I was gonna go with "Australia is not an island" but, well, I think we can see the problem in that statement. :-)
In the United States, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) has implemented strict guidelines regarding silica (https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/fy16_sh-296...). Silica is highly present in things like concrete, so it is weird to me that something other than concrete would be singled out.
> You appear to have made a quip unsupported by medical data.
No, I have not. The "quip" is ignoring the other sources of silica while singling out this one particular one.
We (Australians) might have corks on our hats (we don't) but we do understand ANOVA and have several world acclaimed epidemiologists working with long standing well recorded data going back many decades.
Engineered silicia is being "singled out" for the crime of being significantly more responsible for actual silicosis cases than concrete is.
Is there any such evidence in Australia associating such a thing with concrete at the same high risk levels?
This is a data driven decision.
You appear to have made a quip unsupported by medical data.