• ElHexo [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    You are wrong to a degree, while the underlying issue is a lack of safe workplaces, engineered stone typically has a much higher rate of silicate (like 90 plus) compared to almost anything else

    There are other types of engineered stone that are low in silicates

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Oh, so they differ substantially, didn’t know that (but makes sense bcs of the variety they produce). I’m not anti-ban (the work itself doesn’t seem like it’s worth the end product anyway), I would have just expected more regulation (safety, or just a ban in crystalline silica perhaps) instead of an overall ban. But that’s just the EU in me talking, a ban is at least much clearer & in this case quicker to get passed.

      Edit: actually safe work Australia already drafted guidelines, I guess they didn’t catch on

      Workplace exposure standard for respirable crystalline silica: The eight-hour time weighted average workplace exposure standard (WES) for respirable crystalline silica (RCS) is 0.05 mg/m3. This means that your workers must not be exposed to levels of RCS greater than 0.05 mg/m3 over an eight hour working day, for a five day working week.

      Edit2: EU does have a directive in place but it’s not yet implemented into law (like a ‘delegated regulation’ or a demand to incorporate it in local laws) + its still evolving so no actual limit numbers (or a complete ban) yet. EU directives usually work in such a way that at first they gather industry knowledge & best practices (via mandated reporting) that they then implement into law (more or less strict depending on the end goal, but in administration sense compatible with the current industry capabilities - I’m actually proud of the efficiency & lifecycles of such a system).