• wscholermann@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The underlying point has some validity though. Many materials contain silica, even tiles, although not the same amount. Here are some other examples.

    • ceramic tiles: 5% to 45%
    • engineered stone: 80% to 95%
    • Sandstone: 70% to 90%
    • Granite: 25% to 60%
    • Slate: 20% to 40%
    • autoclaved aerated concrete: 20% to 40%
    • concrete: less than 30%
    • brick: 5% to 15%

    The cancer council of Australia says “there is currently no evidence to suggest a safe level of silica dust exposure”.

    If there is no safe level of silica, then by extension presumably this would rule out many other products containing silica.

    There are mitigation strategies, however they seemingly weren’t good enough for engineered stone, and presumably again by extension many other materials high in silica.

    It’s just not clear to me why engineered stone is banned but many other materials potentially high in silica are for choice of better words let off the hook.

    • CalamityBalls@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      As someone who works making glass, I want to underline that it’s silica dust that is dangerous. Your windows, drinking glasses, pyrex jugs, dinner plates, they’ll all be around 40–50% silica and are absolutely safe. Silicosis is a reaction to the shape of silica particles when inhaled, the particles cause scarring in the lungs and aren’t “mucused out”, so they remain causing more damage over time.

      I can’t think of any reason to ban anything for containing silica, the problem is mitigated by wearing a mask in areas where there are airborne particles.

      • wscholermann@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yup understood. The materials I listed are typically cut though at some stage and therefore release silica dust.

        So engineered stone is too dangerous. But sandstone for a example, with potentially also very high levels of silicate dust when cut, is apparently fine provided you have mitigation strategies i.e. wet cutting masks etc. and like you say wouldn’t the same strategies also apply to engineered stone?

        To me it just doesn’t seem consistent.

        • CalamityBalls@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          Ah, I missed what you were getting at before. Agreed, can’t see why engineered stone should be a particular hazard if proper safety measures are being taken. Best guess is that they weren’t, and this ban is simply the chosen way to stop people being harmed by the work. Just seems more performative than useful.

          • wscholermann@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’ll admit I am concerned they’ve set a precedent that’s not practical that will now flow onto many other materials. But I’m open to the idea I’ve misunderstood some of the reasoning behind the decision.

    • zero_gravitas@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      This comment gives a great summary, better than I can do: https://aussie.zone/comment/5073286

      (In case that comment disappears for any reason, though:

      Particularly there is this report: https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-02/decision_ris_-_managing_the_risks_of_crystalline_silica_at_work_-_for_publication_pdf.pdf

      But broadly, engineered stone is significantly different because of both its composition and how it’s used. The proof of the pudding, though, is that with its rise in popularity we’ve also seen the rise of these ‘acute accelerated’ cases of silicosis.)