this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
130 points (98.5% liked)
Australian News
557 readers
31 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
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.
This comment gives a great summary, better than I can do: https://aussie.zone/comment/5073286
(In case that comment disappears for any reason, though:
Particularly there is this report: https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-02/decision_ris_-_managing_the_risks_of_crystalline_silica_at_work_-_for_publication_pdf.pdf
But broadly, engineered stone is significantly different because of both its composition and how it's used. The proof of the pudding, though, is that with its rise in popularity we've also seen the rise of these 'acute accelerated' cases of silicosis.)