The engineered stone is almost entirely silica.

> Hoy said that long before stonecutters started struggling to breathe, the sheer amount of silica in many kinds of engineered stone — upwards of 90% — should have made it obvious that the material was risky to cut and grind, especially in workplaces without sophisticated measures to control dust.(1)

> But scientists and regulators have grown concerned about whether recommended strategies such as wet cutting, proper ventilation and wearing respirator masks can do enough to protect workers from dust so high in silica. Cal/OSHA officials have generally described silicosis as preventable, but also caution that with 93% silica(2) content, “safe use of engineered stone may not be possible” even with proper workplace practices.(1)

(1) https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-11-19/why-cali...

2. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA37...

Studies looking into the issue have found non silica compounds cause issues too, and its the engineering process rather than the silica that causes the problem. This is why they haven't created an exemption for low-silica products.

> "It's not just about the silica, it's something specific about the engineered stone products that's causing such a significant issue in workers fabricating these products."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-05/study-finds-safety-co...

From the link:

> "What we found ... was that the natural products we had in the panel of products that we assessed actually caused the biggest inflammatory response," Professor Zosky said.

I'm not sure why they are saying it's the engineering. Their own study says that natural stone products are worse than the engineered products!

It's probably there's a larger number of cases of silicosis from engineered products despite it being safer. And that's probably because it's easier to cut in the field so people do it more often.

Worse in one specific regard, yes. And they agree with you in their conclusion, saying dust during processing is likely a factor.

You can see the full study here:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/resp.14625

> In conclusion, this study is the most comprehensive assessment of the physico-chemical characteristics of dusts generated from a wide range of resin-based engineered stones (of high- and reduced-silica contents) and the first to assess how these characteristics relate to the lung cell response, at a scale large enough to potentially identify components of these materials that could be linked to the severity of disease among ES workers. We showed that exposure to high levels of RCS dust during ES processing is likely contributing to disease severity in this occupational group, however, other inorganic components of ES dust, in particular Co and Al, may also be strong contributors. Furthermore, some of the highest inflammatory responses recorded were observed in non-engineered stones, further supporting the view that components other than crystalline silica may be contributing to the pathogenesis of severe silicosis. The outcomes of this study have important implications for future regulation of ES products as they challenge the common view that reducing the crystalline silica alone will eliminate disease risk.

The key take-away I get from that is that it's not silica specifically, but something else about engineered stone that is making it so unsafe to work with. And that's why they are banning the whole product class.

Do you know if they ruled out the resins used to bind stuff together?

In theory perfectly cured resins are supposed to be non-toxic (eg food safe) but you can get sensitised to specific mixes or accelerants and sometimes the curing isn't perfect...

EDIT: It looks like they considered it but didn't come to any firm conclusions, further research needed etc.

The theory I’ve heard would make a lot of sense: the resin coating prevents natural breakdown, similar to how asbestos victims never recover while small glass fragments are eventually removed. I hope that some researcher figures this out because I’d bet it’ll be applicable to more than just this product.

Weirdly enough, The article hints that the legislation won't ban natural stone.

  What alternatives are there to engineered stone?
  * Natural stone

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?

Fun how capitalism makes us think of what would be “acceptable deaths” so an industry could continue to generate profits.

Engineered stone has been around for 60 years by now. Something tells me they weren't tracking silicosis cases as diligently back in the 1960s as they are today. Most likely, cases are up because they are better diagnosed and tracked today than before engineered stone was a thing.

I don't understand how you could possibly draw this conclusion based on the evidence we have.

>Engineered stone, a durable and affordable alternative to natural materials like granite and marble, exploded in popularity in Australia throughout the 2000s.

>However doctors began sounding the alarm after noticing a surge in stonemasons developing silicosis, a long-term and sometimes fatal lung disease caused by inhaling unsafe levels of silica dust.

This is all in the last couple decades where doctors were well aware of and tracking cases. It’s very well documented and there’s no debate about cases increasing. The only debate is what exact is it about ES that makes it so much more deadly then natural stone.

It is very much linked to the use of ES not “better tracking of cases”

You clearly did absolutely no research or even read the linked article and are responding with you feelings on the matter.

Is it not because the manufactured stone requires manufacturing. So a lot more exposure to the raw materials during the manufacturing process?

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.

I wonder why those parts are not made in the desired shape already with no need to cut or sand in place.

I assume it's because kitchens and bathrooms aren't made in standardized sizes to fit standardized counters.

No perfect walls (also changes w/ temperature/humidity), drilling holes, misalignment, imperfect measurements...

Since it's a luxury but not a super expensive product, the more expensive process of precise measurement, off-site waterjet/laser cutting is not suitable.

This I suspect nails the question of "why doesn't natural silica-containing stone cause the same problems?" asked several times elsethread.

It's been said elsewhere here, but the ban isn't because of manufacturing. The stuff can and generally is handled very safely during manufacturing, and they appear confident they can sue / jail the odd cowboy shop that doesn't comply.

What they aren't confident is their ability to force the installers handle it safely. When it gets to the site there is often a corner to be shaved, or a unexpected hole needed. It only takes slightly more effort to use a wet saw, but to contractors time is money and it's their health they are putting as risk - so it's OK, right? The site is typically a new house or small business. Policing those sites effectively is prohibitively costly, suing for the consequences after they happen doesn't work because the disease takes years to manifest so they've killed a few people by the time it happens.

So in typical Australian fashion they've decided people making decisions in their 20's they maim or kill them in their 30's is not OK (that is what's happening), so they take what seems drastic action. It's entirely in keeping with the Australian way. We were the first insist on plain paper packaging for cigarettes for example, ditto on seat belts, we enforce total alcohol bans in towns where alcohol related violence is deemed too high (typically we see a 60% drop in alcohol related crime when that happens).

Natural stone are expensive and a luxury items. They are not the alternative to engineered stone really. Engineered stone are bought by middle-class, and thus in much higher number. The alternative being usually plain wood.

While natural stone is more expensive, it also requires sealer (wax/polymer + VOCs) is more prone to cracking or breaking during transport or use (put a hot pan on the counter and find out) and we do cut it on site with a angle grinder when nessisary. Engineered stone generates a ton of microplastics when being fabricated, and it wouldn't surprise me if it had endocrine disrupting chemicals. I'm a cranky old web dev, looking for my next dev/ops job, email in bio :)

Apparently the spike in cases in due to engineered stone. The FAQ gives various reasons why this may be the case, e.g. the generated particle size is different, and also it is easier to cut than natural stone so it may be processed by less skilled workers.

https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/safety-topic/hazards/cr...

Possibly the issue is more to do with the lower cost of the engineered material?

Like, when tobacco cost a megabuck per oz in Queen Elizabeth times people smoked a pipe once in a while and in the context of their high exposure to fireplace smoke it was no big deal. Fast forward to when cigarettes cost 10c/pack and the marketing guys are selling them to 8 year olds...now it's a huge health problem.

That just seems like a policy that punishes the poor. It's like banning commercial flights for greenhouse gas reasons but letting private jets fly.

>poor

it's a luxury product, far from the cheapest countertop options.

If you're only paying a small amount for the materials, most people will be a lot more price sensitive on installation, so there's a race to the bottom.

Also, if the material is expensive, it pays off to measure exactly and order the material cut to the correct dimensions rather than just cut it on site, because if you slip with the angle grinder your mistake costs 2000€.

I think it has more to do with the explosion of use in the market, it's everywhere now (from McMansions to cheap apartments). It is was just cheap/expensive enough to replace laminated MDF benchtops.

I suggest people look at the actual numbers -> https://lungfoundation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/NSP...

Every one of them over zero is bad, but I was surprised how small the sample of active cases actually are. It would have been better to show the change year on year though.

I was surprised that the sample rate was so few, that is active cases.

if this was an american decision, i'd suggest the natural stone lobby was better than the engineered stone lobby.

We really don't have the same overt paid lobbying here (aka bribery) that you have in the US.

Don't get me wrong our politicians are just as morally bankrupt and self-serving, but it doesn't happen at the same coordinated scale.

World-know news payment extortion from Meta?

There's a substantial amount of lobbying, but the reporting requirements on it are laughably low. Agree it's not at the level of the US, though. The member for Kooyong was working to establish a bill about it. At the moment lobbyists have unfettered access to parliament house.

Lobbying and bribery are not the same at all. Equivocating them severely downplays the seriousness of bribery.

Lobbying means someone is trying to influence the government through things as simple as advertising campaigns. Those exist in AU.

Advertising is PR, not lobbying.

Lobbying often involves implicit or explicit offers of campaign funding, PAC support/opposition, and gifts that skirt the edge of what is legally bribery.

No, lobbying is “attempting to influence the government”. Advertising about proposed bills is 100% lobbying.

Without any funding to the politician involved, a lobbyist’s job is to convince the politician of voting a particular way.

A sleazy lobbyist may try money in indirect ways for/against the politician, but a regular one will try to raise awareness through advertising and public pressure. It’s all lobbying.

Lobbyists may engage in PR activity, but that does not make PR activity lobbying.

Lobbying has a pretty clear definition which you are trying to stretch here.

Let me put it this way: Airing an ad about a government rep or piece of legislation is PR or advertising. Using the threat or promise of airing that ad to try to talk a politician into doing something is lobbying.

lol we certainly have lobbying in Australia, they just apparently keep a lower profile than American lobbyists do.

It's so funny to me how many non-americans just assume their country is perfect because they apparently don't pay attention to their local news. Or maybe it's just nationalism, hard to say.

it does sound like mining companies protecting their business

Bunnings & Ikea recently stopped selling this product. My guess is Bunnings probably wanted to stop competition. So they probably lobbied the government for the full ban. After all, you can't have the competition selling a popular product that they don't. (Bunnings is like Australia's Home Depot or Lowe's)

Not to be confused with Lowe's in Australia, which sells clothing.

It was pushed by the trade unions, who currently install and work with both products.

> I don't get why the industry was not allowed to pursue low-silica engineered stone

From what I can tell, the law itself allows for products under 1% silica. Now where did I read that ...

"According to the ministers’ communique, exceptions will be introduced for the removal, repair, minor modification or disposal of engineered stone installed before 1 July 2024, as well as for products with trace levels of silica under 1%."

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/dec/13/engin...

Yes, that is a massively higher hurdle than natural stone has to meet.