Link between chalk usage and lung disease?

Blackboard chalk and gymnastic chalk are not the same thing.

I hate to be the broken record on the environmental reg stuff but just look up the PM 2.5 and PM10 standard. There is a reason they have indoor air filters at gyms. Long term exposure to small particulate matter, regardless of its composition (sawdust, pixie dust, candy, chalk, dust, smoke, stack emissions etc) is hazardous to your health. So this would be most applicable to the employees of gyms more than anything who are there 40 hours a week.

Climbing chalk is Magnesium Carbonate. It is considered food additive.
Here is MSDS info - https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/sds/SIAL/M7179
Looks like particulate level should be less than 3-5 milligrams per cubic meter ( appears to be generic limit on non-toxic particulates)

This study  - https://asac.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/DUST-EXPOSURE-IN-INDOOR-CLIMBING-FACILITIES.pdf measured particulate levels of 10 micron particles of 580 micrograms per cubic meter, roughly 10 times less than cut-off.

There is quite a bit of published material on dolomite dust, but that is NOT climbing chalk.

Edit - I am not implying that particulate contamination should be ignored - there are quite a few studies showing negative impact of particulate contamination on cognitive skills - these are much easier to measure due changing concentrations of particulates. I think climbing gyms should spend more money on filtering, and ventilation in general, especially in energy efficient air exchange systems. 

Seth Morgan wrote:

I hate to be the broken record on the environmental reg stuff but just look up the PM 2.5 and PM10 standard. There is a reason they have indoor air filters at gyms. Long term exposure to small particulate matter, regardless of its composition (sawdust, pixie dust, candy, chalk, dust, smoke, stack emissions etc) is hazardous to your health. So this would be most applicable to the employees of gyms more than anything who are there 40 hours a week.

 I hear you. My gut reaction is, anything in that particle size is bad, even if it is biologically inert. But some of the small particle stuffs are still worse than others bc they aren't entirely "biologically inert". It would be good to know that some chalk is worse than others, in terms of lung effect.  
And we don't have any real-world measurements of what additional exposure climbers get to that particle size, because of their chosen activity, as opposed to what they would get as regular people living in their city. I would also really like to get the real-world gym air quality measurements, say at peak evening time vs off-peak, and also a comparison of state-of-the-art new gym air quality vs dingy old-school shops.

I personally don't use chalk. Haven't used it for well over a decade. That includes liquid chalk. I do think that chalk is WAY overused. But I also know I'm in the minority on this.

20 kN wrote:

I agree, and consider the extremely serious nature, and severe disability caused by, obstructive chronic lung conditions, it certainly warrants a formal study. Plenty of rock climbers in academic fields. I am really surprised this hasent been studied by now considering there are millions of climbers. Add to the fact that chalk manufacture is unregulated and so no one really knows what other substances may be found in the chalk which could vary from company to company. 

The reason there has not been a study is because chalk usage by climbers for the past 50 years has been outside. Thus little chance for it to be concentrated in enough of a quantity to be of a concern. It has only been in the last 5-10 years that there been a proliferation of indoor climbing gyms where there is a significant concentration. Top out on a gym route and look at the build up on the support structures. It is pretty gross despite the ventilation. The bouldering mats are just as gross - look at the dust that rises when one falls. The people that should be concerned are those who work in a gym, they the the ones who have daily long term exposure.

God dammit...... I'm already worried about the massive amount of THC that enters my lungs and now I have to worry about this?!?!

amarius wrote:

Climbing chalk is Magnesium Carbonate. It is considered food additive.
Here is MSDS info - https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/sds/SIAL/M7179
Looks like particulate level should be less than 3-5 milligrams per cubic meter ( appears to be generic limit on non-toxic particulates)

This study  - https://asac.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/DUST-EXPOSURE-IN-INDOOR-CLIMBING-FACILITIES.pdf measured particulate levels of 10 micron particles of 580 micrograms per cubic meter, roughly 10 times less than cut-off.

Not sure where you got the “cut-off” from, but the EPA standard for PM10 is 150 micrograms/m3 averaged over 24 hours. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table

Bob Harrington wrote:

Not sure where you got the “cut-off” from, but the EPA standard for PM10 is 150 micrograms/m3 averaged over 24 hours. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table

Outdoor air quality (NAAQS for pm 10that you cite) is different than exposure limits. For PNOR (particles not otherwise regulated) there is an 8hr twa of 5 mg/m3 for respirable particulate and 15 mg/m3 for total particulate. 

Dylan McIntosh wrote:

Outdoor air quality (NAAQS for pm 10that you cite) is different than exposure limits. For PNOR (particles not otherwise regulated) there is an 8hr twa of 5 mg/m3 for respirable particulate and 15 mg/m3 for total particulate. 

Gotcha, thanks!

Lena chita wrote:

Suppose you wanted to run a study on chalk effect. How would you imagine this study? 

Well you could start at the most basic techniques which cost little money and are easy to do. Simply ask a shit load of climbers if they have any form of lung disease (or hell, any diagnosed medical condition at all) and account for their answers based on age and smoking status and compare it to the general population. Then you could easily get a large sample size of many thousands of climbers. That wouldent absolutely prove that climbing chalk causes lung disease, but it would show a correlation (or lack of) between climbing and lung disease which could be used as evidence to gather funding for more detailed study. 

Gymnasts used chalk long before it was adopted by climbers. I recall a lot of chalk dust in the air when I started in 1954. Although (modern) gymnastics began in the late 1700s, I have no idea when artistic gymnasts began using chalk. I would guess perhaps the late 19th century when the Olympic games were resumed; rope climbing was an event and the climb was a horrendous 45 feet, arms only in L-position. Only one athlete made it to the top. Doing that without chalking up seems improbable - though not impossible. 

Around 1800 there were 40 to 60 foot wooden towers with suspended ropes and cables in Hasenheide Park in Berlin. On Sundays young men would climb these lines, competing against one another. Did they use something on their hands? Tape or chalk or whatever?  

However, artistic gymnasts - unlike modern climbers - have a short gymnastics life span. By age thirty it is practically over for them (although there are a few exceptions). They are in the gym every day for, say, fifteen or twenty years, then retired. I don't know if there have been studies about the dangers of chalk in gymnastics. 

The mining of magnesite - in China in particular - has to present a health problem.

5Seven Kevin wrote:

God dammit...... I'm already worried about the massive amount of THC that enters my lungs and now I have to worry about this?!?!

It’s just the paranoia, chill.

Allen Sanderson wrote:

The reason there has not been a study is because chalk usage by climbers for the past 50 years has been outside. Thus little chance for it to be concentrated in enough of a quantity to be of a concern. It has only been in the last 5-10 years that there been a proliferation of indoor climbing gyms where there is a significant concentration. Top out on a gym route and look at the build up on the support structures. It is pretty gross despite the ventilation. The bouldering mats are just as gross - look at the dust that rises when one falls. The people that should be concerned are those who work in a gym, they the the ones who have daily long term exposure.

Gymnasts and weight lifters have been using the same kind of chalk for much longer than there has been indoor climbing. And look, someone has actually written something fairly smart about the health ramifications of chalk in that kind of gym environment. 

Andrew Rice wrote:

Gymnasts and weight lifters have been using the same kind of chalk for much longer than there has been indoor climbing. And look, someone has actually written something fairly smart about the health ramifications of chalk in that kind of gym environment. 

So I was right all along? Nice.

20 kN wrote:

I agree, and consider the extremely serious nature, and severe disability caused by, obstructive chronic lung conditions, it certainly warrants a formal study. Plenty of rock climbers in academic fields. I am really surprised this hasent been studied by now considering there are millions of climbers. Add to the fact that chalk manufacture is unregulated and so no one really knows what other substances may be found in the chalk which could vary from company to company. 

The problem is that a properly controlled prospective study design would be difficult, and the study might need to run for decades. You could potentially study gym climbers retrospectively. Perhaps one could simply do a retrospective analysis of older climbers, who have been gym rats for decades, but this approach is likely to miss those who quit climbing due to lung disease.
 It is a fascinating idea, and I suspect someone will take a crack at it.

Andrew Rice wrote:

Gymnasts and weight lifters have been using the same kind of chalk for much longer than there has been indoor climbing. And look, someone has actually written something fairly smart about the health ramifications of chalk in that kind of gym environment. 

The article brings up some reasonable points. However, the authors get a zero:

According to recent research, you both should and shouldn’t worry about negative effects from chalk dust in the air.

No reference to the recent research. So not that smart. That said, there is a difference between the indoor environment for gymnasts and weight lifters. Namely the number of people simultaneously using chalk at the same time. Further, where the chalk is being used. Gymnasts and weight lifters use chalk relatively close to the ground, climbers are not. Thus the chalk is suspended longer. 

Another old climber here (69). I've been exposed to a lot of air particulates in my life. I worked in a paper mill / printing plant 28 years and the air was thick with paper dust coated with the Rite-in-the-Rain Glidden paint formula. We also used to get very high on white gas cleaning our machinery, to the point where we'd stagger drunkenly to the door outside to sober up. They invented climbing gyms 23 years into my climbing hobby and I promptly began inhaling gravel floor dust, mixed with chalk. The sunlight streaming through those clouds of dust indoors was epic. 

Through it all I've had mild asthma that comes and goes. Just recently got a cat scan during a check up for long covid problems. My lungs are fine so far. I've never smoked. I'm definitely weaker walking up to the crag than my 30 year old friends, but that is just age.

I do hate breathing huge clouds of chalk when the wind blows it my way as me or someone is chalking up. It smells awful. There is no way that stuff is harmless.

I don’t think we need any long term and expensive studies to conclude chalk inhalation is bad for your lung and sinus health.

Chalk is a drying agent, your lungs/sinuses are wet, chalk comes in extremely fine particles from many climbing chalk brands, capable of clogging up your alveoli, climbers use significantly more chalk than any other comparable sport(weightlifting, gymnastics). Inertness doesn’t matter.

I started using Flonase recently and it had a drastic change on my ability to breathe through my sinuses which have been chronically congested since around the time I started climbing 13 years ago. I’ve been to an ENT and have no allergies to anything and no septum deviation. I’d imagine a full-lung steroid inhalation product would have a similar effect. I’m 31.

20 kN wrote:

Well you could start at the most basic techniques which cost little money and are easy to do. Simply ask a shit load of climbers if they have any form of lung disease (or hell, any diagnosed medical condition at all) and account for their answers based on age and smoking status and compare it to the general population. Then you could easily get a large sample size of many thousands of climbers. That wouldent absolutely prove that climbing chalk causes lung disease, but it would show a correlation (or lack of) between climbing and lung disease which could be used as evidence to gather funding for more detailed study. 

Have you ever tried doing a large-scale survey? It is not trivial time involvement to get “many thousands” of responses and analyze them.

And comparing to general population is not a trivial thing, either, because you don’t have an easy way of getting age-matched data for the general public. You also probably can’t just mix all climbers into one pot, without accounting for their location, because you would expect people from the more polluted cities to have higher baseline of lung-related complaints. We know it from the studies on air pollution for general population, but we don’t necessarily know how it breaks down for your cohort that is age-matched to climbers.

And then, of course, there is a very likely scenario that a 25yo dude filling out your survey has no complains NOW, but 25 year from now he would. So you need a prospective study.

I’m not saying it wouldn’t be nice to know. I’m just saying, with my background as a scientist, that it is very hard to “just study something I think is a good idea” without thinking where the funding for the study is going to come from.

Practical considerations like this often get in the way… It would be very hard to justify a study of one specific kind of indoor pollutant that affects a tiny minority of population. We already know that small-particle pollution is bad. 

This thread has it all.