Silestone Abandons the Effort, Partners with the SFA
The first question that is probably in your mind is who the heck is the SFA?
Stone Fabricators Alliance, a so called “Brotherhood” of stone fabricators. Brings to mind the Aryan Brotherhood or something. Not saying they are racist, but it is poor choice of words in this day and age.
These guys claim between 300 and 2,000 paid members, but their member location map shows about 175 members. They have two sites, SFArocks.com and stoneadvice.com. The former is their organization’s home, little there currently. The stoneadvice site is pretty extensive, basically a forum with lots of participation. On the forum, they tend to be very clannish, few outsiders are welcomed once they start asking too many questions. People tend to get banned if the others don’t agree with the party line.
This was the home of the infamous granite “Black List”, a list of unsuitable granites put together by granite fabricators, slabs that they planned on refusing to work with for various reasons. Posted in an open section for all to view, once consumers became aware of the list, it was quickly hidden from public view. Off the present topic, but it sets the tone.
So Silestone (actually Cosentino or C & C) had some questions about their own products, knew there were some potential issue with their Sensa line of natural stone countertops, but the MIA refused to start a conversation on the issues. So Silestone partnered with Cambria, a quartz manufacturer, and funded a small non profit called Build Clean. Completely independent, but both parties recieved a seat on the board of directors, two seats out of many. Able to suggest and even guide matters, but not in complete control.
All went well for about ten months, until the combination of the Solid Surface Alliance and Build Clean was wildly successful in finding and publicising the existance of some freakishly hot granite types. What was expected to be a low key back of the newspaper event turned out to be a massive news event, which resulted in people and organizations flocking to help out with the testing and the spreading of the information. Leaving some very unhappy stone companies out there. Not to mention some nervous big box stores.
It was one thing to have a few upset competitors, but when the quarries in Brazil started talking about refusing to sell stone to Silestone, Silestone called a meeting at their Brazillian plant. Once the 80 or so quarries and slab processors realized one of the top executives with C & C would be present on their home turf, it was a matter of a few hours before rumors started saying that a contract was taken out on this executives life. Remember this is Brazil we are talking about, the odds were the guy would not make it from the airport to the hotel. Billions of dollars were at stake, looked like someone wanted to extract revenge and stop others from supporting the effort.
At first, the story was that the Silestone executive found out, canceled the meeting. It was only a matter of a few days before Silestone’s representative on the Build Clean Board of Directors was demanding Build Clean shut down the effort and change their website. Later on, other sources said the meeting went on as planned, and that the alledged “hit” was either steet talk or used to garner sympathy for the change of allies.
About this same time, the SFA decided to approach Silestone. They had earlier attempted to extort Brenton (they make the quartz slab processing machinery) and the MIA (Marble Institute of America), demanding that they lead a boycott of both Silestone and Cambria for daring to point out that some granites were potentially dangerous. Brenton and the MIA both told this small ragged group of stone fabricators to stuff it where the sun don’t shine, resulting in many wails and threats. Rebuffed, beaten, but not defeated, the SFA approached Silestone and cut a deal. There was an effort weeks earlier, attempting to tie Silestone’s Microban to serious health issues, which went nowhere at all. This time though, they happened to ooze their way in when Silestone needed a tool to show the stone industry they were backing down quickly.
What happened? Silestone negociated a deal with the SFA, in return for Silestone shutting down Build Clean, the SFA agreed to start a testing effort in conjunction with Silestone. I think this was pure genius on Silestone’s part, they knew they couldn’t deliver, but they split the stone industry’s organized effort in half, actually forcing the most active members of the industry to not only support the testing effort, but to stab their former allies at the MIA in the back.
This all transpired on Monday, with not a word from the MIA since. Even the most vocal of our critics on the SFA are now some what quiet, with little to say but that some granite must be tested and removed from the market. They are taking their drubbing quite well, with plenty of fabricators saying that the Solid Surface Alliance’s efforts were not only successful, but they were completely vindicated.
The deal was that Silestone not use Radon or radiation in their marketing, but Silestone is still doing just that.
Lot’s more going on with this issue, some effort to get the several sides together to quiet the fighting and work on the issues. Some educating would be possible, but it is looking like quasi govt agencies like ANSI will step in with the help of AARST will actually set any standards and testing protocols.
Time will tell, in the meantime, it is a fascinating story
5 Responses to 'Silestone Abandons the Effort, Partners with the SFA'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
on August 24th, 2008 at 8:00 am
An interesting comment was found on a debate on these issues.
An SFA member, Kent Potter, said this:
“I have not been able to confirm the Brazilian Mafia hit men story. Each person I ask gives me very strange responses, I don’t quite understand what to make of it!”
As you can see, no one wants to talk about this or they have very different answers at best.
on August 25th, 2008 at 2:21 am
More info on the alledged hit on the Silestone exectutive. Roberto did make the meeting, which is why Silestone started distancing themselves from Build Clean and the media. Later the SFA blundered in and were used as a tool to further distance Silestone.
These guys are smart!
And the quarry owners are saying it wasn’t them that ordered the hit, perhaps one of the slab processors or exporters?
Regardless, it was effective.
on August 25th, 2008 at 3:39 am
Here is Sensa’s radiation and Radon limits, Sensa being Silestones or Cosentino’s line of natural stone. They were supposed to not use Radon or radiation as a marketing tool according to their agreement with the SFA.
Radon Emanation & Radiation Tested
All SenSa colors have been tested for low risk exposure to Radon & Radiation. Sensa threshold limits:
Radon emanation from granite stone below 154 pCi/Kg, which represents radon emanation below 4 pCi/L for a typical indoor kitchen.
Radiation below 200 CPM or 0.053 mR/hr
What concerns me is that they allow up to 4 pCi/L of radon when there is a cancer risk with that level of Radon. I would expect the limit to be set at least 10 times lower.
Also, their limit of .053 mR/hr (same as 53 micro Roentgen per hour) is above Georgia, Texas, and Lousianna have NORM laws that should prevent this high of a radiation level being sold. The Radiation Dose calculator says this:
.053 mrem per hour continuously for 70 years at public’s risk factor of 0.05 per Sv:
Dose rate = 530.0 nSv/h (53.00 µrem/h)
Annual dose rate = 4.646 mSv/a (464.6 mrem/a)
Cumulative dose = 325.2 mSv (32.52 rem)
Excess lifetime cancer risk = 1.626% (1 : 61.50)
Then I calculated the Radon risk at 4 pCi/L which is their upper standard:
Dose rate = 371.8 nSv/h
Annual dose rate = 2.607 mSv/a (0.652 WLM/a)
Cumulative dose = 182.5 mSv (45.63 WLM)
Excess lifetime cancer risk = 1.291% (1 : 77.44)
One in 77 or one in 61 risk of cancer is not a small risk in my opinion. I would have a problem with selling granite as high of a level as this.
on October 11th, 2008 at 2:44 am
Does anyone know if there is a radon risk in Silestone’s quartz countertops? I called them, and they said that since their product is set in acryllic, there is no off gassing. That makes sense in terms of chemicals, fumes, etc, but if there is a radon presence, I doubt acryllic would do the trick. If anyone has any info, please post it as I’m planning a purchase soon. Thanks.
on October 11th, 2008 at 4:22 am
Toomuchjava,
Silestone and Cambria samples were tested by Dr. Kitto from the New York state Health Dept. Extremely tiny amounts were found in some colors, none in others. See the next paragraph for more info on extremly low levels detected.
I sent additional samples to another researcher, Silestone’s current box of samples, Staron’s current sample box, Hanstone’s current sample box, and about one quarter of Cambria’s samples. The results have not been published yet, but I was told there was none to very little results. At some point, called the minumun detectable limit, even a tiny result can not be said to be a true or false test result, it is in the “who knows” area.
Two Radon labs are currently using Quartz material as the base for their Radon measuring chambers due to the lack of Radon and other off gassing.
Another point, for years it was thought that Radon could only be emitted by the surface of a granite or quartz top, one nanometer was thought to be the “recoil” distance that a Radon molecule would be kicked out when the Radium atom decayed into Radon. As it turns out with more studies, the scientists are saying that granite is very permable to Radon, so much so that a high Radon emitting granite can be covered with a low emitting granite, with the lower granite’s Radon being detected THROUGH the upper stone. Quartz would be very different, since the polyester is mixed with the quartz chips and cured.
Now, two very important points.
FIrst off, with granite, the quartz mineral shrinks up to 50% when it cools as the granite is formed, leaving the porous matrix that allows Radon to travel. The quartz mineral in Quartz countertop material is not molten when formed, so it doesn’t shrink, so there are no voids for porosity.
The second point, and the most troubling because of their answer, is that Silestone uses polyester resins, not acylic. The person at Silestone didn’t have a clue about what they were speaking of.
Keep in mind that Quartz countertop material is solid surface with quartz chips imbeded in it, about 28 to 35% by volumne. The 97% quartz content claim is by weight, and is very misleading in my opinion. Now there are polyester solid surface brands, Avontite has a group of 100% polyester colors, but most companies use acrylic because it doesn’t UV light fade like polyester does.
Some granites UV fade as well, with dark lines or light lines showing up if something “masks” part of the top. Most common is a slab sitting outside with another slab slightly shifted to one end, leaving a two or three inch wide section of the back slab exposed to light. In some Quartz colors, the same can happen, or cookie jars or canister sets leaving dark spots or light spots as the rest of the top fades with light exposure.
We warn our customers about the Avonite polyester colors, a hand full of which will change color as it ages, turning lighter, or more yellow. The fact that Quartz also has these issues is not generally known outside the fabrication world. We sell quartz, but please read the care and cleaning instructions carefully, then carefully read the warranty. So much care must be taken with quartz to avoid voiding the warranty, and if you treat the countertop with the kid gloves required treatment, you can save a boatload of money going with solid surface instead.
Another point about Quartz is the staining and etching issues. Again please read that warranty very carefully and not any exemptions and exculsions. Read a solid surface warranty as well, then compare the exclusions and exemptions cause it will tell you want many of us fabricator already know, Quartz is really oversold on durability and stain resistance.
But, it doesn’t have Radon or radiation issues, is shiny and harder than solid surface. Some report the loss of gloss as it ages, others say their countertop stayed looking great. I would imagine it has more to do with care and cleaning than brand issues.
Make sure they specify where and how many seams you will have. It makes a lot of difference in the bid price, fewer seams usually wastes material.
I hope this helps, if not ask more questions.
Thanks,
Al