Jason, I understand your perspective and appreciate that the silicosis debate in Australia is partly imported engineered stone and local tunnel and construction work. I think it is possible to have two approaches to silicosis, ban imports and increase the testing of air quality, improve underground ventilation and apply better designed respirators and PPE. Including both sources of silicosis muddied the debate because although the hazard is the same, the source and working environment is not, and both these approaches need to be applied in both silicosis circumstances.

As you seemed to point out, cost of dust remediation and suitable respirators seems to be the major sticking point for progress. I get it, but that is at the end of the assessment of reasonably practicable controls. The most effective and cost effective is to ban engineered stone. It will have no impact on Australia’s economy as there is no local manufacturing of engineered stone, and the biggest manufacturing sectors with poorly or un-controlled silicosis risks are the micro, small or black market operators. Minimal job losses but substantial social benefit.

Andrews, I am often reminded of Dr Yossi Berger who persisted in arguing over (collective) dusts while regulators waited for data and evidence. That’s okay in some circumstances but with silicosis and other workplace hazards, the evidence comes art the cost of people’s lives. I find that hard to justify.