this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
133 points (98.5% liked)
Australian News
551 readers
22 users here now
A place to share and discuss news relating to Australia and Australians.
Rules
- Follow the aussie.zone rules
- Keep discussions civil and respectful
- Exclude profanity from post titles
- Exclude excessive profanity from comments
- Satire is allowed, however post titles must be prefixed with
[satire]
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australia
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Banner: ABC
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Silicosis can come from a wide variety of sources, basically anything where stone dust occurs can produce it, even natural stone countertop manufacturing has long been known to be dangerous in that regard.
This whole ban feels more like populism than addressing the real problems. Engineered stone has become a popular material, lots of people have worked with it with insufficient safety precautions and now there's a number of people permanently disabled by it.
Simply banning engineered stone won't solve that problem, since it will now just happen with other materials.
You wouldn't generally get all federal and state governments signing on to something that is just 'populism'.
Engineered stone is more dangerous than natural stone because it contains much more silica, and so it has resulted in an acute accelerated form of silicosis: https://www.medicalrepublic.com.au/why-silicosis-is-on-the-rise-and-what-to-do-about-it/24559
The underlying point has some validity though. Many materials contain silica, even tiles, although not the same amount. Here are some other examples.
The cancer council of Australia says "there is currently no evidence to suggest a safe level of silica dust exposure".
If there is no safe level of silica, then by extension presumably this would rule out many other products containing silica.
There are mitigation strategies, however they seemingly weren't good enough for engineered stone, and presumably again by extension many other materials high in silica.
It's just not clear to me why engineered stone is banned but many other materials potentially high in silica are for choice of better words let off the hook.
As someone who works making glass, I want to underline that it's silica dust that is dangerous. Your windows, drinking glasses, pyrex jugs, dinner plates, they'll all be around 40--50% silica and are absolutely safe. Silicosis is a reaction to the shape of silica particles when inhaled, the particles cause scarring in the lungs and aren't "mucused out", so they remain causing more damage over time.
I can't think of any reason to ban anything for containing silica, the problem is mitigated by wearing a mask in areas where there are airborne particles.
Yup understood. The materials I listed are typically cut though at some stage and therefore release silica dust.
So engineered stone is too dangerous. But sandstone for a example, with potentially also very high levels of silicate dust when cut, is apparently fine provided you have mitigation strategies i.e. wet cutting masks etc. and like you say wouldn't the same strategies also apply to engineered stone?
To me it just doesn't seem consistent.
Ah, I missed what you were getting at before. Agreed, can't see why engineered stone should be a particular hazard if proper safety measures are being taken. Best guess is that they weren't, and this ban is simply the chosen way to stop people being harmed by the work. Just seems more performative than useful.
I'll admit I am concerned they've set a precedent that's not practical that will now flow onto many other materials. But I'm open to the idea I've misunderstood some of the reasoning behind the decision.