracking material. For more information on silicosis see the recent blog The Continuing Persistence of Silicosis.
we at Mesothelioma Lawsuits also discuss this threats in great details. its really alarming to have this kinds of hazards in our environment today and so we should act now or never.
My guess is that Site 14 near Shoshone refers to erionite in altered tuffs in the Tecopa lake beds, a place visited by thousands of geologists over the years. Should I reconsider taking my students out to examine these units? Unfortunately, I have distinct “dusty” memories of camping in the wash there on a few windy nights. It would be great to have some idea of the relative dangers associated with each of your numbered localities.
Thank you for your question. To answer it, we would need to have risk assessment information similar to that performed by EPA to assess environmental risks associated with naturally occurring asbestos deposits in California’s Clear Creek Management Area (see http://www.epa.gov/region9/toxic/noa/clearcreek/index.html ). We do not have similar risk assessment information about sites where erionite was found in rock samples in the 1996 USGS report (Sheppard 1996). Also, we do not have similar measurements of airborne erionite fiber exposures or knowledge of the potential for airborne erionite fiber exposures at these sites. Given that, it is not possible to estimate what, if any, transient exposure could occur from camping in the identified areas. As we discuss in the blog, the reported cases of erionite-related disease have thus far been in those with risks for high levels of exposure, such as those using contaminated gravel for road work or excavating such gravel from contaminated pits.
The following caption accompanies a map (and article) in the February, 2012 issue of EARTH magazine:
“Map of occurrences of erionite in sedimentary rocks of the western United States. Since the map was produced in 1996, erionite deposits have also been found in Washington. A full listing of the locations identified here can be found at [www.cdc.gov/niosh/blog/nsb112211_erionite-map.html].”
This url was no longer correct but linked to the page where this comment box is located.
My question? I don’t see where to access the full listing of the locations shown in the map. Instructions, please.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The map can now be found here: http://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2011/11/map-erionite/
We have added a redirector to the URL to fix the 404 error you encountered.
The USGS study references sedimentary rock-containing zeolites in their study. Zeoloites commonly are secondary minerals in volcanic rocks. Volcanic rocks are commonly used as roadbed and are ground up and applied as “sand” to roads during icey conditions. Do you have information on:
1) studies that have sought to determine the Erionite (zeolite) presence/absence in volcanic rocks? Eastern Washington and other western states have a lot of vesicular basalt with zeolites used in roadbeds.
2) groundwater/drinking water studies that evaluate Erionite (zeolite) concentrations? There are many aquifers and surface waters that are within or come in contact with zeolites. and
3) whether Erionite could pose a health risk if ingested (ie to the digestive system by drinking) rather than the respiratory system?
Thank you for your excellent questions. Unfortunately, there is still much to learn. The 1996 USGS study referenced in the blog is the only currently-available national survey for presence of erionite that we are aware of. Also, we cannot provide information about levels in the US water supply or risks related specifically to ingestion into the GI tract. Clearly, more research is needed on this topic. We hope the blog has increased awareness of this issue and will help to encourage additional studies.
Deposits of fibrous erionite are located in Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah. These zeolite beds may be up to 15 feet thick and may lie in surface outcroppings. Erionite fibers have been detected in samples of road dust in Nevada and U.S. residents of the Intermountain West may be potentially exposed to fibrous erionite in ambient air. In the summer of 2009 North Dakota began a study of possible erionite exposure among residents. Erionite has also been identified in samples from the Tertiary Arikaree Formation in southeast Montana and northwest South Dakota.
I have never been aware about the looks of erionite. I wonder if you can provide photo of what it look like.
Existing recommendations for working in areas with naturally occurring asbestos may be particularly relevant to reducing outdoor occupational erionite exposures.
Reallly nice post .. really informative
I reside approximately 7 miles from the #6 location in Arizona where erionite has been located and cited on the CDC website. I have been to this road cut where the sample was taken and I am very concerned about erionite because I live by a large Tuff deposit located on BLM land bordering my property. There is an old mine site (for Tuff) that is located near milepost 23 on Iron Springs Rd, between Skull Valley and Kirkland. There is a mining operation about to begin there to remove 42,000 tons of crushed Tuff left from an old mining operation. The old mine has not been in operation for approximately 28 years and many homes have been built around the area since its closure. There are also two elementary schools within 5 miles of this mine. If the concern is airborne, than it raises a red flag due to the high seasonal winds that blow through here: from the North in winter & from the South in summer and then erratic winds with seasonal storms and microbursts. Has anyone thoroughly tested this area of Tuff for erionite and if it is fibrous?
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, we cannot provide you with details about the nature of the erionite found in the Kirkland Junction area beyond that found in the 1996 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report authored by Richard Sheppard. As you probably know, the erionite habit for that deposit was said in the report to be “unknown.” You may wish to examine a subsequent update published by USGS investigators (Van Gosen et al 2013). Your area isn’t mentioned specifically in the paper, but might be mentioned in a supplementary Excel spreadsheet mentioned in the paper. You may wish to contact the Yavapai County Community Health Services Department, or the Arizona Department of Health Services and inquire if they have information about erionite in the tuff that is being removed. If fibrous erionite is present in the tuff, it will be important to take steps to limit exposures to airborne fibers. Regarding worker safety and health in areas where fibrous erionite may be suspected to be present, we generally recommend that prudent actions be taken to reduce dust generation and limit the number of workers who conduct dust-generating activities. The specific recommendations described in the NIOSH blog are good work practices that should be followed whenever dust exposure can occur, regardless of the presence/absence of erionite.
Looking for mapping of specific Carcinogenic Zeolite in South Dakota
No!! Don’t use risk assessment pursuant to EPA’s CCMA study. Nor CARB’s risk assessment for El Dorado County CA. Nor current risk analysis for Ambler Pennsylvania!! Nor any of ATSDR’s risk analysis for “asbestos”!
EPA’s CCMA measurements were excellent, with only a couple of glaring mistakes. Even better was BLM’s management of the area in the past where they would take employees out of service there once they had reached a hypothetical arbitrarily applied threshold of exposure. Which was the only sensible (sensible being a relative term when intentionally exposing employees to any mineral fiber) approach to environmental exposures. However, non occupational exposures (Environmental exposures) do not work in the way that occupational exposures work. The risk for mineral fiber exposure as expressed currently by ATSDR and EPA as a “continuous exposure to xf/cc over 70 years” is a mathematical construct aimed at lowering disease causation to a minimum….based upon “continuous” occupational exposures.
If you read the information from Karain, you will discover that no continuous exposure ever occurred there. No airborne Erionite was ever found in the air, that was not associated with a normal every day activity. Exposures there, as they will be at all Erionite deposits in the Western US were activity based, intimate, extremely variable in dose, “excursion” level exposures, as are all environmental “asbestos” exposures with the exception of Chrysotile.
The RfC and IUR for asbestos give a false sense of security to people who may be involved in excursion level exposures.
Since it appears that Tremolite causes disease at exposure levels at least 2 orders of magnitude lower than Chrysotile. Disease causation by Crocidolite is from even lower doses, and Erionite is the cancer causing grand daddy of all mineral fibers…just stay the heck away from it!! Nobody absolutely nobody knows how to control the number of fibers you may inhale. All parties are a great many years away from any risk communication of any value.
Find information on Mesothelioma Treatment Options forefront in our website, we are part of the World Community to Fight Mesothelioma Cancer.
Was there a mineralogist peer review of this article? First, there is no such entity as “naturally occurring asbestos,” though the term unfortunately has come into widespread use in the non-mineralogical community. Second, erionite is described here as a “naturally occurring mineral,” but all minerals are naturally occurring by definition and this modifier is quite redundant. Third, I take issue with this section: “He had extensive parenchymal and pleural fibrosis and had a lung biopsy revealing the presence of both fibrous and nonfibrous particles which had compositions determined by energy-dispersive X-ray analysis to be consistent with erionite.” Were the authors aware of the difficulty of identifying zeolite-group minerals, that crystal structure is an essential factor in zeolite determination, and most minerals, especially zeolites, cannot be positively identified by EDS? Fourth, this article does not mention that there are three species of erionite, each with either Ca, Na, or K as the dominant structural cation. I have seen photos of the prismatic colorless crystalline material that grows in basalt vesicles featured in articles describing the dangers of erionite, yet this is not the fibrous erionite that would be linked with inhalation risk. There are actually many other issues with the statements in this article, but they can be traced to a lack of understanding of the geology and mineralogy associated with zeolite formation in general and erionite occurrence in particular.
Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your obvious passion for this important subject! This is a web blog, not a peer –reviewed publication. However, we work hard to provide accurate information and the blog was reviewed by a geologist before posting. As you note, the term “naturally occurring asbestos” (NOA) is in widespread use. NOA “refers to the mineral as a natural component of soils or rocks as opposed to asbestos in commercial products, mining or processing operations. Naturally occurring asbestos can be released from rocks or soils by routine human activities, such as construction, or natural weathering processes” (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/noa/index.html). From the public health standpoint, it is a useful term and there is no general confusion surrounding this usage. Similarly, describing erionite as a “naturally occurring mineral” may seem redundant to an expert such as yourself, but it is useful information for the general reader. In their 1983 description of the first North American case of erionite-related lung disease, Rom et al. (reference 3 in the blog) noted: “He was a resident of an area rich in zeolite deposits, and was a road construction worker in the desert. Lung biopsy revealed both fibrous and nonfibrous particles which had compositions determined by energy-dispersive X-ray analysis to be consistent with erionite.” Rom et al. probably used the term “consistent with erionite” instead of just “erionite” and we used exactly the same words for the reasons that you described. Finally, describing the different species of erionite was beyond the scope of this short blog posting. However, for those who are interested, we are told by our resident geologist that the situation is complex, with erionites found in vesicular lavas more easily divided according to their major cation (Na, Ca, K) than sedimentary erionites, where cationic variation from particle to particle can be enormous.
I have grave concern regarding the high possibility of Erionite bearing tuff deposits being mined within our communities in Kirkland, Arizona which are located between the documented sites in Wikieup and Kirkland Junction in Richard A. Sheppard’s “Occurrences of Erionite in Sedimentary Rocks in the Western United States.”
I would be very pleased it I could hear from you, Dr. David Weissman or Max Kiefer as absolutely soon as possible. The exploratory phase of surface has already begun. I need to know if this site can be tested for Erionite to rule it in or out. I am aware of the complications of such a test regarding the interference that Clinoptilolite and Mordenite can raise as to the reflection making Erionite difficult to be detected.
Please refer me to someone, or how to get in contact with Richard A. Sheppard if possible. Please answer my e-mail personally so that this information from you will get to me for sure. Thank you so much.
Is Erionite necessarily found in all Volcanic Tuff Deposits?
I live near the documented deposit containing Erionite in trace to moderate amounts that lies 4 1/2 miles south of Kirkland Junction in Arizona.
My question to you is about the need for concern that a former Kitty Litter Mine in Kirkland is poised to reopen since being shut down in the mid eighties. There are 320 acres plus 46,000 tons of tailings from the kitty litter mining that are to be mined.There are eleven homes bordering with only fencing between the residences and the mine area, as well as two schools, two churches and several other residential communities within 5 miles of the site.
Having made myself thoroughly familiar with the information appearing in Richard A. Sheppard’s “Occurrences of Erionite in Sedimentary Rocks of the Western United States”, I am concerned that this site, being right in line with the Kirkland Junction site as well as the site in Wikieup containing Erionite, that the Kirkland Mine site too could
Interesting post about how Erionite can spread and cause malignant mesothelioma. You also made an interesting point with regards to how Erionite isn’t regulated and the specific cases of exposure and the lung biopsy showing the mineral is substantial for showing its effect on people.
I am from a very small town located in Guanajuato, Mexico and I’ve seen the effects of this mineral, every person that dies in this town is because a type of cancer, mostly lung cancer. It doesn’t matter if they are old or young the youngest person was around 23 years old, I’ve lost two family members because of cancer, and i am very concerned because people that moved out of this town end up developing cancer too.
My condolences for your family and friends’ illnesses & your losses. I have many family and friends in Guanajuato state and many of my clients have been considering moving to the area from here in the US. Can you please give the name of your small town or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org?
My name is Chris Connolly & I visited the Grand Falls in AZ Early March 2017 at a time the Falls were roaring & airborn spray was at an incredible level. After exploring & enjoying the the base of the Falls I came down immediately that evening with an illness. 24-36 hours later moving from headaches & dizziness to full infections in both ears, nose, throat & lungs. This was very concerning due to the fact that I had been in perfect health & had not been sick at all in over five years.
In addition, I noticed a suspicious odor & taste to the damp air & mist in the canyon at the base of the Falls
Thank you for your note and our condolences about your illness. Regarding the subject of our blog, potential exposure to erionite should not be considered as a possible cause of your illness. Erionite exposure will not cause acute symptoms, such as headaches or dizziness, or result in infections. Nor does erionite have an odor. If your symptoms persist we recommend you consult with your personal physician.
I have family and friends in central Mexico where erionite has recently come into discussions regarding health and water supply. I also work with clients who are considering relocation to Guanajuato state in Mexico where erionite has been found. There is someone spreading messages and posts online stating that erionite is making it dangerous to even shower in Guanajuato state due to erionite being in the ground water, drying on the surfaces of shower rooms & dishes then becoming airborne dust after the water is dried. I have yet to find any reliable scientific sources to back up this person’s claims. Can you please comment in regards to this type of danger from erionite? Thank you!
Comments are closed.
Post a Comment