The Dust – Silicosis

Inhalation Hazards Pictogram‘It-Trab’

The screaming noise of a blade going through stone followed by a white cloud of dust:

This is a sight one expects to see on any construction site regardless of the size of the project. One wouldn’t believe anyone who claims to be a builder if the person wasn’t covered in white dust arising out of the Maltese Limestone. Why is everyone complacent to the dust generated by such works? Should be people be concerned?

Limestone is naturally occurring and contain varies amounts of quartz (crystalline silica). This mineral is not dangerous in its bulk form and is safe to use. However, when the material is processed, cut or broken down it may create dust which contains respirable crystalline silica. As such, any quarry, mining and most building activities involve crystalline silica (https://www.eula.eu/crystalline-silica/).

Lamiot, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

If inhaled, respirable crystalline silica may settle in the lungs which is then attacked by the immune system. This may cause swelling which may lead to scarred tissue (fibrosis). As a result, a person may develop a persistent cough, shortness of breath and a feeling of tiredness. These are the symptoms of silicosis which also increases the risk of a person getting other serious conditions such as chest infections, lung cancer and arthritis Silicosis – NHS (www.nhs.uk).

Respirable crystalline silica is regulated in Malta by S.L.424.35 Protection of Workers from the Risks related to Exposure to Carcinogens or Mutagens at Work Regulations . Amongst others the employer has a duty to carry out the following; assessments, reduction of exposure, implementation of technical measures and making arrangements for health surveillance.

The law is quite technical and somewhat difficult to interpret. However, if we look at guidelines issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) we better understand what is required to protect oneself from silica exposure.

To put us in perspective of how important the following measures are, the HSE published this image which shows the amount of inhaled silica, not be exceeded per day.

In certain circumstances, dust can be avoided altogether by purchasing the correct size of material or using direct fastening systems. Having said that, the generation of dust may be inevitable, as such tool extraction and respiratory protective equipment is to be used to reduce and protect against exposure to dust (Construction dust CIS36 (hse.gov.uk)). In Malta we sometimes see construction site workers using water damping devices however this is not a common sight to see.

Dust exposure is so serious that the HSE has been running a campaign called ‘Dust Buster’ whereby HSE inspectors check on construction sites to ensure that the above controls are implemented and that workers are aware of the risks involved (“Health and Safety Executive cracks down on dust – HSE Media Centre”, 2020).

In 2001 there were 485 cases of silicosis in the European Union (Karjalainen & Niederlaender, 2004). These exclude other respiratory problems which arise out of dust and have not been diagnosed a Silicosis. Such as, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma.

So how come we still expect builders to be covered in dust? How come dust bothering neighbours of construction sites, is still considered a nuisance and nothing else? How come workers still refuse to wear appropriate PPE? Aren’t we all tired of seeing dust-covered cars, dust-covered roads, dust-covered buildings and dust-covered people?

The Cement Bucket

Lifting operation pictogram‘Il-Bajla’

Due to the ever-increasing business in construction, several hazards and risks have become more frequent. As such risks from working at heights, falling objects, lifting operations, and industrial equipment have also become common. On the 13th of January 2021, I witnessed the following lifting operation.

A cement bucket in use with a ride on position for the transport of workers.
Cement bucket in use with riding position

The crane was hoisting the bucket with the person from street level. Lifting the load to almost the maximum height of the crane and transporting it throughout the length of the boom. I immediately thought what will the outcome be should the person fall during the dumping of the concrete, sand or whatever material was being transported in the same bucket. The person may potentially make contact with the material being dumped which may lead to injury, suffocation and/or death. I did some research on the use of cement buckets and the lifting of people.

Local legislation states that the lifting of persons may be carried out only if the equipment being used to lift the persons has been specifically designed to do so, the controls of the lifting machine are always manned and there are emergency arrangements in place to save the person being lifted should an emergency arise.

The legislation gives an opportunity to the employer to make use of work equipment which is not originally designed for the lifting of persons if action is taken to ensure the safety of the person being lifted.

When such a statement is made within a regulation, one should refer to Approved Codes of Practice, Standards or Guidelines which have been published by international or national organizations. Research led me to guidance published by the Occupational Health and Safety Authority (OHSA) ‘Krejnijiet’, the Safe use of lifting equipment published by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), code 1926 Construction published by the Occupational Safety and Health Authority (OSHA) and the guidance on the safe system of work plan (SSWP) published by the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) in Ireland.

In the guidance published by OHSA it is clearly stated that equipment and objects are never to be hoisted together and that whenever lifting of people is carried out, such lifting is to be only undertaken with the use of a cage designed for the purpose and certified by a competent person. However, no specific mention of the cement bucket is made (Krejnijiet – Gwida ta’ Prattika Tajba, n.d.).

The HSE states that lifting of people with equipment which is not designed for this purpose shall only be used when it is not practicable to gain access by less hazardous means and such equipment shall be de-rated by 50%. Where it is practicable to obtain equipment specifically built for the lifting of people, such equipment shall be used. (Safe use of lifting equipment, 2014).

Thumbnail from SSWP outlining the use of cement buckets

The HSA does not recommend the use of buckets with riding positions and this should only be used when the provision of a safe working platform is not practicable (SSWP New Commercial Building Pictograms, 2006).

OSHA standard is much more direct. Section 1926.701(d) specifically states the following “No employee shall be permitted to ride concrete buckets”.

Transporting concrete safely always depends on the situation, the equipment being used and the restrictions imposed by the construction of the building itself. Prior planning and adequate research will increase the chances of using the best equipment with minimal skin contact and work at height risks (“Methods of Transportation of Concrete – Dumpers, Trucks, Belt Conveyors, Monorail, Tremie”, 2021).

It is evident from all guidance that the use of the ride-on bucket, lifting an employee up to 5 stories high and transporting the bucket and the employee a substantial number of meters across a construction site, was not the best and safest method of work. Why did the employer subject the employee to such risks and why did the employee agree to carry out such works?

The Oil

Slippery Surface Pictogram‘Iż-Żejt’

On the 26th of October, while driving through the roads of Msida heading home, I rode through Triq Qrejten and just as I passed Telgħat Gwardamaniga, I noticed that my motorbike felt unstable. I looked back and saw an oil patch covering most of the road.

Oil Spill from work equipment

I pulled aside and called the emergency services to have the spill sorted out. Kudos to the Civil Protection Department who were on site in less then 10 minutes to cover the spill with sand. However, when I tried to report the same issue to the Occupational Health and Safety Authority (OHSA), I was informed that since it is a public road and not a workplace the issue is to be reported to the police.


I wanted to submit the report to the Occupational Health and Safety Authority (OHSA), since the OHSA Act states that the employer is responsible to ensure the health and safety at all time of all persons who may be effected by the work being carried out. Doesn’t an oil spill on a public road generated by work equipment fall within that criteria? And how can a crane be leaking oil when it is legally to be subject to a suitable system of maintenance and inspections every six months under the Work Equipment (Minimum Safety and Health Requirements) Regulations.


The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), has guidance published on the protection of the public during on going works. A specific section on slips, trips and falls in pedestrian areas states that any spillages are to be cleared immediately and that the area shall be secured prior to allowing access to the public (Protecting the public, 2009). While guidance published by the OHSA Stating the obvious no? Furthermore guidance by the OHSA on the the use of cranes asks the employer to make a visual inspection to make sure that there is no leakage of oil or fuel (Krejnijiet – Gwida ta’ Prattika Tajba, n.d.).


Such spills are not a rare occasion. As reported by the Times of Malta, an oil spill from a crane which occurred in June 2020 led to a collision of 8 different vehicles.

8 car collision

During the day the crane at Msida was obstructing the street as such, a transport official would have been stationed at the place of work. Shouldn’t the same transport official noted and acted on the danger that such oil spill may pose to other public vehicles?


Even though legislation exist to protect the public and to regulate work equipment, we notice everyday equipment which is inadequate and danger to the public.

Such instances show that employers are not fulfilling duties imposed on them by different legal notices. If it is promoted to the public to report such occurrence to the OHSA and the OHSA is given the legal power to take ownership of these cases, the OHSA can have better direction on which employers need further investigation and enforcement.

Couldn’t have the collision which occurred in June led to serious injuries, couldn’t have I skidded with my bike, couldn’t have this risk been mitigated by the employer having a suitable system of maintenance, an inspection after completion of works and some sand before opening the road?