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

281–290 of 542 posts

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#281

Post by wolverine876 »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #199
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…

The same people probably work out at the gym ironically! But covid showed that people can wear masks alot.

Lots of people refused and caused lots of deaths.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#282

Post by its-summertime »

anon-sre-srm wrote: post #248
maakk wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. Or it's the dose, which sounds quite high when working with engineered stone.

It's the bozos working with the stuff without proper PPE. I watched a grave marker carver absolutely bathing in dust with just a thin bandanna, I was in there for 5 minutes and was left choking in their hazardous work environment. WitH sufficient PPE and dust control, it's not a problem. This is just barking up the wrong tree because they can't get workers to not be idiots, so they pick a scapegoat to ban at random.…

I don't think seeing one person do something can really compare to having a dedicated taskforce do 2 years of research into an industry, in terms of understanding risk and what practical options there are to manage said risk.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#283

Post by eru »

Reason077 wrote: post #266
eru wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You inadvertently make a good point that driving should probably be taxed a lot heavier in most places. It's reasonably safe for other people in cars, but it's hell for pedestrians, wheel-chair users and cyclists. So much so, that we have re-organised our whole society around avoiding this danger. Eg kids don't play on the streets anymore.

I agree with this. But perhaps a lot of it is just perception? In my country pedestrian deaths have fallen dramatically since the mid-1980s, by about 80%, despite the size of the vehicle fleet getting much larger. Were there more pedestrian deaths in the 1980s because more kids played on the streets? Or because cars and drivers were less safe and less aware of the risks? It certainly wasn't because there were more ca…

Of course, details depends on the country in question.

I'm mostly worried not so much about the actual number of casualties, but about the avoidance actions people engage in, ie not playing outside.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#284

Post by mmis1000 »

Ekaros wrote: post #239
adolph wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"? It isn’t a good idea to assume linear effects, especially with biology.

Specially when stuff you are comparing something rather novel basically existed before animals moved on land. Stone formations wearing down can causing dust has happened for hundreds of millions of years, if not billions. Biological systems are quite adapted to this type of exposure. Just like heavy metals, some poisons, and some radioactivity.

I believe people work in mines develops silicosis all the time. Isn't this exactly where we found silicosis exists? Cutting natural stone didn't seems to be a 100% safe-proof option in my opinion.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#285

Post by repiret »

drivebyadvice wrote: post #226
stephen_g wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The talk in the trade is that asbestos is way overblown and it mostly affected people installing it in ships for the Navy. They worked in tight spaces with lots of asbestos in the air, lining the ship and its pipes with it, all day every day. I don't know how true that is but I've heard the same exact story from several different contractors. I do know that getting those linoleum/asbestos floor tiles ripped up will c…

My understanding is that there is not a very obvious dose response curve for mesothelioma. There are some people who had occupational exposure for their entire working life and don’t get it, while there are some people that had a small number of individual exposures and do get it. I think this is what drives a lot of people to dismiss the risks of asbestos. They work around the stuff and they work with people who work around the stuff and they don’t see people getting mesothelioma, so they assume it’s not a big deal.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#286

Post by vintermann »

anon-sre-srm wrote: post #248
maakk wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. Or it's the dose, which sounds quite high when working with engineered stone.

It's the bozos working with the stuff without proper PPE. I watched a grave marker carver absolutely bathing in dust with just a thin bandanna, I was in there for 5 minutes and was left choking in their hazardous work environment. WitH sufficient PPE and dust control, it's not a problem. This is just barking up the wrong tree because they can't get workers to not be idiots, so they pick a scapegoat to ban at random.…

> they can't get workers to not be idiots

Is it that or is it that someone doesn't want to pay for those industrial-scale air cleaners?

I got a little interested in particulate air quality during covid so I ran across the entrepreneurs selling them. You can probably make the air in a quarry as clean as in a surgery room, if you're willing to pay.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#287

Post by Ekaros »

kragen wrote: post #241

imagine if we'd had these people around in the neolithic; it's well-known that potters often came down with silicosis from exposure to the silica in their clay bodies they would have banned pottery also isn't concrete technically 'engineered stone' i'm puzzled how breathing granite dust instead of so-called engineered stone dust is supposed to be better for you

My guess is that evolution in general has adapted on some level to dust from granite. It was around before land based animals. Just like it has adapted to trace quantities of other poisonous and harmful stuff.

Engineered stone might not be exact analogy granite dust, but different in way that prevent these mechanism to be effective.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#288

Post by lostlogin »

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…

> So instead of 2 years to develop silicosis it will instead take 4 years of working with the "safe alternatives"?

I’m not sure it works like that?

With many things, a lower dose gives more time for repair mechanisms so the effect of a reduction could be outsized. I’d like to see some data.

Also, granite is likely more expensive. So less of it will be used.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#289

Post by Reason077 »

xupybd wrote: post #263
Reason077 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making driving 100% safe is nearly impossible, but we drive cars built to good crash standards with seatbelts, ABS, AEB, etc. People still die on the roads, but these safety features reduce risk to an acceptable level. Likewise, using decent PPE won't 100% eliminate risk, but it will greatly improve it. Just because PPE isn't 100% effective doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. The other kind of obvious solution with en…

Why not use other materials? Modified acrylic or compact laminate? That will save lives.

Although good materials, acrylics and laminates are not quite as durable as engineered stone countertops. They tend to show more wear over time, and are more prone to damage from extreme heat etc. Some may consider the look and feel of stone to be more "premium".

But of course they're cheaper and lighter and probably still cheaper than stone even if you end up replacing them a couple of times over the lifetime of the kitchen...

Polished concrete is another decent alternative to engineered stone, although again perhaps not as durable.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#290

Post by defrost »

mmis1000 wrote: post #284
Ekaros wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specially when stuff you are comparing something rather novel basically existed before animals moved on land. Stone formations wearing down can causing dust has happened for hundreds of millions of years, if not billions. Biological systems are quite adapted to this type of exposure. Just like heavy metals, some poisons, and some radioactivity.

I believe people work in mines develops silicosis all the time. Isn't this exactly where we found silicosis exists? Cutting natural stone didn't seems to be a 100% safe-proof option in my opinion.

Medical data shows that people who work in mines develop silicosis some of the time.

Cutting natural stone is not a 100% safe occupation (like almost every occupation).

The specific difference here in the case in Australia is that since Engineered Stone first entered the Australian market in the early 2000’s medical data shows a significant rise in silicosis cases.

It's not that Before Engineered Stone was 100% safe,

it's that Post Engineered Stone appears to be considerably less safe.

Maybe it's the resin, maybe it's the particle size that's so uniform, maybe it's a coincidence . . .

Post reply on HN