Comment by Hawxy

Early in my IBEW (union electrician) training, a particularly outspoken oldguy asked me, mockingly "are those tampons in your ears?!"

My response was "No, Carl — they're sound dampeners SO I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOUR CONSTANT BITCHING SO MUCH."

Old journeyman immediately took me under his wing, and we were inseparable (he even would wear PPE around me). I learned much from this "kind" old curmudgeon.

Why the machismo exists in construction, I'll never know — just as many former co-workers will never understand how I was one of them, once.

Had a friend who worked in construction. He said every day the workplace health & safety person would come in and show them a video of the "dumb [expletive] of the day" doing something very stupid by not following WHS rules, and suffering the consequences of it. Allegedly this helped with compliance quite a fair bit.

"Getting people to wear PPE is a constant, ongoing 12 hour a day battle."

Why is this? I often see firsthand or on television people working in dusty environments with little or no concern for the dust that they are breathing in. It especially horrifies me when I know that dust is silica or like, or perhaps even contains some asbestos. I wince every time I see professional stonemasons chiseling away or using diamond saws to cut up slabs of stone without wearing masks. Surely, if anyone, they ought to be aware of the risks.

I've occasionally had to work in such environments for short periods but I've never done so without wearing a n95/P2 type mask and even then I consider them inadequate protection and go to considerable effort to minimize my time in the dusty environment. I even go to the extent of putting on the mask and removing it outside in a dust-free area so as to minimize breathing in any residual dust.

Whenever I ask others around me why they don't take precautions I never get sensible answers or they offer paltry excuses such as masks fog one's glasses.

Despite all the exposure about the dangers of asbestos in recent decades, the greater dangers of dust inhalation generally just hasn't sunk in. The question is why.

In many respects this rejection seems to closely mimic the rejection of masks during COVID. One wonders what's actually needed to overcome the resistance to wearing PPE. (We've overcome PPE resistance re visibility with the full acceptance of fluorescent hi-vis clothing, so why not dust masks?)

I understand your concerns about meddling and disruptive regulation and I could cite some instances thereof that are overly heavy-handed but I won't do so here as they'll only distract.

The difference with the early aviation compared to dust-borne diseases is that with aviation it was unclear at the outset what it was that needed regulating and the extent of any such regulation so it's understandable that regulation grew with the industry whereas the effects of dust-bourne diseases on health had been known about for centuries.

Two thousand years ago the Romans knew about the dangers of asbestosis and mesothelioma as the result of mining asbestos although they called it the wasting disease—only criminals and bad slaves were sent to mine it. Similarly, volcanic ash and sand/silica on the lungs disease—whose medical name I cannot pronounce let alone spell—and coal miners' black lung disease have also been known about for centuries.

Moreover, in more recent times (late 19th and early 20th Centuries) these diseases, especially asbestosis and mesothelioma were the subject of government inquiries and the dangers well established. For example, the British Admiralty held inquiries after workers and sailors became ill from the effects of breathing asbestos dust from the lagging on steam pipes. That nothing was done and that no significant regulations introduced as a matter of expediency has to be one of the most unconscionable government decisions of all time—that delayed the introduction of effective regulation in respect of asbestos for over 80 years.

(The lack of regulation is a bit close to home, my father, a mechanical engineer, was exposed asbestos on war ships during WWII and afterwards in the power industry and it severely affected his health. Also, I recall as kids when my brother and I would visit my father's place of employment asbestos was that common we'd make mud balls out of it and throw them at each other. By that time government was well aware of the dangers of asbestos and black lung disease for going on a century but had still done nothing about it.)

Unless you're suggesting the government hire literal nannies to follow every construction worker around and forcibly make them wear the correct PPE, it seems like this action IS the government doing its duty to protect the workers - largely from themselves it seems.

Nope, the product does not cause death, at least not according to this article. It is production that causes severe and potentially deadly illness.

And not because the production process inherently deadly, but because of rampant non-compliance with safety standards.

The article does not explain why an obvious solution: certification and severe (severe!) fines for non-compliance would not work. Probably a political issue.

I've noticed in the article that trade unions applauded the ban, and I wonder why.

It’s like banning chemical products because they are causing death if not handled properly. We would not have an industrialised world if we went that way.

> They’re banning a product which is causing deaths

According to the link in the grandparent comment, I think it was the production process that they didn't want the expense of enforcing safety standards on. Not the end product itself. Hence the comment about banning an industry.

it is market dynamics -- PPE is too expensive, and they won't do it.

Criminal liability is not “let the market forces duke it out” in any meaningful sense.

The "ban" (proposed for July 2024 and after) is actually conditional upon the building industry getting their act together with respect to worker safety and compliance:

National Dust Disease Taskforce Final Report - June 2021

https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national-du...

[PDF] https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022...

Page 11: (Recomendations ...)

    D) Commence the processes required to implement a full ban on the importation of some or all engineered stone products if, by July 2024:

    – There is no measurable and acceptable improvement in regulatory compliance rates for the engineered stone sector as reported by jurisdictions; and

    - Evidence indicates preventative measures are not effectively protecting those working with engineered stone from silicosis and silica-associated diseases

In short - (We recommend to) Ban this stuff UNLESS building sector improves safety AND demonstrates effective change.

You mean up, right? Forcing demand into a product drives the price up.

My guess would be that number of kitchens that do not get build because engineered stone is not anymore available will be very low...

Or anything else. There is enough options around and enough supply for that.

The toxic (but cheaper) stuff will be manufactured offshore