411–420 of 542 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To protect the workers we must fire them.
It's not like whatever the demand that the engineered stone currently fills suddenly disappears so those workers will be able to find other similar jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The exposure to silica comes from cutting and grinding - and there is probably more exposure to cutting and grinding from natural stone (first at the quarry and second in production). I think the important distinction is that with natural stone, much more is cut to fit from the factory (which is easier to handle dust) vs cut on site.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that nobody tries to cut granite on site with an angle grinder. It's so difficult because the material is so hard. Granite countertops are typically cut off-site with a waterjet, which creates zero dust.
It does not make much sense to me that engineered stone would be much worse than natural stone on the regard of silicosis, and I highly doubt the natural stone industry is any more compliant in protection equipment and worker safety.
This sort of smells like natural stone industry fighting back to recover ground they lost to the engineered stuff, but being on the opposite side of the World it’s impossible for me to understand this beyond conspiracy theorizing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re not banning businesses. They’re banning a product which is causing deaths. Switch to a alternate product. It’s the same in your analogy of banning a toxic brake fluid.
It’s like banning chemical products because they are causing death if not handled properly. We would not have an industrialised world if we went that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not weird. Natural stone has been used forever and it was only after engineered stone entered the market they started to see a sharp rise in silicosis cases. Why ban a product that wasn’t causing the problem?
What would the base rate of silicosis be if natural stone work was banned too?
Any Aussies to confirm this isn’t some sort of lobbying stunt? It does not make much sense to me that engineered stone would be much worse than natural stone on the regard of silicosis, and I highly doubt the natural stone industry is any more compliant in protection equipment and worker safety. This sort of smells like natural stone industry fighting back to recover ground they lost to the engineered stuff, but bein…
Yeah there was a recent visit by rock-rich Croatian foreign ministry that heavy handed its small Aussie counterparts and pressured them on banning a whole industry :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people underestimate the risks from asbestos as the disease can take 20-40 years to develop after exposure but it shouldn’t be underestimated. Asbestosis killed over 3,600 people in 2015. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis Asbestos has affected all sorts or people, not just in the Navy. A close relative of mine who was a plumber has been diagnosed with it and it is an awful disease. This woman is dying f…
It’s also that relatively few people are affected. That’s approximately one in 100,000 people, twice as many people in the United States were murdered in 2015. It is really easy to know nobody who died from asbestos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re not banning businesses. They’re banning a product which is causing deaths. Switch to a alternate product. It’s the same in your analogy of banning a toxic brake fluid.
It’s like banning chemical products because they are causing death if not handled properly. We would not have an industrialised world if we went that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s also that relatively few people are affected. That’s approximately one in 100,000 people, twice as many people in the United States were murdered in 2015. It is really easy to know nobody who died from asbestos.
Is the risk of asbestos exposure when you work in construction as low as someone that doesn't?
The only reason asbestos is becoming less and less deadly is that we banned it decades ago.
It's very much worth reading the full reasoning within the SafeWork decision (page 56): https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/202... SafeWork's view is that the industry is too much of a non-compliant mess to recommend any other option apart from a complete ban.
The logic here is that if an industry can only be made safe with strict PPE standards, but the market dynamics make it difficult to ensure compliance with those standards, then it is OK to ban the industry. That seems a pretty concerning stance for small businesses. What's next? Ban microbreweries because they don't properly manage the risks of CO2 asphyxiation? Ban small-shop mechanics because they routinely get bra…