Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australia to ban engineered stone

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 542 posts

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#141

Post by stubish »

jiggawatts wrote: post #2

This was caused by an alarming rise of silicosis cases in young “tradies” (Aussie slang for trade workers). The government and various professional bodies tried to enforce the use of PPE when working with this material, but there has been a housing construction boom going on and a lot of corners were cut (hah!), resulting in young immigrant workers especially turning up in hospitals with lung cancer. No matter how ca…

And the reason for the ban, which I think many American readers are missing. The ban was demanded by the trade unions. While the union members could probably be relied on to use PPE appropriately, they would also have to charge for it. They would lose jobs to non-union shops doing things faster and cheaper, who pass the costs onto the public when untrained workers end up in the public health system and on disability pensions.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#142

Post by ShadowBanThis01 »

defrost wrote: post #133
unclekev wrote: post #102

I don't understand how banning it does anything to address the underlying problem of people wilfully ignoring PPE/safe working practices. One of the "Suggested safer alternatives" is Granite which can have silica content up to 45% (Engineered stone being 95%+) So instead of 2 years to develop silicosis it will instead take 4 years of working with the "safe alternatives"? All the people who were cutting engineered sto…

> All the people who were cutting engineered stone with unsafe methods, are now just going to be cutting granite and other natural stone with the same safety practices that led to this being banned. > I really don't get it. Before engineered stone took off like crazy people were already cutting natural stone, working as stone masons, working at BGC quarries (stone mining, crushing, grading, delivery). After engineere…

Not saying those figures aren't valid, but isn't it also possible that the increased affordability of man-made stone meant that these workers were doing more "stone" installations as opposed to tile or other options?

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#143

Post by amluto »

ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #142
defrost wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All the people who were cutting engineered stone with unsafe methods, are now just going to be cutting granite and other natural stone with the same safety practices that led to this being banned. > I really don't get it. Before engineered stone took off like crazy people were already cutting natural stone, working as stone masons, working at BGC quarries (stone mining, crushing, grading, delivery). After engineere…

Not saying those figures aren't valid, but isn't it also possible that the increased affordability of man-made stone meant that these workers were doing more "stone" installations as opposed to tile or other options?

Hmm, this isn’t crazy.

IIRC in the nineties and earlier, porcelain tile countertops were very common. Granite and marble were exotic.

Porcelain is high in silicates, but not so high in silica. Glaze is (I think) amorphous, like glass. And your average tile installer cuts with a wet saw.

Marble is mostly calcium carbonate. Granite contains lots of quartz.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#145

Post by amluto »

oooyay wrote: post #132
unclekev wrote: post #102

I don't understand how banning it does anything to address the underlying problem of people wilfully ignoring PPE/safe working practices. One of the "Suggested safer alternatives" is Granite which can have silica content up to 45% (Engineered stone being 95%+) So instead of 2 years to develop silicosis it will instead take 4 years of working with the "safe alternatives"? All the people who were cutting engineered sto…

Tooling and PPE are part of the problem but not all of it. People who clean up job sites are also getting sick: > "We actually not only saw people who were directly cutting and grinding the stone, but we saw people who were just sweeping up the work site after the stone had been cut," says Rose. "They were exposed to the silica particles that were suspended in the air just with housekeeping duties." So, basically eve…

Contractors with brooms are a huge pet peeve of mine at a construction site. Seriously, WTF? You take all the dust and re-suspend as much of it as possible into the air?

Every construction site should have a HEPA-filtered vacuum with a filter bag. (The bagless kind is to be reserved for special cases that need it, and people should wear respirators when emptying it, TYVM.). Brooms are for non-vacuumable debris only, and subcontractors should be reminded of this regularly.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#146

Post by [deleted] »

unclekev wrote: post #102

I don't understand how banning it does anything to address the underlying problem of people wilfully ignoring PPE/safe working practices. One of the "Suggested safer alternatives" is Granite which can have silica content up to 45% (Engineered stone being 95%+) So instead of 2 years to develop silicosis it will instead take 4 years of working with the "safe alternatives"? All the people who were cutting engineered sto…

[deleted]

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#147

Post by insaneirish »

sellmesoap wrote: post #67
insaneirish wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as countertops go, field cuts are rather uncommon. Laser templating works well. Holes on the other hand tend to be done in the field. But, people don't wear PPE even though it's simple and easy to do.

Due to lack of tech work I've been installing stone countertops. I can confirm we cut on site around half the time, microplastics galore (you can smell the polyester in the air).

I'd love to hear why. What is the templating process and why is it not better?

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#148

Post by [deleted] »

unclekev wrote: post #102

I don't understand how banning it does anything to address the underlying problem of people wilfully ignoring PPE/safe working practices. One of the "Suggested safer alternatives" is Granite which can have silica content up to 45% (Engineered stone being 95%+) So instead of 2 years to develop silicosis it will instead take 4 years of working with the "safe alternatives"? All the people who were cutting engineered sto…

[deleted]

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#149

Post by stubish »

pjscott wrote: post #118
jiggawatts wrote: post #2

This was caused by an alarming rise of silicosis cases in young “tradies” (Aussie slang for trade workers). The government and various professional bodies tried to enforce the use of PPE when working with this material, but there has been a housing construction boom going on and a lot of corners were cut (hah!), resulting in young immigrant workers especially turning up in hospitals with lung cancer. No matter how ca…

One standard remedy for situations like this is to mandate that, if an employee gets silicosis for any reason , their employer must pay them some large sum of money. Regardless of whose fault it was. If cutting corners saves money, then corners will inevitably be cut - but if it’s made to be more expensive than being careful, suddenly it makes good business sense to get serious about workplace safety.

This is unworkable. You can't penalize a company because their employees did not follow the safety guidelines they promised they would or are legally obliged to follow. Especially when a large number of workers are self employed. You can send them bankrupt with a penalty, but then have to support the disabled worker with social security and health care.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#150

Post by bsder »

ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #142
defrost wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All the people who were cutting engineered stone with unsafe methods, are now just going to be cutting granite and other natural stone with the same safety practices that led to this being banned. > I really don't get it. Before engineered stone took off like crazy people were already cutting natural stone, working as stone masons, working at BGC quarries (stone mining, crushing, grading, delivery). After engineere…

Not saying those figures aren't valid, but isn't it also possible that the increased affordability of man-made stone meant that these workers were doing more "stone" installations as opposed to tile or other options?

Edit to just link the article rather than my silly speculation about particle sizes and types:

Reference: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/resp.14625

"The qualitative comparison of in vitro responses between the categories of particles we examined revealed some interesting patterns. Firstly, the ES dusts were the most potent stimulus in inducing cytotoxicity and pro-inflammatory responses in epithelial cells while the standard silica sample was particularly toxic to macrophages. All particles (ES, BM,NS and standard silica) showed some potential to promote IL-8 (CXCL8) and TNF-α production in macrophages, as well as IL-1β, with the exception of natural stone. These observations are consistent with our overarching hypothesis that particle characteristics are key drivers of the lung cell response and, therefore, the risk of disease. In more in-depth analyses with a focus on ES dusts, we found that the quartz concentration was significantly associated with the inflammatory response in macrophages. This is an important observation as there has been consistent rhetoric regarding the crystalline silica content of ES being the key driver of the high disease prevalence. 7,39Indeed, crystalline silica has been shown to be related to the dose-dependent macrophage accumulation response,40aggravated inflammatory cell infiltration, thickened alveolar walls and enhanced expression of collagens. 41However, the relationship between quartz and the macrophage inflammatory response was not the sole driver of the cellular responses we observed."

Post reply on HN