Comment by 10u152
2 years ago
They’re not banning businesses. They’re banning a product which is causing deaths. Switch to a alternate product. It’s the same in your analogy of banning a toxic brake fluid.
2 years ago
They’re not banning businesses. They’re banning a product which is causing deaths. Switch to a alternate product. It’s the same in your analogy of banning a toxic brake fluid.
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.
severe (severe!) fines
Unless you can pierce the corporate veil or somehow make owners criminally liable for low safety standards, levelling huge fines at small companies is meaningless, as the company will just end up declaring bankruptcy and the workers will just get hired by the next company over, with equally low standards.
> article. It is production that causes severe and potentially deadly illness.
No. It is the cutting of the product (often on-site at the residence) to fit the kitchen or bathroom that causes silica dust. Workers not wearing mask protection and not using proper ventilation fans and vacuums breathe in the dust.
The odd thing is silica dust is also present in natural stones like quartz (very popular in America right now). I don’t understand how this legislation will help since it only bans engineered stone.
Well at least according to the article, there was a very clear direct correlation with the artificial stuff. Based on the quotes in the article, it seems like most believe it's something to do with the composition of the engineered stone itself, but it could plausibly just be it's so cheap it makes installation more common. Either way, the reasoning of "there is a very clear correlation between the popularity of this material and this debilitating disease, and regulation doesn't seem to be working, so let's just phase it out" seems like sound reasoning to me.
I see.
I thought the product was actual tabletops and the like. But this is terminology.
What I did not quite get was that what I'd call "production", i.e. making the actual tabletops, happens not at a central facility but at customer homes. This is much harder to monitor and control.
In this light the ban makes more sense.
It's in the article they're banning imports later.
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.
We have for example banned CFCs which are entirely harmless if used properly in properly and fully maintained equipment with proper capturing at end of lifetime...
That did not happen, so we banned them. I see no reason that we could not replace engineered stone with multiple other things.
"We have for example banned CFCs which are entirely harmless if used properly in properly."
True, and CFCs are exceptionally useful chemicals and it's a damn nuisance they've been banned because it's easier to ban them than to get industry to comply with strict regulations in respect of their use.
The trouble is that it's not only CFCs that are banned, there's mercury, lead and any number of valuable and useful chemicals that have been withdrawn from use simply because people use them irresponsibly. One wonders when this practice will cease or how long it will be before industrial development is noticeably slowed by the absence of these materials.
Elsewhere, I have been very critical about the century-long delay in bringing about dust-borne regulations especially so in respect of asbestos dust. That said, I'm not for banning its use outright.
Unfortunately, governnents prefer outright banning in preference to sophisticated regulations and I reckon in the long-term this is unsustainable.
If we're to progress we need sophisticated regulations. Users of certain chemicals/materials need to be licensed before they're allowed to handle them. The license would required knowledge of not only safe handling but also safe long-term installation and storage and eventual proper recycling and disposal somehat akin to the way nuclear materials are handled now (I say that as someone who has worked in the nuclear industry). Also, the failure of a licensee to comply strictly with regulations would not only result in loss of license but in many cases being subjected to criminal sanctions.
Such harsh regulation may seem expensive and difficult to implement and in some instances it will be but it's better than outright banning.
We also need an all together new approach to training people about dangerous materials and their correct handling, as to date it's been an abject failure. Either people have become chemical phobic to the extent of ridiculousness or they're blasé about them to the extent of foolhardiness. Overcoming such general ignorance can only be done through the education system and it needs to start at a very early age—from kindergarten onwards.
Keep in mind that as science and engineering develops there will be ever-increasing numbers of dangerous materials developed, the only way we as a society will be able to handle them safely is with new ways of thinking about safety—and that involves not being frightened of materials but knowing how to handle them carefully and in proper proportion to their intrinsic dangers.
ah, the "goverment did X before, therefore doing it again must be good" fallacy
We would also have a much sicker world if we didnt ban things. For better or for worse (often for worse in my opinion) Australia is king of banning things and treating its citizens as children. However when it comes to workplace safety I tend to be in favour because workers often get pressured into unsafe behaviour by time or by bosses.
On the contrary - don’t you think the message this sends will make things better re other chemical products? Either the manufacturers themselves will find better versions of dangerous chemicals or the users will wake up.
> 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.