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.