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.

[–] wscholermann@aussie.zone 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CalamityBalls@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] wscholermann@aussie.zone 5 points 11 months ago

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.