|
|
|
|
|
by jaclaz
2173 days ago
|
|
Maybe you are confusing (or I am not understanding) concrete dust with cement dust. Concrete dust should be the result of demolition of concrete (already hydrated when it was cement to form the concrete, i.e. post exothermic reaction). But, allegedly, the concrete surfaces (not reduced to dust) exposed in the Biosphere2 was sequestering both CO2 and oxigen, and - at least in that case - the "solution" was a supplement of oxygen, so maybe the concrete (not cement) dust uses both CO2 and oxigen while basalt only or mainly uses CO2? Also, whether it is basalt or concrete dust, wouldn't this treatment alter the pH of the soil? (at least here historically where there is an excessively acid soil it is often corrected with additives like calcium carbonate or similar). |
|
altering the PH can be desirable or harmful depending. thats where the 'get a soil agronomist into the convo' comes in.
from memory, there can be a significant non-bound component of concrete, and it can persist for years. so I accept there is a continuing risk of aggregation of the dust, because it doesn't completely process in immediate time-frame of the pour (I am told that the hoover dam continued to bake off for years afterward)