Jason, I am sure that you have been able to determine that I do not believe the OHS regulators’ job is to provide worker health and safety. It is their job to assist employers (and PCBUs) to fulfil their legislative duty to healthy and safety workplaces and work and to punish those employers who do not or choose not to. The regulators do what they can with the resources allowed them by the government and by the policies and political preferences (overt and covert). It may be lazy and a copout of the governments but the regualtors do what they can.

I don’t think engineered stone should be banned IF automation could eliminate the exposure of humans to the silica. That technology already exists, as you point out, but there are many fabricators who choose not to or do not have access to the capital required for the cutting of engineered stone. OHS regulators seem to have failed in either locating these employers or having the employers reduce the risks of silicosis, perhaps for some of the resource issues mentioned above.

The challenge for the government is that profit is given a higher priority than the safety of workers in many workplaces, a priority that is exacerbated and supported by OHS legislation that was intended to allow employers the flexibility they requested to improve OHS the way they wanted. Sadly, most employers have used that flexibility to do as little as possible (practicable). Over many decades profit before safety has been normalised into the dominant culture with the assistance of many social institutions. This situation will not be reversed in my lifetime.

As I said in the article, a ban remains a long way off, and the ban may be found to be so expensive that governments may erode the ban to allow some of the cutting techniques you allude to. This position would satisfy some of the large fabricators and still allow for silicosis risks to be controlled, however this would require substantial/expensive enforcement measures. In this instance, it all comes down to cost and who will wear it.