https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/202...
SafeWork's view is that the industry is too much of a non-compliant mess to recommend any other option apart from a complete ban.
Hell I work in agronomy and it’s hard enough getting seasonal helpers to wear earplugs when riding ATVs all day. Then there was an old supervisor from a former oil change and tire repair shop job I had, who had hand shakes from nerve damage due to automotive chemical exposure, and he was actually comparatively decent about PPE, especially for helpers.
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.
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?)
You say PPEs have bad side effects but as I've mentioned those whom I've asked never explain what they are. Why? And why are they undocumented?
Re sucking dust away, active air pressure masks etc., I agree they're a good idea and ought to mandatory in many environments. I accept sucking dust away as the norm on my table saws and planers etc. but even so I still wear a mask (although not an active pressure one) as the sucking up is not 100% effective. Also, what happens in environments where it is not practical to suck away dust such as a stonemason working up on the side of a building or such? The only solution has to be PPEs.
Its no biggy in an office, and I guess for a ton of people that's the reference "work". On construction sites etc you get a ton of pseudo protection where people pretend to comply to escape the jurists and egghead harassment.
I totally agree that stone lung is horrific, but I also think a ton of laws fail that protection goal miserable on purpose.
So what's the solution? It seems that in some situations there is none. Perhaps in those situations the only move would be to inform people of the risks of not wearing masks and let them decide whether to work there or not.
That said, persons who later develop a dust-borne disease are likely to change their tune when the seriousness of their predicament sinks in and then retrospectively blame their employer for allowing them to work sans masks. Moreover, no insurance company would tolerate such a situation if aware of the fact—hence the laws, even if they're unworkable.
Working with power tools while not seeing much due to fogged glasses is much less safe than breathing in the dust, though...
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.)
This mainly came out of a series of lawsuits and happened industry wide (the fear of millions of dollars of compensation was enough to get all the players to get very serious)
That seems a pretty concerning stance for small businesses. What's next? Ban microbreweries because they don't properly manage the risks of CO2 asphyxiation? Ban small-shop mechanics because they routinely get brake fluid on their hands?
Well-enforced safety regulations are a good thing for everyone. Banning small businesses because regulating them is hard seems... economically undesirable.
That did not happen, so we banned them. I see no reason that we could not replace engineered stone with multiple other things.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Silicosis takes years to appear so the proximal link is too weak for post facto punishment to have much deterrent effect. It is much more like asbestos in this way, which can also be safely handled but has also been banned.
The contractor who installed the bench top for us was however very diligent in alerting us to what safety measures we should follow should any on-site cutting be required at our place. Which it wasn’t in the end. So at least he was aware that the sawdust is a major health hazard.
But that’s one contractor, which does not represent an entire industry. Engineered stone is fashionable and I imagine there are many black sheep out there doing it for cheap with under-trained or unsupervised personnel.
How dare these union thugs get in the way of clear economic progression that provides far more benefit than harm!
The only exception is if producers are already selling at essentially the marginal cost of production for the whole industry. This scenario is extremely rare, especially in base materials.
Like here there are a bunch of people who have lung cancer now. And there's probably a bunch more who will get it from doing all the work up until now.
And this has been in the news for a while I think. I imagine that despite all of this, there's still stuff coming up. The first case was reported back in 2015. 8 years is a pretty long time to think "hey, maybe we should do stuff so our workers won't get lung cancer". The fact that that is not incentive enough is probably a signal that there's not really much left to do, honestly.
No amount of 'criminal liability' will bring back loved ones.
It’s also unclear whether there is a similar safe alternative, so banning one type of product might just shift the problem to a new toxic and dangerous material.
The only solution is to enforce safety regulations and/or come up with better ones. At one time, when I decided I’d sand a wall in my house, I ended up attaching a vacuum cleaner to my sander so that the dust wouldn’t go everywhere. Wearing the filter mask was also extremely uncomfortable, so it might be worth to design better breathing PPEs that are more human-friendly to drive acceptance up.
It’s a judgement about the stupid location the law was applied when it could have been applied somewhere else, achieved the same short term effect, but then would have incentivized solutions to the problem.
Criminal liability is a massive government intervention which is the exact opposite of allowing market forces to decide.
For instance, if I drive 10mph over the speed limit and hit somebody and kill them, I may be criminally liable. However the percentage of people in this set charged (and convicted) in such situations is not high.
You’re likely thinking of civil infractions.
These people know perfectly well they need to take precautions.
> the re-emergence of silicosis in engineered stone workers is also due to a failure of compliance with existing WHS laws … PCBUs [persons conducting a business or undertaking, who are subject to WHS laws] have not done all that is reasonably practicable to eliminate or minimise those risks, and workers have not taken reasonable care for their own health and safety and that of others [which is a criminal offence]. Finally, there has been insufficient compliance and enforcement actions by WHS regulators to drive behaviour change in the sector … A lower silica content engineered stone is not expected to result in improvements in compliance. The features of the sector that have contributed to the current levels of non-compliance remain – the sector is comprised of mostly small businesses with few barriers to entry and a lower understanding of WHS obligations.
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
I don't think this is correct. The SafeWork report (recommending a complete ban) superseded this health report, and the ministers appear to have aligned on the SafeWork recommendation.
My goal was more to point out that two+ years ago a recommendation was made (as quoted above) and there's currently six months left on the clock for those changes recommended to be met.
SafeWork is likely to correct to conclude that the building industry has made no real strides in the past 24 months and won't do squat in the six months remaining.
This may also be a hammer drop intended to put the fear of lost revenue from upmarket kitched remodels into the actors and scare them into action in order to lift the ban.
That's a whole other level of real politik that sometimes plays behind the scenes .. carrots & sticks.
It’s highly fragmented, dominated by men and specifically younger men, who self-select for a high tolerance of risk and a low tolerance of rules.
By the time they find out that they’re not invulnerable and rules exist to protect them, it’s too late.
Or anything else. There is enough options around and enough supply for that.
> The federal government will also impose a ban on imported engineered stone to provide an "additional layer of enforcement and deterrence at the border", however the date has not been finalised yet.
The only party in opposition were the engineered stone vendors.