this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
131 points (98.5% liked)
Australian News
551 readers
35 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
... someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this just sounds like some random local corruption story, right?
Like, instead of passing & enforcing worker safety laws they just ban the (safe) product? The same type of diseases can workers get from eg processing cotton, flower, cement, and any fine-dusty thing really. And such things can be managed with safety precautions & exhaust filters (to not affect the broader local area over the years of dust buildup).
The logical exceptions are things like asbestos where even the end product crumbles into dangerous particulates (that are even more irritating/cause serious problems at much lower quantities).
Then again it really saddens me that we don't invest more into like cellulose based materials (buildings, cutlery, bags, windows, cars, medical equipment, ... limitless potential, can be made sustainable, & has the prospect of doing something good in the long run).
Also with the same logic Australia could ban other things as well, like cocoa/chocolate imports, much of the fashion industry (dyes), and above all else - fossil fuels.
As for the replacement materials for countertops - bamboo (pressed & oiled?) is great!
It's a national news story thats come to light due to a large number of otherwise healthy, fairly young workers getting sick and dying from silicosis. The suggestion to ban came directly from the occupational safety watchdog, who are tasked with keeping workers safe. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/safety-topic/hazards/crystalline-silica-and-silicosis is pretty comprehensive.
In February they released a 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) outlining exactly what you refer to, with 6 options for governments to consider. The ban on engineered stone is the most dramatic, and uses basically the same legal framework that was used to ban asbestos in the first place.
Essentially they have been screaming at stonemasons and employees for 5 years to no avail, compliance with health and safety regulations in this area is atrocious, and no matter what laws you pass, more and more people are going to get sick and die from a preventable disease if you leave the stuff on the market.
It's only in recent years that the real dangers of silicate dust have been understood and it's being banned for essentially the same reason asbestos was - it's too hard to manage safely, and the most exposed people (workers) have to be protected. Asbestos is dangerous because it can get embedded in lung cells and not be exhaled - silicate dust is similar. Makes sense to me to put it in the same category especially if some poor bastards are dying from it.
Yes, I was just reading that. I understand now how things went down & why a complete ban was implemented. A good legislative result overall.
Thanks for this, great summary 👍👍👍
You are wrong to a degree, while the underlying issue is a lack of safe workplaces, engineered stone typically has a much higher rate of silicate (like 90 plus) compared to almost anything else
There are other types of engineered stone that are low in silicates
Oh, so they differ substantially, didn't know that (but makes sense bcs of the variety they produce). I'm not anti-ban (the work itself doesn't seem like it's worth the end product anyway), I would have just expected more regulation (safety, or just a ban in crystalline silica perhaps) instead of an overall ban. But that's just the EU in me talking, a ban is at least much clearer & in this case quicker to get passed.
Edit: actually safe work Australia already drafted guidelines, I guess they didn't catch on
Edit2: EU does have a directive in place but it's not yet implemented into law (like a 'delegated regulation' or a demand to incorporate it in local laws) + its still evolving so no actual limit numbers (or a complete ban) yet. EU directives usually work in such a way that at first they gather industry knowledge & best practices (via mandated reporting) that they then implement into law (more or less strict depending on the end goal, but in administration sense compatible with the current industry capabilities - I'm actually proud of the efficiency & lifecycles of such a system).