this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
131 points (98.5% liked)

Australian News

551 readers
37 users here now

A place to share and discuss news relating to Australia and Australians.

Rules
  1. Follow the aussie.zone rules
  2. Keep discussions civil and respectful
  3. Exclude profanity from post titles
  4. Exclude excessive profanity from comments
  5. 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:

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
[–] [email protected] 27 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

... 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!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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

Workplace exposure standard for respirable crystalline silica: The eight-hour time weighted average workplace exposure standard (WES) for respirable crystalline silica (RCS) is 0.05 mg/m3. This means that your workers must not be exposed to levels of RCS greater than 0.05 mg/m3 over an eight hour working day, for a five day working week.

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).

load more comments (3 replies)