Australia's workplace ministers have agreed to implement a national ban on engineered stone, over concerns its use has led to a surge in silicosis cases among workers.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
You wouldn’t generally get all federal and state governments signing on to something that is just ‘populism’.
Engineered stone is more dangerous than natural stone because it contains much more silica, and so it has resulted in an acute accelerated form of silicosis: https://www.medicalrepublic.com.au/why-silicosis-is-on-the-rise-and-what-to-do-about-it/24559
The underlying point has some validity though. Many materials contain silica, even tiles, although not the same amount. Here are some other examples.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)