The deal with Dolomite

By Ricardo E. Escanlar III

(Atty. Ricardo Escanlar III is a faculty member of the College of Law of the University of San Agustin. He is also a geologist by training with extensive industry experience)

The joke among geologists is that we only find ourselves in the news when something bad happens. When a disaster strikes, such as an earthquake, volcanic eruptions, or landslide, geologists find themselves being interviewed by reporters. However, when things are normal, we are for the most part forgotten unless someone mistakes us for a geodetic engineer.

And then came the Manila Bay “dolomite beach” issue. Which, some might argue, is also a bad thing that happened, but we’ll get to that later.

This is a primer on dolomite- because, admit it- you never heard of it prior to it being dumped in the shores of Manila Bay. And I’ll explain some basic geology stuff along the way.

So, what is dolomite, exactly?

Dolomite, from a strict mineralogical standpoint, is the mineral CaMg(CO₃)₂. Now the term “dolomite” is sometimes also used to refer to rocks which primarily contain the mineral dolomite. Now, you might ask, what’s the difference between a rock and a mineral? Rocks, generally, are made up of different kinds of minerals. Think of rocks as the pizza, and minerals as ingredients like mushrooms and pepperoni.

Consequently, these dolomite-containing rocks are sometimes also referred to as “dolostone”, in contrast to the better-known limestone, which are rocks predominantly made up of calcium carbonate (CaCO₃). And limestone is the primary ingredient of cement and concrete, but dolomite rock/dolostone may also be used occasionally.

Next, is dolomite rock/dolostone harmful?

To answer this, let’s review some earth science. The two most common elements in the earth’s crust are oxygen and silicon, which make up silica (SiO₂). Silica could be found on most rocks, and in beaches in the form of sand, and could be found in homes in the form of glass and also as an ingredient in cement and concrete. It’s literally everywhere.

Silica, in its rock form, is harmless. Silica, in its sand form, is also harmless. We deal with silica just about every day in our life. However, silica, in respirable dust form where it can enter the lungs, may cause silicosis, a disease which causes scarring to the lungs.

Again, because silica is ubiquitous, a small percentage of it may be found in dolostone. However, it is submitted that since the particles in the “dolomite beach” in Manila Bay are sand-sized, the probability of getting silicosis from there is negligible, just like the probability of getting it from any sandy beach anywhere in the country is negligible. Meanwhile, people who work with and are exposed to silica in dust form, such as construction workers and masons, are more vulnerable to silicosis and should be given more attention.

That being said, the timing of setting up this project during a pandemic is rather questionable. And to invest money in a project that will only be literally washed away is also questionable by geological- or any- standards.

So, another question is, why would the “dolomite beach” be washed out, unlike other beaches where waves keep crashing but the sand never disappears?

The answer is that other beaches like Boracay are surrounded by bodies of water full of corals and microscopic organisms called foraminifera that eventually wash up ashore and naturally replenish the beach. Manila Bay does not have that geomorphological and ecological setting, and as such cannot naturally replenish its beach. Therefore, any sand put in can be expected to be eroded by a strong wave or typhoon. Engineering measures such as barriers may be set up to mitigate the erosion, but that would ruin the aesthetic and defeat the intended purpose of beautification, and would also serve to highlight the inherent futility of the project.

Now, the next question is- what happens to the washed out dolomite sand? Could it have possible adverse effects to the ecology?

The general rule of thumb is that any non-natural addition to the environment will have a corresponding effect to the organisms living there, and the effect could be substantially adverse. The Manila Bay, while not exactly the most pristine of waters, is still home to a considerable number of flora and fauna, and any unnatural human intervention may have a negative ripple effect to the ecosystem. So while humans may not be at risk because of the project, other living creatures may be.

If anything, this Manila Bay project highlights the fact that science often takes a backseat in government policymaking. One might recall the incident where a certain high-ranking official accused scientists who voiced out their dissent of the project of being essentially mercenaries, of which I jokingly said that the incident showed why people like me leave the world of science and enter the legal profession instead. Not that lawyers are particularly highly-regarded or even safe in these times, but that’s a topic for another article.

But as we also say in scientific circles, every outcome is an opportunity to learn, no matter how bad it may be. Thus, we might as well use this issue as a learning tool so we can hopefully improve our policymaking decisions in the future.