Talk:Cultured marble
No hazardous materials???? Please cite reference, last I heard polyester resin IS a hazardous substance. There is too much marketing hype in this article. Guarantee? This is meaningless and is not evidence of product longevity or quality. Cultured marble is marble like synthetic leather is leather. Not at all. THere are no requirements that calcium carbonate must be used as a component of the composite. Because of its low cost, it typically is used, along with other ingredients. Styrene (monomer) on Wiki: Styrene is classified as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).[5] The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have a cancer classification for styrene, but is evaluating its potential carcinogenicity. The EPA has described styrene as "a suspected carcinogen" and "a suspected toxin to the gastrointestinal, kidney, and respiratory systems, among others."[6][7]
It is true that the Unsaturated Polyester Resins / Polyester Resins mentioned in the product details are actually hazardous - but it is hazardous only when they are being used for the making of the finished product - Finished product, i. e. Cultured marble product is not hazardous as it is completely free of the Styrene as it is fully reacted in the resin system. The non-porous material formed is one of the best alternative material till date found to be replacement of natural stones viz., Marble, Granite and Onyx etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.173.159 (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Criticism
editI didn't know Wikipedia was allowing advertising! I guess Jimmy wasn't able to hit his donation tally this year. Thanks to Sunrise International Company for this ad and their continued support of Wikipedia!
Seriously though, this is a joke. The tone and vocabulary read exactly like a sales pitch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.197.242 (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- These types of complaints are easily handled. There is no impediment to improving the article via editing while making sure that the results fit Wikipedia standards. Too, sources can be changed to remove the implied bias. To me, only minor edits are necessary to make this acceptable. Perhaps, we could use the 'solid surface' page as an example. jmswtlk (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Merge with Solid surface ?
editThe article is now extremely short, and 2 of the 3 references are commercial. Suggest merging with Solid surface in addition to ensuring article is non-commercial in nature. I wouldn't say it is an advertisement, though the references seem to be close. Solid surface covers the same general content. Would like input before tagging for merge. 8r455 (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Go for it. Everybody has their nickname for their process, but there doesn't seem to be a fundamental difference between the various types of "stone chips glued together by plastic". --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Added tag. 8r455 (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Redirect to Engineered Stone?
editSeeing as Solid surface is a specfic type of material, I'd suggest this get redirected to Engineered Stone. Codesmith (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)