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

271–280 of 542 posts

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#271

Post by lotsofpulp »

rob74 wrote: post #259
lotsofpulp wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be ridiculous to have any responsibility on the customer. The only feasible order is government, employer, then worker. The government is tasked with the making the rules and surprise inspections, and the rest follows from there.

Well, the customer also has a lot of power. They can decide to hire a company (if available of course) that encourages/forces their workers to use PPE, even if it's a little more expensive (and maybe also takes longer) instead of just going for the lowest bidder...

How would a customer verify that? They are supposed to also monitor the worksite? And be knowledgeable about consistent work and the type of PPE it requires?

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#272

Post by throwaway0665 »

blindriver wrote: post #187
webprofusion wrote: post #151

This is good news. Wood is more sustainable and can be more easily repaired and refinished anyway, the problem continues though is if it's replaced by other types of stone. The root problem is obviously lack of protective equipment being used, but that's a universal workplace safety issue and that requires stricter laws.

Saw dust causes lung cancer, so we should definitely outlaw using wood.

Engineered woods like MDF use adhesives that contain formaldehyde which is a possible carcinogen. But people are dropping dead in their 30s from working with MDF (even if it is dangerous)

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#273

Post by skullone »

stephen_g wrote: post #178
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…

It’s incredible how bad tradies are at PPE. When my solar panels were being installed on my house, the electrician was happily about to drill through asbestos cement eave lining before I stopped him, and at least made him put on a disposable P2 respirator mask I had lying around. But he still released asbestos fibres into the air and the ceiling cavity where his colleagues were working, and will have got it on his cl…

I mean, you probably should disclose your property has asbestos to trades working on your house - and they probably would wear the right PPE. Lots of people are fine with small risks with regular materials like sheetrock on small jobs (cutting a hole or something). But really, that should've been disclosed to workers as they enter your property.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#274

Post by bowsamic »

stephen_g wrote: post #178
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…

It’s incredible how bad tradies are at PPE. When my solar panels were being installed on my house, the electrician was happily about to drill through asbestos cement eave lining before I stopped him, and at least made him put on a disposable P2 respirator mask I had lying around. But he still released asbestos fibres into the air and the ceiling cavity where his colleagues were working, and will have got it on his cl…

Sadly no better here in Germany, which surprised me. In the UK health and safety is much more extreme. Here in Germany it’s rare to see workers taking any kind of safety precautions

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#275

Post by throwaway0665 »

refurb wrote: post #246

Interestingly much of the engineered stone comes from Chinese factories.

Interestingly or unsurprisingly considering we're still accidentally importing building materials and even toys filled with asbestos from China. Add vapes to that it feels like there is almost zero regulation on importation of dangerous goods.

[1]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-09/asbestos-found-in-imp...

[2]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-14/australian-building-s...

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#276

Post by dukeofdoom »

Engineered stone looks awful fake, changes color overtime, and can be damaged by a hot pan. Since its upsold as being better than the real thing often. There's a consumer fraud aspect to it too. I wouldn't ban it since there might be some situations where its the better product to use, and not just cheaper.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#277

Post by wwtdtgotiatl »

_3u10 wrote: post #231
piperswe wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It hurts me when I see my tradie trainee husband (at school to be an auto mechanic) skip PPE in places he really shouldn't (e.g. latex gloves when handling carcinogenic fluids). I don't really know as I can do much other than state my objections to deaf ears though.

Those fluids are carcinogenic to drink, not to get on your skin. Don’t be a scold, show the benefit, which is it’s easier to clean up after work. Also latex gloves cause latex allergies frequently, vinyl gloves can be a good alternative.

Used engine oil is definitely carcinogenic.

https://roadmaponcarcinogens.eu/facts/used-mineral-oils/

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#278

Post by vintermann »

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…

I'm amazed at the person cited in the article who worked in administration at a quarry, developed silicosis and didn't know what it was. That suggests it's not just people willfully ignoring PPE practices, it's that they genuinely have no clue how dangerous rock dust is.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#279

Post by dukeofdoom »

stephen_g wrote: post #178
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…

It’s incredible how bad tradies are at PPE. When my solar panels were being installed on my house, the electrician was happily about to drill through asbestos cement eave lining before I stopped him, and at least made him put on a disposable P2 respirator mask I had lying around. But he still released asbestos fibres into the air and the ceiling cavity where his colleagues were working, and will have got it on his cl…

There's a lot of people living in really old substandard houses with Asbestos here in Canada too. The decline of the middle class, and economy where a new house costs 1 million, while the average salary is 59k made it nearly impossible for people to afford to build a new house. So the vas† majority of people in old homes will be stuck in them.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#280

Post by wolverine876 »

ethbr1 wrote: post #174
wolverine876 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with “always wear a p100” is that they’re not comfortable in an unventilated uncooled house which is where a lot of construction happens. If everyone is wearing one you also need to take more breaks which eats into time to do the job. Also, solutions that require people to consistently do uncomfortable things are not realistic; we know they will fail to comply - just like we would - and they will get si…

Also, they come up with post-hoc rationalizations that justify them not doing the uncomfortable thing.

The error they make is thinking that only "they" - other people - do these things.
Post reply on HN