Talk:Rockdust

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 May 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

adjusting pressures

pressure's up! Now slurf it! What a bunk use of slander. If any group aims for adjusting pressures beneficially it's folks attempting to help folks become aware of the vital role trace minerals and slow release dusts play in the chains of beings. At least leave the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_flour up there if you please. -- piet http://poetpiet.tripod.com

deletion

can somebody mark this page for deletion. it is a load of claptrap, a confusion between mineral nutrition and liming. It seems an unhealthy mix of science and pseudoscience, probably from the permaculture brigade. As a soil scientist I see no need for this webpage to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superruss (talk • contribs) 12:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite needed

"research claims that the benefits of adding Rockdust to soil include" ... That section should be deleted entirely unless it can be made much more specific about what type(s) of rock is involved. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed blatantly promotional content

Courtesy of the writer of the azomite article. This page looks as if it has been set up for the intent of promoting and cross linking to such pages, which are also tagged as COI-led commercial spam. Looking through this article to decide on relevant tags which should have been added years ago. Edaham (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC) (Additional) I have looked at this article's discussion at AfD, where the result was keep (2012). The basis for this keep decision was that google scholar returns 561 hits for "Rockdust fertilizer". I don't see any of these 561 sources being added to the article and I'll try to rectify that now, as well as reorganize some of the information. I will also take the bold step of removing un-cited material which has been left, unchallenged in the article for the last five years. Edaham (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sources - please add

you can edit this list directly

Agriculture
- Commercial sources
- Private sector agricultural depts
- Govt sector agricultural depts.

(due weight from RS seems to place emphasis on the use of this substance in mining safety and exposure hazards - lots and lots and lots of research focuses on this)

Mining
- https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/UserFiles/works/pdfs/2017-101.pdf
- https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/content/rockdustpartnership.html
- https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nioshtic-2/10000482.html
- https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/99-113/default.html
- https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/UserFiles/works/pdfs/hdlrdp.pdf
- https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=usagov&query=rockdust - returns lots of the above via a search of US govt. sites

end of editable list

A brief summary of the available info suggests that:

Rockdust in mining is massively important, noncontroversial and proven. There are government policies mandating its usage and lots of studies on how it works.
Rockdust in agriculture is akin to CAM for plants. There are lots of fantastic claims made by commercial sites about how you can use it. It's hard to find info from independent sources - (could be my China VPN issue) Edaham (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with what others have said...

- This article should be re-written to focus on rockdust as a way of preventing explosions in coal mines - Rockdust as fertilizer should be mentioned as a fad among hobby gardeners, but not taken seriously either by soil scientists or by professional farmers Foonarres (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree that this page focuses mainly on the usage in coal mines, but it could potentially be combined with the page "Rock flour," (which is listed as a synonym for rock dust), to list all the potential uses of this class of materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eviarengo (talk • contribs) 23:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Rock flour with Rockdust

Both articles mostly describe agricultural use (by length out of all uses), where there does not seem to be a useful distinction (and quite a bit of confusion in terminology) between human and glacier-ground rock other than the source rock type. Alternatively, we merge the ag parts only and throw on a {{For}}. Artoria 2e5 🌉 10:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done by purpose-splitting. The stuff moved away will still need to be trimmed though. It's not like this becomes none of our problem once we move it off the page. Artoria 2e5 🌉 11:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]