• @halvar@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1510 months ago

    Not being allergic to finely graded rocks that have been bathing in radiation for billions of years seems more unlikely.

    • @cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6510 months ago

      It’s sand that has never been exposed to water or oxygen. This leaves various reactive chemicals on the surface that would normally be broken down. The lack of water also means the particles haven’t been smoothed off as much. They are sharp and spiky.

      The combination of these effects makes the dust quite unique, compared to earth dust.

    • @Umbrias@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Sand, but sharp due to a lack of water erosion, and formed mostly from asteroid impacts and thermal cycling. So it’s more like glass dust. It’s possible it has similar effects on lungs as asbestos, but we don’t know for sure.

  • JoYo 🇺🇸
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3510 months ago

    I’m pretty sure everyone is allergic to having their skin and lungs rubbed with mica.

    • verdare [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      910 months ago

      Yeah, moon dust is basically microscopic shrapnel. No one should be breathing that shit in.

  • @Raxiel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1310 months ago

    So, if someone were to crash the moon into the earth to stop it escaping, as many as 1/12 of the population could experience a reduced quality of life?

    Might need to consider not doing that I suppose.

  • @Windex007@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The sample size is at least a little bit bigger…

    Some guy stole moon rocks (presumably still had moon dust on them) to bang his gf on them.

  • @xkforce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2510 months ago

    Moon dust is functionally a lot like asbestos. It is composed of a sizeable amount of tiny shards of rock that aren’t great for your lungs.

  • Grubberfly 🔮
    link
    fedilink
    English
    510 months ago

    what’d be the smallest sample size that would yield a relevant result?

    30? 1000?

    • @flora_explora@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Well, if humans were a homogeneous population maybe that could work. But just imagine the huge number of factors at play here. Like, demographics, cultural background (different exposures & different allergy rates in general I would guess), genetic susceptibilities, individual lifestyles (e.g smoking) and probably a lot more! Even a sample size of 1000 seems pretty small to test for general human allergy rates to moon dust. If you were talking about just one population of humans, e.g. the US, you would certainly need more than 30 but maybe not 1000.