Comment by legitster
2 years ago
> Earlier this year workplace ministers tasked Safe Work Australia, a government WHS agency, with investigating how a ban could work and whether low-silica engineered stone could remain on the market safely.
> The report found there was no safe level of silica, concluding: "The use of all engineered stone should be prohibited."
I don't understand this logic. Silica is also present in natural stone too! If they are not going to ban natural stone countertops, I don't get why the industry was not allowed to pursue low-silica engineered stone that met or exceeded real stone.
The engineered stone is almost entirely silica.
> Hoy said that long before stonecutters started struggling to breathe, the sheer amount of silica in many kinds of engineered stone — upwards of 90% — should have made it obvious that the material was risky to cut and grind, especially in workplaces without sophisticated measures to control dust.(1)
> But scientists and regulators have grown concerned about whether recommended strategies such as wet cutting, proper ventilation and wearing respirator masks can do enough to protect workers from dust so high in silica. Cal/OSHA officials have generally described silicosis as preventable, but also caution that with 93% silica(2) content, “safe use of engineered stone may not be possible” even with proper workplace practices.(1)
(1) https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-11-19/why-cali...
2. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA37...
Studies looking into the issue have found non silica compounds cause issues too, and its the engineering process rather than the silica that causes the problem. This is why they haven't created an exemption for low-silica products.
> "It's not just about the silica, it's something specific about the engineered stone products that's causing such a significant issue in workers fabricating these products."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-05/study-finds-safety-co...
From the link:
> "What we found ... was that the natural products we had in the panel of products that we assessed actually caused the biggest inflammatory response," Professor Zosky said.
I'm not sure why they are saying it's the engineering. Their own study says that natural stone products are worse than the engineered products!
It's probably there's a larger number of cases of silicosis from engineered products despite it being safer. And that's probably because it's easier to cut in the field so people do it more often.
Worse in one specific regard, yes. And they agree with you in their conclusion, saying dust during processing is likely a factor.
You can see the full study here:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/resp.14625
> In conclusion, this study is the most comprehensive assessment of the physico-chemical characteristics of dusts generated from a wide range of resin-based engineered stones (of high- and reduced-silica contents) and the first to assess how these characteristics relate to the lung cell response, at a scale large enough to potentially identify components of these materials that could be linked to the severity of disease among ES workers. We showed that exposure to high levels of RCS dust during ES processing is likely contributing to disease severity in this occupational group, however, other inorganic components of ES dust, in particular Co and Al, may also be strong contributors. Furthermore, some of the highest inflammatory responses recorded were observed in non-engineered stones, further supporting the view that components other than crystalline silica may be contributing to the pathogenesis of severe silicosis. The outcomes of this study have important implications for future regulation of ES products as they challenge the common view that reducing the crystalline silica alone will eliminate disease risk.
The key take-away I get from that is that it's not silica specifically, but something else about engineered stone that is making it so unsafe to work with. And that's why they are banning the whole product class.
2 replies →
Is it not because the manufactured stone requires manufacturing. So a lot more exposure to the raw materials during the manufacturing process?
7 replies →
Natural stone are expensive and a luxury items. They are not the alternative to engineered stone really. Engineered stone are bought by middle-class, and thus in much higher number. The alternative being usually plain wood.
1 reply →
Weirdly enough, The article hints that the legislation won't ban natural stone.
5 replies →
Apparently the spike in cases in due to engineered stone. The FAQ gives various reasons why this may be the case, e.g. the generated particle size is different, and also it is easier to cut than natural stone so it may be processed by less skilled workers.
https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/safety-topic/hazards/cr...
> I don't get why the industry was not allowed to pursue low-silica engineered stone
From what I can tell, the law itself allows for products under 1% silica. Now where did I read that ...
"According to the ministers’ communique, exceptions will be introduced for the removal, repair, minor modification or disposal of engineered stone installed before 1 July 2024, as well as for products with trace levels of silica under 1%."
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/dec/13/engin...
Yes, that is a massively higher hurdle than natural stone has to meet.
Possibly the issue is more to do with the lower cost of the engineered material?
Like, when tobacco cost a megabuck per oz in Queen Elizabeth times people smoked a pipe once in a while and in the context of their high exposure to fireplace smoke it was no big deal. Fast forward to when cigarettes cost 10c/pack and the marketing guys are selling them to 8 year olds...now it's a huge health problem.
If you're only paying a small amount for the materials, most people will be a lot more price sensitive on installation, so there's a race to the bottom.
Also, if the material is expensive, it pays off to measure exactly and order the material cut to the correct dimensions rather than just cut it on site, because if you slip with the angle grinder your mistake costs 2000€.
That just seems like a policy that punishes the poor. It's like banning commercial flights for greenhouse gas reasons but letting private jets fly.
>poor
it's a luxury product, far from the cheapest countertop options.
I think it has more to do with the explosion of use in the market, it's everywhere now (from McMansions to cheap apartments). It is was just cheap/expensive enough to replace laminated MDF benchtops.
I suggest people look at the actual numbers -> https://lungfoundation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/NSP...
Every one of them over zero is bad, but I was surprised how small the sample of active cases actually are. It would have been better to show the change year on year though.
I was surprised that the sample rate was so few, that is active cases.
if this was an american decision, i'd suggest the natural stone lobby was better than the engineered stone lobby.
We really don't have the same overt paid lobbying here (aka bribery) that you have in the US.
Don't get me wrong our politicians are just as morally bankrupt and self-serving, but it doesn't happen at the same coordinated scale.
There's a substantial amount of lobbying, but the reporting requirements on it are laughably low. Agree it's not at the level of the US, though. The member for Kooyong was working to establish a bill about it. At the moment lobbyists have unfettered access to parliament house.
Lobbying and bribery are not the same at all. Equivocating them severely downplays the seriousness of bribery.
Lobbying means someone is trying to influence the government through things as simple as advertising campaigns. Those exist in AU.
4 replies →
It's so funny to me how many non-americans just assume their country is perfect because they apparently don't pay attention to their local news. Or maybe it's just nationalism, hard to say.
World-know news payment extortion from Meta?
Bunnings & Ikea recently stopped selling this product. My guess is Bunnings probably wanted to stop competition. So they probably lobbied the government for the full ban. After all, you can't have the competition selling a popular product that they don't. (Bunnings is like Australia's Home Depot or Lowe's)
Not to be confused with Lowe's in Australia, which sells clothing.
It was pushed by the trade unions, who currently install and work with both products.
it does sound like mining companies protecting their business