← Back to context

Comment by insaneirish

2 years ago

[flagged]

I'm not sure why I'm getting these downvotes, but my point is that concrete is far more of a silica containing building material than engineered stone but for which there is probably far less political gumption to meaningfully regulate.

  • There is solid evidence in Australia associating a sharp rise in silicosis in tradesmen with the use of engineered stone.

    Is there any such evidence in Australia associating such a thing with concrete at the same high risk levels?

    This is a data driven decision.

    You appear to have made a quip unsupported by medical data.

    • I was gonna go with "Australia is not an island" but, well, I think we can see the problem in that statement. :-)

      In the United States, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) has implemented strict guidelines regarding silica (https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/fy16_sh-296...). Silica is highly present in things like concrete, so it is weird to me that something other than concrete would be singled out.

      > You appear to have made a quip unsupported by medical data.

      No, I have not. The "quip" is ignoring the other sources of silica while singling out this one particular one.

      1 reply →

  • Probably because the ban is likely better thought out than a flippant comment that, I guess, assumes the powerful anti-silica lobby (?) is much stronger than the poor downtrodden anti-concrete lobby (??).