Stone Countertops & Radon

[Jeff Spencer]

I caught the tail end of a news report the night before last that was either detailing or hyping the risks of radon posed by stone countertops.

Is this something any of y'all have dealt with, or is the local news (Houston, TX) trying to get ratings?

Since I live in a low-risk area relative to radon, I've never thought about before. Wish I'd seen the entire report, but I was engaged in serious mental drift about that time.

Jeff

[Scott Patterson]

I caught the tail end of a news report the night before last that was either detailing or hyping the risks of radon posed by stone countertops.

Is this something any of y'all have dealt with, or is the local news (Houston, TX) trying to get ratings?

Since I live in a low-risk area relative to radon, I've never thought about before. Wish I'd seen the entire report, but I was engaged in serious mental drift about that time.

Jeff

It all depends on who is reporting and what source is being cited.
The Marble Institute of America (MIA) says that it is a bunch of bunk! Yet, other groups and scientist say that it is very possible to have a slab of granite emitting radon in a home.

I kind of lump it in with all of the elementary school playground equipment that was built in the 1960's and 70's with old oilfield drilling pipe. It was just metal pipe that was strong and cheap. Made great swings and monkey bars, but it had one little problem. It was radioactive a good part of the time.

I'm going with the non-industry view in that it could happen.

[John Arnold]

Supposedly from the EPA: (my bold)

"Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas produced by the breakdown of uranium in soil, rock, and water. Air pressure inside your home is usually lower than pressure in the soil around your home's foundation. Because of this difference in pressure, your house acts like a vacuum, drawing radon in through foundation cracks and other openings. Radon may also be present in well water and can be released into the air in your home when water is used for showering and other household uses. In most cases, radon entering the home through water is a small risk compared with radon entering your home from the soil. In a small number of homes, the building materials (e.g., granite and certain concrete products) can give off radon, although building materials rarely cause radon problems by themselves. In the United States, radon gas in soils is the principal source of elevated radon levels in homes."

[Michael Thomas]

The quote is from Consumer's Guide to Radon Reduction | Publications | Radon | Indoor Air Quality | Air | US EPA (http://epa.gov/radon/pubs/consguid.html)

See also this 2008 study: http://www.marble-institute.com/industryresources/radontesting_u-akron2008.pdf

[Gunnar Alquist]

Interesting reading. Another thing to report and disclaim. Jeeze. Did anyone hear or read the recent reports on nanotubes, their similarity to asbestos and the possibility of mesotheleomia?

The conclusions in Michael's Marble Institute post recommend sealing the stone. As I recall, JP was on the fence about that in an earlier post.

Any (revised) comments, JP? ;)

[Jerry Peck]

From the Marble Institute link: "Alternatively, if the crushed granite is used to make other building materials, radon emanation can also be a health concern"

Isn't that decomposed granite stuff crushed granite?


Then there is this:


"In the worst case as represented by Crema Bourdeaux at equilibrium is 292 pCi/Lx22÷24000=0.27 pCi/L.
The actual radon dilution factor can be much bigger than what is calculated. Radon from granite countertop can, therefore, only add a very small amount to the house when it is not used such as during the period of vacation. Radon from countertops cannot exceed the maximum equilibrium level because 222Rn decays quickly with a half-life of 3.8235 days."


Then this:


"Conclusion
The testing procedures for radon emanation of granite countertops are designed for normal use of these stones only as countertops. Adapting the 4pCi/L action level as recommended by US EPA as a reference and the house is not in active use, Crema Bourdeaux countertop raises less than 7% of this action level. The second and the third highest radon count stone Tropic Brown and Baltic Brown can add only approximately 1% of this action level. All the other countertops adds only insignificant amount of radon to the house. If normal air exchange rate is applied or the house is actively used, then the radon addition should be much smaller."


That basically tells me not to worry about it. :confused:

[Al Gerhart]

Jerry,
That MIA article is highly suspect. They have a history of hiring a "study" done, without insisting that the work be sujected to peer review and publication, two marks of a truly scientific study.

The testing that Dr. Chyi did was okay according to experts in the field, indeed he found that Crema Bordeaux emitted like 292 times more Radon than some of the others! Where this effort went wrong was in the conclusions.

To start with, they used a 13' x 2' granite countertop as the example home, a 2,000 square foot home. Then to make it seem more reasonable, they doubled the square footage by counting top and bottom square footage, bringing it up to 54 square feet. I missed it the first time I read it, had to go back after a nagging feeling that the levels emitted were low.

I can tell you that the average countertop in a home of that size would be between 65 and 75 square feet, so if Chyi said to count both sides since both sides emit the Radon (ignore the edges for now, but they emit as well), that 54 square feet becomes between 130 and 150 for the kitchen alone. Triple his emission from .27 to .81 pCi/Liter. Four picoCuries per Liter have a lung cancer rate of 7 per 1,000 exposed(adults only), according to the EPA, and the relationship is linear, so .81 pCi/L will cause 1.41 cancers per thousand exposed, hardly a small risk factor. Children have 10 times that risk factor according to the NRC and the EPA.

Still serveral problems remain with this conclusion.

First off, There will be far more granite in some homes. Our average granite jobs in a home that size is two slabs, 100 to 120 square feet in the kitchen tops in some cases alone. Add the granite tile flooring, the vanity tops, sometimes shower tiles and you can have a lot more total square footage that would add to the Radon levels in the home. We commonly put three slabs in homes of 2,000 square feet.

Secondly, they are assuming that Crema Bordeaux is the highest radioactive level granite, far from it. Crema Bordeaux is pretty mild stuff, around 20 to 25 uR/hr Gamma emission (Gamma emission is an indicator of the Radon emission, roughly the same). Other granites like Jupanara Bordeaux (shorted to Bordeaux), Shivakaski, Niagara Gold, Four Seasons, Bariacotto, Savanah, and many other granites are far higher. The highest level slab found so far is Savanah, which had hot spots at 1030 uR/hr! I have personally measured 800 uR/hr and higher, plenty of 500 and 400 uR/hr granites slabs around.

So, the second point it that the Crema Bordeaux at 25 uR/hr is very low, 41 times less than the highest level slab found to date. That .27 pCi/L becomes 11 pCi/L when using Savanah. Shivakaski with very high levels has been found in two homes, both failed a Radon test till the granite was removed! The Houston home in the story returned to normal levels after the granite was removed.

Thirdly, that 292 pCi/L that the Crema Bordeaux emitted would eventually spread out all over the home, but what about a homeowner using the kitchen countertop? They are breathing concentrated levels, up to 292 pCi/L according to Dr. CHyi, all the while they are standing near the top. The kitchen, as in the Houstone example, will be far higher Radon level as well. In the Houston case, there was no concern in other areas of the home. The Radon didn't spread out as expected.

In the conculsions, they mention air exchange, up to 6 total changes per hour. Not many homes are in areas where that kind of air exchange can be affordable. Here in Oklahoma, we open the windows rarely, either too hot, too cold, or too many mosquitos. The point is, who ever wrote that section of the article (it wasn't Dr. Chyi), used a massive air exchange rate to further minimalize the risk.

In the end, the granite that we sell, we test before purchase. Some gets rejected, anything over the UN levels of 41 uR/hr. Every slab yard will have multiple slabs of granite way over this level, usually one very, very hot slab, up above 100 uR/hr Gamma. So despite the MIA's article on this issue, there is some concern in the industry. One of our vendors is helping the testing effort, supplying hot granite for testing, and the guy has canceled orders of incoming material that we found to be hot, as well as canceling sold orders of hot material we found in his inventory.

So far, three granite countertops have been removed after being found to raise kitchen Radon levels over 14 pCi/Liter. Then again, hardly anyone knows to look for this problem, and if the MIA has its way, it will stay that way.... The Houston countertop in the story had a previous homeowner develop a brain tumor while living in the home. Dr. Llope, the nuclear Physicst in the TV report, was very skeptical at first. Now he is using his Lab to test granite samples in his free time and speaking out about the radiation levels that a granite countertop can emitt.

I have a blog started about this issue if anyone is interested,

solidsurfacealliance.org Blog » Granite Radiation (http://solidsurfacealliance.org/blog/category/granite-radiation/)

And on Youtube.com, we have some short videos of a radiation meter shrieking its little guts out from the Gamma radiation coming from a granite slab. YouTube - TCSRock78's Channel (http://youtube.com/user/TCSRock78)

Brand new meters, calibrated to military specs by an expert.

Heads up guys, we sell granite and it can be a concern. I lost a $10,000 granite job last month because the material was too hot to fabricate. One of my competitors has fewer scruples.

Thanks,
Al

[wayne soper]

Man, And I always thought it was what you sniffed off the granite countertops that killed you. Wake up and smell the rocks.

[Jerry Peck]

To start with, they used a 13' x 2' granite countertop as the example home, a 2,000 square foot home.

I can tell you that the average countertop in a home of that size would be between 65 and 75 square feet,


Al,

I just came back from the house my daughter is building over in Williston, FL. It is just under 2,000 sf in size (conditioned space) and her granite countertop is probably close to 13' x 2', maybe just lightly more, but not much (had I known of this post I could have measured it).

I read the article, it seems to me that, all things considered in the article, that the radon produced by the granite is not something to worry about, much lower than the action thresholds.

Guess it is to each reader to 'read into it what they want'.

[Al Gerhart]

Jerry,

We do usually do three or four kitchen tops a week. And there are yearly surveys on this matter, top size, materials most used, price points, ect. The industry average is between 65 and 75 square feet. Sure some kitchens will be smaller and some larger, thus the average and the range.

26 feet is a small countertop, less than one sheet of solid surface. Average job takes 2 1/2 sheets.

And, in the type of kitchens that do high end cabinets like we produce, they tend to be larger than average. The most I ever put in one kitchen was 300 square feet of material.

I appreciate skeptical thought, glad to see that in an inspector, but if you re read the MIA puff piece, you will notice that they didn't touch the radiation issue, just the Radon emission. The guy that did the TV interview, Dr. Llope, has a website on this issue if you want to see what he is saying.

Web home: Radiation & Radon from Natural Stone, W.J. Llope (http://wjllope.rice.edu/SaxumSubluceo/default.html)

Or read his report for the TV station.

http://www.khou.com/images/0805/LLOPE_StoneRadRn_080507.pdf

Keep in mind that Dr. Llope was not the expert that the group wanted, Dr. Llope was brought in for an independant opinion. Now he is testing granite...

Now, turn that excellent, skeptical, inspector mind to why they didn't address both the Radon and the radiation danger from granite?

I'm just saying.....

[Matt Bezanson]

One more idea on radioactive countertops: Several ideas, actually,

I have tested a number of different stone counter materials in an informal way, and none were hot. However, I have direct knowledge of one that was quite hot, detected by a CRM moved to the counter after the basement test was done, but not turned off. (long story, realtor involved). It's pretty clear that some stone is radioactive, most is not. So if it's your house, or your family's house, the obvious answer is to test. Test the basement, test the bedroom, test the kitchen, test the air right on the counter or stone floor or stone shower enclosure. Passive tests are really cheap, nearly free from many county health departments. Deploy a half dozen of them at the same time, and have fun interpreting the results

In a real estate transaction, active tests are more likely to be in use, and are much more expensive. Not likely you could talk a client into multiple tests. I've done a few that way at the customer's request, one CRM in the basement, one in the kitchen, and my customers were glad to know that their stone wasn't hot.

The comment by the manufacturer association about the equilibrium ratio, and the half life calculated to the ten-thousandth of a day was amusing. Does anybody know what it means?

When assessing cancer risk, it's the lifetime dose that counts, not the instantaneous exposure to any one source. So the problem with stone is its contribution to the overall house radon level. (Same as with radon in water.) However, if you have an unacceptable radon level in the home, it would be really good to know where it's coming from, so you don't waste time, effort and money mitigating the wrong place. That's the only good reason for multiple tests.

Matt Bezanson, NEHA RMP101003RT, NRSB RMS # SS75

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Good morning, Gents –

Here's a thought from my perspective as a practicing epidemiologist and toxicologist. The entire argument is debating how many angels can fit on the top of a pin.

Two things:

One-
There is NO evidence whatever that the concentrations emitted are associated in any way with adverse health effects. Arguments about the emission rates and resultant indoor concentrations are arguments of futility. It is rather like arguing whether the US population is at risk, because the average height of a coffee table is 15.25 inches or 15.5 inches. Until someone can demonstrate that the height of coffee tables has anything to do with adverse health effects – the rest of the argument is largely a fool’s errant.

Two-
None of the studies I have seen have been able to show a significant difference in radon concentrations in homes with the counter tops, and then without. None. After all, it would be sooooo easy to do. Take 100 houses and monitor the average concentration in those houses over the course of 24 months. Pair match 50 pairs, and install counter tops and measure the radon concentrations for 24 months. Do the math. Why hasn’t this been done? Because the costs aren’t justified, because the risks aren’t there.

One might as well lie awake at night worrying about whether green seatbelts are safer than black seatbelts.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[Jerry Peck]

I can only add this: On the houses I've inspected with large areas of stone countertops, the areas of stone floor make the areas of the stone countertops negligible, percentage wise.

With 10,000 sf ++ of stone flooring, what effect is even 300 sf of stone countertop going to contribute? >1/3 of 1%? As I said ... negligible.

Take a more moderate house, say 6,000 sf of stone flooring, and a relative reduction in countertops, say to 100 sf, that's 1/6 of 1% ... negligible.

Take an even more modest house, say 3,000 sf of stone flooring, and a relative reduction in countertops, say to 75 sf, that 1/4 of 1% ... negligible.

[Al Gerhart]

Hi Matt,



One more idea on radioactive countertops: Several ideas, actually,

I have tested a number of different stone counter materials in an informal way, and none were hot. However, I have direct knowledge of one that was quite hot, detected by a CRM moved to the counter after the basement test was done, but not turned off. (long story, realtor involved). It's pretty clear that some stone is radioactive, most is not. So if it's your house, or your family's house, the obvious answer is to test. Test the basement, test the bedroom, test the kitchen, test the air right on the counter or stone floor or stone shower enclosure. Passive tests are really cheap, nearly free from many county health departments. Deploy a half dozen of them at the same time, and have fun interpreting the results

I agree, not all granite is hot. The Chinese have done more testing than other countries, indeed the law requires all granite be tested before bringing to market. They have a sticker, not unlike our Matteress tags that must follow the slab till it is installed. The Chinese say that between 30 and 20% of all stones fail the Class A rating (.3 mSv,yr exposure or 41 uR/hr gamma). What testing I have done shows around 3 to 5% of granite is of major concern, if you consider types of granite.

In a real estate transaction, active tests are more likely to be in use, and are much more expensive. Not likely you could talk a client into multiple tests. I've done a few that way at the customer's request, one CRM in the basement, one in the kitchen, and my customers were glad to know that their stone wasn't hot.

We are using Scintillators to indicate Gamma, not really looking for Radon. I think that is best left to the professionals. A Scintillator will tell you from 8 feet away if there is a problem..

The comment by the manufacturer association about the equilibrium ratio, and the half life calculated to the ten-thousandth of a day was amusing. Does anybody know what it means?

I can speak to the Equilibrium Ratio. Not sure I understand the nuances of it yet, but apparently the Radon at some point reaches max level because it is decaying into daughter products as fast as it is being produced, or that seems to be the gist of it. I have heard that around 21 or 27 days. Dr. Llope said to just open your windows for a half day every three weeks to prevent the Radon building up to the max levels.

I didn't find the half life calculated to ten-thousandths, what page was it on?

When assessing cancer risk, it's the lifetime dose that counts, not the instantaneous exposure to any one source. So the problem with stone is its contribution to the overall house radon level. (Same as with radon in water.) However, if you have an unacceptable radon level in the home, it would be really good to know where it's coming from, so you don't waste time, effort and money mitigating the wrong place. That's the only good reason for multiple tests.



Matt Bezanson, NEHA RMP101003RT, NRSB RMS # SS75

Thanks for the info. If you find a hot top, let us know the stone type and if you can release it, the homeowners info so we can contact them. Only three torn out so far, but every bit of data helps the scientists working on this effort.

Al

[Al Gerhart]

Hi Caoimhin,


Good morning, Gents –

Here's a thought from my perspective as a practicing epidemiologist and toxicologist. The entire argument is debating how many angels can fit on the top of a pin.

Two things:

One-
There is NO evidence whatever that the concentrations emitted are associated in any way with adverse health effects. Arguments about the emission rates and resultant indoor concentrations are arguments of futility. It is rather like arguing whether the US population is at risk, because the average height of a coffee table is 15.25 inches or 15.5 inches. Until someone can demonstrate that the height of coffee tables has anything to do with adverse health effects – the rest of the argument is largely a fool’s errant.

A couple of questions. The EPA recently changed their position on this issue and is now recommending granite top owners to test their homes for Radon. Some concern must have been present to change their advice from not to worry to worry....

It seems that there is quite a bit of Radon health risk info out there. Is there a reason you don't hold with what they are saying? The Radon health risk seems to be accepted worldwide at this time.

Two-
None of the studies I have seen have been able to show a significant difference in radon concentrations in homes with the counter tops, and then without. None. After all, it would be sooooo easy to do. Take 100 houses and monitor the average concentration in those houses over the course of 24 months. Pair match 50 pairs, and install counter tops and measure the radon concentrations for 24 months. Do the math. Why hasn’t this been done? Because the costs aren’t justified, because the risks aren’t there.

Actually, I know of no completed studies at all that have tested individual homes. Build Clean is doing one in Houston, but are focusing on Quartz and granite tops already installed. They aren't planning on taking the countertops out! The Radon levels in Houston are usually near zero because of the soil types, so checking a nearby home without a granite or quartz top will serve as a control. Your arguement seems to be since these studies haven't been done, it isn't possible for granite to contribute to the indoor Radon levels. Doing a test like that, installing or removing $5,000 countertops, would be cost prohibitive would it not? Saying it hasn't been done because the risk isn't there is not logical.

Three tops have already been removed, two Shivikasi and one Bordeaux. All three kitchens had very high level Radon, up to 14 pCi/L untill the tops were removed. The homes returned to normal levels afterward.

That is fact, and the conclusions are apparent.

One might as well lie awake at night worrying about whether green seatbelts are safer than black seatbelts.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[Al Gerhart]

Jerry,
What type of stone is being used as flooring in the cases you mention? If it is granite, it seems that even more concern for testing would be the case.

I hope you guys get paid a lot more for those monster sized homes you inspect. I bet it takes some time to do a though job.

Anybody know that inspector that does the syndicated column in the Real Estate sections of local papers? I forget his name at the moment. Is he the real deal?

Thanks for the input, you got me thinking,
Al

[John Arnold]

I'm not Caoimhin and I don't play him on IN, but here is some radon info from his website:

Radon: Risk and Reality (http://forensic-applications.com/radon/reviews.html)

[Al Gerhart]

Thanks John!
Al

[Al Gerhart]

Well, you have to say that Caoimhin can speak with authority on this subject. He has done his homework.

However, he stated that

"In other words, statistically significant elevated risks were observed in only 3 out of 14 similar good epidemiological studies (three studies showed a risk, and 11 studies failed to show a significant risk"

Given the uncertainty of cofounding factors, relying only on what Caoimhin wrote, I would say that at best the subject needs further studies. I've seen four or five studies that back up his postition, but there are others that definitively say that Radon has a cancer risk.

Or Caoimhin is right and the others are wrong. Who knows? I'd argue that a couple of grand on a mitigation system is cheap insurance.

Also, the business he is in seems to be tilted toward catching the criminals. Some of the examples of "qualifiers" used in some of the studies are standard fare of scientific reports. One professor mentioned in the Garden Web debate that sometimes the language seems coy, but it is just a scientist leaving the door open for new facts to influence his opinion on the matter.

Still, it was a very interesting read, and I will have to look up some of the more recent Radon studies and ask Caoimhins opinion on them.

Certainly can not dismiss his views after that effort.

Thanks for pointing me to the info John.

Al

[John Arnold]

Al - No problem.

His "Myths of Duct Cleaning" is one of my favorites:

Continuing Discussions on Indoor Mould- Duct Cleaning (http://www.forensic-applications.com/moulds/ducts.html)

[Al Gerhart]

I've always kind of scoffed at that one myself. Didn't have any proof, but it just sounds silly. I need to go back and read the duct cleaning page.

[Brian Thomas]

I just now heard about this today. I couldnt believe it. Every day there is something that was previously thought of as harmless that can cause cancer or other health risk. Its really truly hard to believe which reports are real and which ones are bogus anymore. Its even hard to believe whether something like this is even worth worrying about.

Im sure lawyers are already salivating over this next group of potential lawsuits. Im sure most of these lawsuits will be frivolous too.

lead paint, asbestos, mold, radon in granite countertops...whats next?

[Bruce Breedlove]

The Houston countertop in the story had a previous homeowner develop a brain tumor while living in the home. Dr. Llope, the nuclear Physicst in the TV report, was very skeptical at first. Now he is using his Lab to test granite samples in his free time and speaking out about the radiation levels that a granite countertop can emitt.


Are you implying the radon emitted from the granite countertops caused this gentleman's brain tumor? To my knowledge the only medical concern with radon is lung cancer. I am not a doctor but I suspect this gentleman's brain tumor was caused by something other than radon.

Or are you implying the radiation emanating from the granite countertops caused the brain tumor? How long must one be exposed to the radiation emanating from granite countertops before a brain tumor develops? Does the tumor form overnight? Or does it take years of exposure?

How do you measure one's exposure to the radiation emanating from the countertops? Obviously the closer one is to the countertop the higher the exposure. (I would expect it to be around the square of the distance. So your exposure at 10' away will only be 1% of your exposure at 1' away.)

No, I don't think those granite countertops caused this guy's brain tumor. But that looks great in an article that tries to scare people about the dangers of granite countertops.

[Charles Smith]

What’s Lurking in Your Countertop? Radon@#%!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/ga...o_interstitial

(We know how thorough and unbiased the NY Times is!!! Ask John McCain)

The granite, it turned out, contained high levels of uranium, which is not only radioactive but releases radon gas as it decays.

Geiger counter indicated that the granite was emitting radiation at levels 10 times higher than those he had measured elsewhere in the house.


I find it interesting that the radon inspector has a gieger counter!! I don't plan on buying one.

Another tool to carry????

GeigerCounters.com

Here in "Nanny State Land" everything is dangerous; "be afraid, very afraid"!!

They (chemically, electromagnetic, mold spore, fragrance sensitives) were trying to ban WiFi from government buildings here in "The City Different"

According to the article we would have to warn them about the radioactive smoke detectors in their house.

From article:

"Indeed, health physicists and radiation experts agree that most granite countertops emit radiation and radon at extremely low levels. They say these emissions are insignificant compared with so-called background radiation that is constantly raining down from outer space or seeping up from the earth’s crust, not to mention emanating from manmade sources like X-rays, luminous watches and smoke detectors."

I already have enuf… to explain with high radon levels as it is.

Better check the contract agreement disclaimers... again!!!

[Charles Smith]

Corrected link for NY Time$ article

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/garden/24granite.html?ref=garden

Home & Garden - New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/garden/index.html)

[Bruce Breedlove]

The comment by the manufacturer association about the equilibrium ratio, and the half life calculated to the ten-thousandth of a day was amusing. Does anybody know what it means?


What they mean is that radon does not keep building up to higher and higher concentrations in a vacant building. Once the radon concentration is at its equilibrium level (where the decaying radon is equal to the radon entering the building) it will remain at that level. The measured radon concentation will naturally fluctuate due to outside forces that affect the amount of radon drawn into the building. A building will reach its equilibrium level after about 12 hours. (That's why EPA protocol says you need closed-house conditions for at least 12 hours before starting a radon test.)

This question comes up from time to time when I measure radon in a vacant house and find the levels higher than the EPA action level. Someone usually says the radon levels are probably high because the house has been closed up for X months which has allowed the radon to built up to those high levels.

I try to explain that radon is radioactive with a half-life of about 3.5 days. (I know. It is really 3.825 days but 3.5 days is easier to work with and the difference is minal when talking in general terms.) I tell the person the radon that was in the house 8 weeks ago has gone through 16 half-lives over the intervening 8 weeks meaning only 0.0015% of that radon remains in the house. The other 99.9985% has decayed away. Of the radon that was in the house a week earlier only 25% of it remains (after two half-lives). The other 75% is gone. Sure, new radon is entering the home all the time but the older radon in the house is decaying away. The radon entering the house and the radon that is decaying away are in equilibrium. The radon concentration does not continue to build up and up and up.

Some people understand this. Some don't.

[Ted Menelly]

A little break away humor here

"green seat belts are safer than black seat belts"

Oh damn, someone wrote it, it must be true. I am going down to the ford garage tomorrow!

I have been in construction all my life. I have sucked in probably an overload of every toxin known to man. I am 54 years young and to this date I have no cancer, no tumors, no diseases. I have more than likely sucked in more concrete dust than anyone ever should have. I truly believe that there is something in the human body, some have more some have less, that are brought out by different substances in your environment.

Case in point. Coal minors that never come down with a sickness and then retire. Wives die off ten years earlier from black lung disease. Don't argue, I know it is not the norm but it is true in some cases.

The case of second hand smoke killing off the wife???????????????????????? and the husband that smoked 60 of his 80 years dies of natural causes.

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Good morning, All:

Hope all are well.

Al Gerhart stated:

"Given the uncertainty of cofounding factors, relying only on what Caoimhin wrote, I would say that at best the subject needs further studies. I've seen four or five studies that back up his postition, but there are others that definitively say that Radon has a cancer risk."

Actually, no. Not correct. There are many statements made by various folks saying that radon is a risk, but there are no valid studies that say that. Not one. That is why my challenge has remained in place for well over a decade now. And that challenge is for someone to find one, just one, just one, just one, study – (just one) which demonstrates, without confounders, that radon concentrations as normally seen in residential houses, significantly increases the risk of cancer. If you can find it – post the reference here, and I will buy you dinner at the Brown Palace Hotel in Denver (or whatever).

"Or Caoimhin is right and the others are wrong."

Again – it is not a question of me versus the “others� – I have made it clear that I ABSOLUTELY AGREE with the US EPA studies that demonstrate that radon does NOT present a risk. That is what their studies show, that is what they make clear in the scientific literature – and that is why I agree with them. Where I disagree with them is where they then completely ignore their own data and make a “policy� statement for the good of the otherwise stupid citizenry (you and me) that disregards their own studies.

Mr. Breedlove states:

"A building will reach its equilibrium level after about 12 hours. (That's why EPA protocol says you need closed-house conditions for at least 12 hours before starting a radon test.)"

Not really. In fact not at all. If that was the case, you could just close up an house for 12 hours and then go in and run a two minute sample.

The reality is that the property will NEVER reach equilibrium for one very good reason… not only is the radon concentration varying wildly minute by minute, but the SLRDs (the things you measuring and then calling “radon� ) are also varying wildly minute by minute (but in an independent fashion from the radon). "Equilibrium" is a thing that can only be met in a "steady-state" system, and even "dynamic equilibrium" needs steady-state changes. (I'd be happy to provide examples).

The whole goofy business with the ER and the half-life stuff comes from collecting a static sample in a closed container or a static sample in a finite system – not with a house with constantly changing sinks and sources (things that increase the concentration and things that decrease the concentration). Although it wasn't valid, and has NEVER been demonstrated to be accurate, the EPA used it anyway - cuz it was easy.

To put the risk of radon and counter tops into perspective imagine this: Cosmic radiation exposures increase with elevation (as measured from the center of the earth). Worrying about the additional risk of radon from a counter top would be rather like worrying about the additional risk of lung cancer caused from sleeping on a bed that was 18 inches off the floor versus 14 inches off the floor (but entirely not worrying about the fact that you work on the 23rd floor of an office building, take your skiing vacations in Vail, fly 10,000 miles each year, and are going for a dental X-ray next month). Worrying about radon borders on mental, worrying about radon from countertops is nothing short of insane and ranks up there with EMFs from alien space ships.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[John Arnold]

... worrying about radon from countertops is nothing short of insane and ranks up there with EMFs from alien space ships.
...

What?! I've been wrapping my head in aluminum foil all this time for nothing?!

[Brian Thomas]

What?! I've been wrapping my head in aluminum foil all this time for nothing?!

No, No john....the aluminum foil doesnt protect you from electro magnetic fields from aliens. It is only used to prevent aliens from being able to read your thoughts. :)

[Jerry Peck]

the aluminum foil doesnt protect you from electro magnetic fields from aliens. It is only used to prevent aliens from being able to read your thoughts. :)

"It is only used to prevent aliens from being able to read your thoughts."

Oh ... 'read my thoughts' ... then I have nothing to worry about :D , I can take the aluminum foil off - cool. :cool:

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

"It is only used to prevent aliens from being able to read your thoughts."

Oh ... 'read my thoughts' ... then I have nothing to worry about :D , I can take the aluminum foil off - cool. :cool:

Now THAT was funny!
CaoimhÃ*n

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Jerry Peck]

The 4 pC/l standard is used, every day, in real estate transactions. IF a particular slab (or slabs) of granite being installed in a kitchen will cause the radon measurements of a house to go from below that standard to above it,


Randy,

More than just "Right?", if a radon measurement comes back above the 4 pC/l, I suspect action is taken in order to complete the deal.

*IF* 'normal and typical' radon mitigation takes care of the radon problem and reduces the radon measurements to below that 4 pC/l level, then the problem is considered "solved" ... right?

Thus, whether the contributing factor is inside the house or outside the house, that is not even considered into the equation, the radon level is reduced to below the acceptable action threshold and 'all is well'.

Now, though, consider *IF* 'normal and typical' radon mitigation fails to reduce the radon problem, further radon testing isolates the kitchen as 'the source' of the high radon levels, and further radon testing isolates the granite countertop as 'the source' of that kitchen radon.

The question now becomes: do you replace the granite countertop or live with it. I suspect the answer lies in 'how high' the radon levels of the granite countertop source is. If it is a 4.1 pC/l, probably no action will be taken, however, if the radon measurements of the granite countertops show it to be at 200 pC/l, I suspect action will be taken.

Many years ago in South Florida when radon testing first started, some fellow HIs decided to go the radon technician, etc., route (I declined to go that way), one them had a reading of well over 100 after their samples were sent to the lab, so a re-test was made, and the re-test came back at virtually 0. What gives? What was different at the time of the re-test than was present at the original test? After due consideration and thought, it was answered as 'The seller was still occupying the home at the original test, but had already moved out at the time of the re-test, the inspector/radon technician recalls having seen a large glass case filled with the seller's rock collection at the original test which was no longer present at the re-test.'

Yes, the seller took the radon source with her :eek: . Now the house was clear. :cool:

Another building, a commercial office building in Boca Raton, was tested and showed very little radon on the first floor, however, a second floor test showed the radon level was quite high. This was isolated back to a large rock wall in the second floor lobby. The cause and source was internal, not external, to the building.

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Good morning, Folks:

Bear with me for a couple of comments:

Randy States:

The 4 pC/l standard is used, every day, in real estate transactions.

The value of 4 pCi/l is not a standard. It is a recommendation. The fact that you think it is a standard is a testimony to the power of the misrepresentations by the US EPA in allowing people to draw bad conclusions from their work.

IF a particular slab (or slabs) of granite being installed in a kitchen will cause the radon measurements of a house to go from below that standard to above it, then a prudent consumer considering the purchase of those slabs really ought to take the implications into account. Right?

No. For the following reasons:

1) The people who are measuring radon in homes are NOT determining the actual radon concentration in homes.

2) The methods used by those performing radon measurements are not capable of determining with confidence the actual SLRDs or radon concentration in an home, (the methods were never designed for that purpose).

3) The method employed by radon measurement folks are incapable of determining whether the counter top was the cause of a single elevated reading or not.

4) Whereas the radon in a counter top is roughly a steady state source, the radon concentrations in any particular home is a function of:
Time of day
Time of year
Indoor/outdoor temperatures
Extant wind speeds
Water table levels
Barometric pressure fluctuations
Snow cover
Recent rain

As such, the short term radon measurements taken have a huge error associated with them in extrapolating the long term concentrations. For example (I’ve presented these numbers before) Using the methods employed today to determine the “radon concentration” in an home (especially during real estate transactions), there is no statistically significant difference between the following readings (that is, each of the following readings are within the upper and lower 95% confidence intervals for the "final results" of a test):

20 pCi/l
6 pCi/l
89 pCi/l
75 pCi/l
3 pCi/l
90 pCi/l
16 pCi/l
45 pCi/l
22 pCi/l
87 pCi/l
69 pCi/l
9 pCi/l
91 pCi/l
11 pCi/l
12 pCi/l
56 pCi/l
7 pCi/l
45 pCi/l
22 pCi/l
5 pCi/l

Based on the method method, an house with a yearly “radon” concentration of say 47 pCi/l (as that given above) can give a reading of anywhere between 91 pCi/l and 2 pCi/l and still be "correct."

Therefore, since the method cannot reliably determine the difference between say, 4 and 20 pCi/l, what makes you think that it can reliably determine the difference between 3 pCi/l and 4 pCi/l?

Having said that, the underlying fact remains that the values being measured are NOT measurements of risk and one still has to accept the fact that the EPA has determined that as the level of radon goes UP in your house the risk of cancer goes DOWN. Let me repeat that: The EPA has determined that as the level of radon goes UP in your house the risk of cancer goes DOWN.

The EPA has NOT been able to demonstrate that there is any additional risk of cancer at 4 pCi/l – therefore, even if the counter top DOES increase the radon level in the house from 3 pCi/l to 4 pCi/l:

1) The radon contractor can’t determine it
2) The measure method can’t confirm it
3) The contractor isn’t even measuring radon
And…
5) There is no known adverse health effects anyway. (In fact, according to the latest EPA studies, your risk of lung cancer just went down).

Finally:
From a health perspective, I can't imagine that much difference exists between a 3.5 pC/l environment and a 4.5 pC/l environment.

Friend, from an health perspective there is no significant difference between 3 and 30 pCi/l, and from a technical perspective, (as pointed out above) a radon test cannot tell the difference between 3.5 pCi/l and 4.5 pCi/l.

From a business perspective, it's all the difference in the world.

Thus creating a legitimate business opportunity for smart people to fleece their sheep.

Cheers!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Al Gerhart]

Mr. Connell,

The 4 pCi/L is a standard, splitting hairs doesn't make it less so. My understanding is that it came about from a calculation of $ per death. Something like $2,000,000 in cost per death avoided. What you are advocating by claiming the EPA standard is too high is cheapening life.

We spend all kind of money preventing death and injury, this is no different. Most of the other countries that have Radon/building material radiation standards also use something close to these levels. Even BEIR VII supported ALARA and specifically dismissed Hormesis as a valid scientific fact. I agree there is a small fringe that believe in Hormesis, but it has yet to be proven as fact.

The most compelling reason not to believe in Hormesis is that the HPS hasn't latched on to it. They are renouned for bucking the ICRP and BEIR VII, protecting their jobs in the nuclear industry. They would use Hormesis if there was a shread of truth to it.

You quote a variety of reasons why Radon from countertops can't be measured,

Time of day
Time of year
Indoor/outdoor temperatures
Extant wind speeds
Water table levels
Barometric pressure fluctuations
Snow cover
Recent rain

You seem to be confusing soil based Radon factors with those inside a home. I see little reason that a normal heated and cooled home will have wild flucuations in emission, not alot of wind in a home, nor snow. Barometic pressures aren't going to increase or decrease the Radon pulled inside the home because the source is already there.

And fluctuaing readings from soil based Radon are again not germane when the source is inside the home. Telling the difference between 4 and 20 is not a problem, after all a clock changes time constantly, but the elapsed time is what we are looking for. By your logic we couldn't use a speedometer on a car either!

And the EPA has determined that when the Radon levels go up, cancer comes down? B. S. Link to that please, I'll believe it when I see it.

And how can you refute BEIR VII on health risks? A whole lot more brains in that group than you can bring to the discussion.

[Richard Moore]

If everybody believed that shag carpeting gave you acne, it wouldn't be remotely true, but you'd still be better off not putting shag carpeting in a house you wanted to sell.
There's probably more "science" to that conclusion than hot counters. It's true that a higher percentage of people living in homes with cheap shag carpet have acne than those in higher end houses. That's obviously :rolleyes: the carpet's fault and not that they tend to be young and without the funds for ointment. A dumb conclusion, but you could see it being used by someone selling knock-off Berber.



There seems to be a similar pragmatic sense in which the possible radon effect (if it actually exists) of a granite countertop might be worth considering.
And so the "solid surface" pushers win...just like that?

Look, I don't actually know if granite poses a real problem, although I doubt it, but I am very wary of peoples motives when I read something like this...
Digg - Alert - Granite Countertops - Radiation and Radon Danger (http://digg.com/health/Alert_Granite_Countertops_Radiation_and_Radon_Dang er)


WARNING: A significant percentage of dogs that spend their days lying on real wood decks have fleas!
This public service announcement brought to you by the Composite Decking Materials Alliance.

[Al Gerhart]

Richard,
there is zero logic in your statements. How is that the "pushers" win and if they do, why is it a problem? I guess replacing a dangerous material with a safer one is a bad thing? Don't the majority of members here make their living pointing out dangerous or shoddy materials or workmanship in homes? By your logic, someone is "winning" everytime you point out a code violation.

The Digg alert is pretty short, with one long cut and paste comment from a stone trade association, NSRA.

Really, what part of "high Uranium content" do you not understand?

[Scott Patterson]

OK, the test results are in!

This past Friday I set three CRM's in a home that has granite counter tops in the kitchen and bathrooms. I put one in the basement (SN 1028), one dead center in the kitchen (Femto-Tech) and on upstairs in a central hallway(SN 1027). All I charged my client for was the single CRM in the basement.

I picked them all up yesterday.

The basement reading was 2.7pCi/L
The kitchen reading (with massive granite counter tops) was 5.1pCi/L
The upstairs hallway (3 bathrooms upstairs) was 3.7pCi/L

All three machines have been calibrated in the past 4 months. The home is on city water. It was clear with no rain or storms. The house is new construction and is vacant.

I don't know, but this is kind of unusual. Just to confirm I have placed the Femto-Tech back in the kitchen location again. Should have the results back tomorrow.

If anyone has the chance to do this, why not try it. It might be kind of intresting to see what we all come up with.

[Jerry Peck]

Just to confirm I have placed the Femto-Tech back in the kitchen location again.

Scott,

Why not try all three different ones in the kitchen at the same time?

How about testing 20" above the center of the kitchen floor, 20" above the kitchen countertop, and 60" above the center of the kitchen floor - all the same type and all at the same time.

That way you will be comparing the air sample from below the countertop level (20" above the floor) with the air sample 20" above the countertop with the air sample 40" higher above the first sample (i.e., 20" above the floor would be the sample to compare the other samples to, and the 60" high sample would be the breathing air at the center of the kitchen, the air which would be combination by the air above the floor and the air above the countertop plus room circulating air).

Your test in the bedroom hallway which was higher than the basement, was it directly above the kitchen?

If so, do you think that is the source of the higher reading in the upstairs hallway?

If not, what do you think is the source of the higher reading in the upstairs hallway.

Do it scientifically in that you are eliminating potential possible sources which are contaminating the readings from a given area - with the assumption being that the basement reading is the "ground radon reading" and that the other readings are "building material radon readings", and this would include *all* "building materials" in that "building material radon reading" - you might find that there is another cause of the higher reading in the upstairs hallway.

How much time do you have on your hands? :D

[Al Gerhart]

Great work, Scott. Welcome to this side of the issue.

We get critisized for putting the meter under a bowl, but that is the surest way to prove that it is or isn't coming from the granite countertop. Granite tile floors have been known to put off a bit of Radon, might even check any brick or stone work in the home.

[Scott Patterson]

Scott,

Why not try all three different ones in the kitchen at the same time?

I had paying jobs I needed them for!! :D But that is a very good idea and if I have the opportunity to do this again I will do it.



Your test in the bedroom hallway which was higher than the basement, was it directly above the kitchen?

Yes, it was almost directly above the kitchen.


If so, do you think that is the source of the higher reading in the upstairs hallway?


The home has three bathrooms upstairs, all with granite counter tops. Each bedroom had a bathroom and they were all within 20' form the test location in the hall.


Do it scientifically in that you are eliminating potential possible sources which are contaminating the readings from a given area - with the assumption being that the basement reading is the "ground radon reading" and that the other readings are "building material radon readings", and this would include *all* "building materials" in that "building material radon reading" - you might find that there is another cause of the higher reading in the upstairs hallway.

How much time do you have on your hands? :D

Yep, time and free machines is all that I need.

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Good morning, Mr. Gerhart:

The 4 pCi/L is a standard, splitting hairs doesn't make it less so.

The 4 pCi/l is not a standard, and pretending it is doesn’t make it one.

My understanding is that it came about from a calculation of $ per death.

Nope. Wrong again. The 4 pCi/l came from a simple question that was originally posed which was: “Hey, guys, how low do you think we can get most houses if we start off at 20 pCi/l?” If you would like, you could always try and back up your claim by finding the original calculations that you are presuming exist.

What you are advocating by claiming the EPA standard is too high is cheapening life.

Wrong again. For a start, your comment is a subjective editorial on your part that can neither be substantiated and does not even accurately reflect what I advocate.

We spend all kind of money preventing death and injury, this is no different.

Yes we do. And we do so without regard for ensuring that the expenditure is commensurate with the actual risks. Just because you spend a lot of money on mitigating the risk, doesn’t mean the risk increases with the expenditure. As I have referenced here before, I suggest that you take a look at a classic article (America's Parasite Economy: The papers that ate America, The Economist, October 10, 1992). This was mandatory reading material in the Risk and Toxicology class I taught. Pity you didn’t get a chance to take it, you would have learned a lot about the difference between real risk, perceived risk, and public policy.

Most of the other countries that have Radon/building material radiation standards also use something close to these levels.

Of course they do. Why reinvent the wheel – when the US EPA sneezes, they catch the cold.

Even BEIR VII supported ALARA and specifically dismissed Hormesis as a valid scientific fact.

Really. Prove it. I can quote otherwise… in fact, I did, later in this post. Present here the language that supports both parts of your argument and validates the conclusions. You can’t, because you just made that up without understanding the implications of what you said.

I agree there is a small fringe that believe in Hormesis, but it has yet to be proven as fact.

Really? Funny, because so far, each of the EPA studies have recognized the hormetic effect, validated the hormetic effect, and discuss it at length. I have already presented those references on this forum … you don’t read much technical information on this subject, do you? In fact, clearly, you haven’t read much of the BIER IV or the EPA stuff either, otherwise you would realize that what you are saying is hogwash.

The most compelling reason not to believe in Hormesis is that the HPS hasn't latched on to it.

Now I know that you are just being silly on purpose.

You quote a variety of reasons why Radon from countertops can't be measured,

Time of day
Time of year
Indoor/outdoor temperatures
Extant wind speeds
Water table levels
Barometric pressure fluctuations
Snow cover
Recent rain

Nope. Wrong again. How can you be expected to be believable in representing the gravamen of scientific literature, when you can’t even properly understand what has been said on this board, just one post earlier? Goodness, just look up at my post, and you will see that you are completely wrong, and that I never stated what you just claim.

I see little reason that a normal heated and cooled home will have wild flucuations in emission, …

It would not surprise what you may or may not see, reason notwithstanding.

Barometic pressures aren't going to increase or decrease the Radon pulled inside the home because the source is already there.

You’re not very well versed in building dynamics either, I see.

And the EPA has determined that when the Radon levels go up, cancer comes down? B. S. Link to that please, I'll believe it when I see it.

Um… I doubt it. Link? Is the internet your sole source of info? That could explain a lot. However, how's this for a reference: Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes, United States Environmental Protection Agency; Air and Radiation (6608J) EPA 402-R-03-003, June 2003, Page 22:

Unlike what was found with the more limited BEIR IV and ICRP analyses, the BEIR VI committee was able to conclude that the ERR per WLM increased with decreasing exposure rate or with increasing exposure duration (holding cumulative exposure constant).

I'm guessing from your post, you don't have a clue what that means, do you? You aren’t particularly well read in this subject, are you Mr. Gerhart?

And how can you refute BEIR VII on health risks?

Answer: Simple – I don’t. I have read and actually understand what was said by the BIER committees, and the US EPA and others, and as I have stated here, and I agree with them. Each have stated they have not been able to conclude that there is any known risk, and the data demonstrate just what they said:

…the BEIR VI committee was able to conclude that the ERR per WLM increased with decreasing exposure rate or with increasing exposure duration (holding cumulative exposure constant).

So it begs the question, why do YOU dispute what the BIER committee have found? Answer: Because you only think you know what they said – but you have never actually read or understood what was published.

A whole lot more brains in that group than you can bring to the discussion.

I think you've demonstrated here that you're not in a credible position to make that judgement.

Cheers!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[Bruce Breedlove]

We (if I can speak for the others here) are not disputing that some radon is coming from granite countertops. The question is how much does this radon from granite countertops contribute to the radon concentration in the air that people breathe in the house.



We get critisized for putting the meter under a bowl, but that is the surest way to prove that it is or isn't coming from the granite countertop.

The criticism stems from how your results are reported. If I may quote from the original New York Times article:



The E.P.A. recommends taking action if radon gas levels in the home exceeds 4 picocuries per liter of air (a measure of radioactive emission); about the same risk for cancer as smoking a half a pack of cigarettes per day. In Dr. Sugarman’s kitchen, the readings were 100 picocuries per liter. In her basement, where radon readings are expected to be higher because the gas usually seeps into homes from decaying uranium underground, the readings were 6 picocuries per liter.


How was the 100 pCi/L measurement obtained? Was that the radon concentration of the air in the kitchen as measured following EPA protocol (ignoring the protocol that says not to test in kitchen)? If so, there is indeed cause for alarm.

Or was that the radon concentration under a bowl on the graninte countertop? If so (as I suspect), I think it is extremely disingenuous. That measurement in no way represents the radon concentration the occupants are exposed to in the kitchen or anywhere else. And to compare that measurement (that does not follow EPA protocol) to a basement measurement (that supposedly does follow EPA protocol) is just plain wrong.

Let me make an analogy. (I cannot claim credit for this one.)

We know that excessive heat can kill humans. There is a source of heat that can be found in every kitchen - the stove. Under normal use the stove may heat the kitchen up by a few degrees. But I want to show that the stove presents a grave danger to those living in the house.

So I place a bucket over an eye of the cooktop and turn the eye to High. An hour later I take a temperature reading inside the bucket and find that it is several hundred degrees - more than enough to kill a person.

Should I go to the New York Times with my findings?

[Al Gerhart]

Good morning yourself, Mr Connell. I see you want to play nasty, consider me in.


Good morning, Mr. Gerhart:

The 4 pCi/L is a standard, splitting hairs doesn't make it less so.

The 4 pCi/l is not a standard, and pretending it is doesn’t make it one.

Then explain why the EPA says if Radon is above that level, you should mitigate?

My understanding is that it came about from a calculation of $ per death.

Nope. Wrong again. The 4 pCi/l came from a simple question that was originally posed which was: “Hey, guys, how low do you think we can get most houses if we start off at 20 pCi/l?� If you would like, you could always try and back up your claim by finding the original calculations that you are presuming exist.

Sure, I'll dig that up. They spoke about the cost to lower the Action level to two pCi/L, was like $6,000,000 per life saved.

What you are advocating by claiming the EPA standard is too high is cheapening life.

Wrong again. For a start, your comment is a subjective editorial on your part that can neither be substantiated and does not even accurately reflect what I advocate.

No, you are advocating allowing higher Radon levels by minmizing the health aspects. Not sure why.

We spend all kind of money preventing death and injury, this is no different.

Yes we do. And we do so without regard for ensuring that the expenditure is commensurate with the actual risks. Just because you spend a lot of money on mitigating the risk, doesn’t mean the risk increases with the expenditure. As I have referenced here before, I suggest that you take a look at a classic article (America's Parasite Economy: The papers that ate America, The Economist, October 10, 1992). This was mandatory reading material in the Risk and Toxicology class I taught. Pity you didn’t get a chance to take it, you would have learned a lot about the difference between real risk, perceived risk, and public policy.

From what I am seeing here, not sure I would have learned much beyond your "radiation is good for you" agenda. I prefer critical thinking to recieting by rote.

Most of the other countries that have Radon/building material radiation standards also use something close to these levels.

Of course they do. Why reinvent the wheel – when the US EPA sneezes, they catch the cold.

Wow, Mr. Connell, you are smart. You have invented time travel or reversed cause and effect! The EPA doesn't have any building material/Radon standards but you say they somehow managed to get dozens of other countries to enact them. I guess in your world, the EPA sneezed and the EU enacted standards that the EPA thought worthless. One would think that the EU would be following in the EPA's footsteps from your statement.

Even BEIR VII supported ALARA and specifically dismissed Hormesis as a valid scientific fact.

Really. Prove it. I can quote otherwise… in fact, I did, later in this post. Present here the language that supports both parts of your argument and validates the conclusions. You can’t, because you just made that up without understanding the implications of what you said.

Mr. Connell,
you won't be the first "expert" that got his ears pinned back on these issues. Here is a Health Physicist Soceity press release that says low dose CAUSES CANCER. Got it? The legendary HPS, defender of nuclear power, Cat Scans, and the right to be wrong. 10 rem can cause cancer in 1% of those exposed.

http://hps.org/documents/beirviipressrelease.pdf

And here is the BEIR VII page that proves your claims of low level radiation being beneficial to be hogwash.

Page 10 of the Excutive Summary of BEIR VII, second paragraph:

"Before coming to this conclusion, the committee reviewed articles arguing that a threshold or decrease in effect does exist at low doses. Those reports claimed that at very low doses, ionizing radiation does not harm human health or may even be beneficial. The reports were found either to be based on ecologic studies or to cite findings not representative of the overall body of data."

Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=10)
[/URL]

I agree there is a small fringe that believe in Hormesis, but it has yet to be proven as fact.

Really? Funny, because so far, each of the EPA studies have recognized the hormetic effect, validated the hormetic effect, and discuss it at length. I have already presented those references on this forum … you don’t read much technical information on this subject, do you? In fact, clearly, you haven’t read much of the BIER IV or the EPA stuff either, otherwise you would realize that what you are saying is hogwash.

Well Mr. Connell, looks like BEIR VII contridicts what you say, by the way, it is BEIR, not BIER. PLease scroll the page up and reread what BEIR VII stated.
The most compelling reason not to believe in Hormesis is that the HPS hasn't latched on to it.

Now I know that you are just being silly on purpose.

No, you don't know. Please provide proof why BEIR VII should not be the definitive proof. From the HPS press release, they reject it as well. Tell me why we should believe you are right and all these hundreds and thousands of scientists are wrong?

You quote a variety of reasons why Radon from countertops can't be measured,

Time of day
Time of year
Indoor/outdoor temperatures
Extant wind speeds
Water table levels
Barometric pressure fluctuations
Snow cover
Recent rain

Nope. Wrong again. How can you be expected to be believable in representing the gravamen of scientific literature, when you can’t even properly understand what has been said on this board, just one post earlier? Goodness, just look up at my post, and you will see that you are completely wrong, and that I never stated what you just claim.

But you did say that it was impossible to measure Radon, all of us can read what you wrote. Why not defend your statements? You are the one claiming expertise, time to show us you know what you are talking about.
I see little reason that a normal heated and cooled home will have wild flucuations in emission, …

It would not surprise what you may or may not see, reason notwithstanding. Not going to address that are, you? Why not?

Barometic pressures aren't going to increase or decrease the Radon pulled inside the home because the source is already there.

You’re not very well versed in building dynamics either, I see.

Neither now nor then were we talking about buildings, we were talking about granite countertops. Prove why barometric pressures increase or decrease the Radon emission. I can see it would affect a crawl space.

And the EPA has determined that when the Radon levels go up, cancer comes down? B. S. Link to that please, I'll believe it when I see it.

Um… I doubt it. Link? Is the internet your sole source of info? That could explain a lot. However, how's this for a reference: Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes, United States Environmental Protection Agency; Air and Radiation (6608J) EPA 402-R-03-003, June 2003, Page 22:

Unlike what was found with the more limited BEIR IV and ICRP analyses, the BEIR VI committee was able to conclude that the ERR per WLM increased with decreasing exposure rate or with increasing exposure duration (holding cumulative exposure constant).

I'm guessing from your post, you don't have a clue what that means, do you? You aren’t particularly well read in this subject, are you Mr. Gerhart?

Mr. Connell,
you don't have many friends, do you? From your demeanor it is obvious you lack social graces, even common sense seems to have missed your bus stop. Excess relative risk per Working Level Month might have been reported as you say in BEIR VI, who knows because you refuse to link to it. But it doesn't take a college education to understand that BEIR VI came after BEIR VII. I suggest you learn the Roman Numeral system. I think we all understand that later studies or reports sometimes correct earlier work.

What is your aversion to links? Put them up so anyone can read for themselves. If the info is as you say, it will prove your point. Or it will show that you are talking out of your hat.

And how can you refute BEIR VII on health risks?

Answer: Simple – I don’t. I have read and actually understand what was said by the BIER committees, and the US EPA and others, and as I have stated here, and I agree with them. Each have stated they have not been able to conclude that there is any known risk, and the data demonstrate just what they said:

…the BEIR VI committee was able to conclude that the ERR per WLM increased with decreasing exposure rate or with increasing exposure duration (holding cumulative exposure constant).

So it begs the question, why do YOU dispute what the BIER committee have found? Answer: Because you only think you know what they said – but you have never actually read or understood what was published.

A whole lot more brains in that group than you can bring to the discussion.

I think you've demonstrated here that you're not in a credible position to make that judgement.

I would say otherwise Mr. Connell. I would say you are misconstruing the facts to support some sort of agenda. I would say the EPA says exactly the opposite of what you claim. We know several of the top guys at the EPA. I'll call Setlow tomorrow and ask him about your views. Had I seen this post earlier, I could have asked him today when he called.

http://epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html (http://hps.org/documents/beirviipressrelease.pdf)

And what is it with that long disclaimer after your signature line? Why would someone post something that wasn't his "professional opinion"? And are are your "employers, agencies, peers, or other professional affiliates" ashamed of you or something? Did mom make you put that disclaimer in your posts? What???



Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
[URL="http://www.forensic-applications.com"]Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[Al Gerhart]

We (if I can speak for the others here) are not disputing that some radon is coming from granite countertops. The question is how much does this radon from granite countertops contribute to the radon concentration in the air that people breathe in the house.

Bruce, that I can agree with you on, how much is the crucial question.


The criticism stems from how your results are reported. If I may quote from the original New York Times article:



How was the 100 pCi/L measurement obtained? With a very expensive Radon meter, in the open air, no cover or bowl on top. The emanation test done by Dr. Kitto (in a closed chamber) showed over 4,000 pCi/L. You guys need to understand that the bowl just proves where it is coming from. It is a way to show what is not easy to show.

Was that the radon concentration of the air in the kitchen as measured following EPA protocol (ignoring the protocol that says not to test in kitchen)? If so, there is indeed cause for alarm. Where would you have us test for kitchen radon?

Or was that the radon concentration under a bowl on the graninte countertop? If so (as I suspect), I think it is extremely disingenuous. Nope, no bowl involved. Please find out the facts before suggesting chicanary.

That measurement in no way represents the radon concentration the occupants are exposed to in the kitchen or anywhere else. And to compare that measurement (that does not follow EPA protocol) to a basement measurement (that supposedly does follow EPA protocol) is just plain wrong. Again, how can you make these assertions without knowing the facts? Personally, I like to know someone is lying before I call them a liar. If you would send me an email, I will send you the email address of the guy that found the 100 pCi/L of Radon.

Let me make an analogy. (I cannot claim credit for this one.)

We know that excessive heat can kill humans. There is a source of heat that can be found in every kitchen - the stove. Under normal use the stove may heat the kitchen up by a few degrees. But I want to show that the stove presents a grave danger to those living in the house.

So I place a bucket over an eye of the cooktop and turn the eye to High. An hour later I take a temperature reading inside the bucket and find that it is several hundred degrees - more than enough to kill a person.

Should I go to the New York Times with my findings?

Here is something that ought to show you guys that you are being skeptical, which is good, but you are not asking for the facts before making your mind up. The MIA made a complaint about this very issue, the NY state Attorney General office investigated. Once Dr. Kitto was interviewed, and you don't refuse to be interviewed by a AG, the investigation turned toward those who made the complaint, the MIA.

Yes, the MIA is under investigation. I understand that consumer fraud, going back 14 years, is the charge.

[Jerry Peck]

Al,

CaoimhÃ*n can more than take care of himself, however, because you have the same reading problems that some who read my posts do, I will comment on this one for you, see if you can spot the differences.

(hint, I will underline them for you)

4) Whereas the radon in a counter top is roughly a steady state source, the radon concentrations in any particular home is a function of:
Time of day
Time of year
Indoor/outdoor temperatures
Extant wind speeds
Water table levels
Barometric pressure fluctuations
Snow cover
Recent rain


You quote a variety of reasons why Radon from countertops can't be measured,

Time of day
Time of year
Indoor/outdoor temperatures
Extant wind speeds
Water table levels
Barometric pressure fluctuations
Snow cover
Recent rain

Did you notice where you changed what was said to mean what you wanted it to say?

[Al Gerhart]

Jerry,
That is taken out of context. Connell is using soil based Radon info to dispute as steady state source. He also said.

"As such, the short term radon measurements taken have a huge error associated with them in extrapolating the long term concentrations. "

His entire point was that you couldn't measure soil based Radon accurately, so the difference in one or two pCi/L was meaningless.

I would say you have a reading problem as well, from your comments is seems others would agree with me. Or is it just that you choose to read into things that others don't intend? Is it a reading problem or do you just not understand the gist of the conversation?

(Hint, you need to consider the direction the conversation is going, not individual sentences) It is called context.


Al,

CaoimhÃ*n can more than take care of himself, however, because you have the same reading problems that some who read my posts do, I will comment on this one for you, see if you can spot the differences.

(hint, I will underline them for you)




Did you notice where you changed what was said to mean what you wanted it to say?

[Ross Morgan]

Quoting Mr. Gerhart's most recent reply to Mr. Connell:
"But it doesn't take a college education to understand that BEIR VI came after BEIR VII. I suggest you learn the Roman Numeral system."

Al,
Please tell us there's a typo in there, before you lose any credibility you might have had left. Or what number did they start counting down from... Did I miss something?

[Jim Luttrall]

Jerry,
That is taken out of context. Connell is using soil based Radon info to dispute as steady state source. He also said.

"As such, the short term radon measurements taken have a huge error associated with them in extrapolating the long term concentrations. "

His entire point was that you couldn't measure soil based Radon accurately, so the difference in one or two pCi/L was meaningless.

I would say you have a reading problem as well, from your comments is seems others would agree with me. Or is it just that you choose to read into things that others don't intend? Is it a reading problem or do you just not understand the gist of the conversation?

(Hint, you need to consider the direction the conversation is going, not individual sentences) It is called context.

HUH??

[Scott Patterson]

Oye! :(

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Good morning, Mr. Gerhart:

Nothing personal Mr. Gerhart, but frankly, I think that you are bringing a knife to a gunfight. In any event, I will try to help you out.

Standards:
The 4 pCi/l is not a standard, and pretending it is doesn’t make it one.

Then explain why the EPA says if Radon is above that level, you should mitigate?

The answer lies in your own question: Then explain why the EPA says if Radon is above that level, you should mitigate?

You recognize the correct word and you even use it in context (something you don’t do often, frankly). Let’s look at a real EPA standard. Since we are dealing with radon, and much of the contention that you dn’t understand comes from the NESHAPS, let’s look at another contaminant out of NESHAPS- asbestos. And look at what a real standard encompasses. In this case, we would go to the place where standards are located – a collection of documents called the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Title 40 of the CFR contains the EPA standards, and Part 763 contains (some) of the asbestos standards. Now, if we go to Paragraph 97 of that section we read language like:

(a) Compliance with Title II of the Act. (1) Section 207(a) of Title II of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2647) makes it unlawful for any local education agency to:

(i) Fail to conduct inspections pursuant to section 203(b) of Title II of the Act, including failure to follow procedures and failure to use accredited personnel and laboratories.

(ii) Knowingly submit false information to the Governor regarding any inspection pursuant to regulations under section 203(i) of Title II of the Act.

(iii) Fail to develop a management plan pursuant to regulations under section 203(i) of Title II of the Act.

4) Section 16(a) of Title I of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2615) provides that any person who violates any provision of section 15 of Title I of the Act shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for each such violation. Each day such a violation continues shall, for purposes of this paragraph, constitute a separate violation of section 15.

And it goes on and on and on and on, long enough to ensure that I will be in business for awhile. This is an EPA STANDARD. Throughout the CFR you can read where the EPA, through legislated authority, has established actions that MUST be followed, and if the individual does not follow those protocol, and meet the specified attainment goals, they have committed a CRIME which is punishable by fines and/or prison sentences. In the case of radon, is a “recommendation� that one can do or not do or even just tell the EPA to eff-off with themselves without any kind civil penalty or retribution.

The main reason? In most cases, such as asbestos, there is an absolute unquestionable hazard associated with various types of asbestos, and the science necessary to support the standard was sufficient to allow the standard to be promulgated. In the case of radon, no such standard will ever be promulgated, since in spite of thousands of man hours spent in studying the effects, we now know that there are no demonstrable health effects associated with radon concentrations as normally seen in houses. And in fact, the studies are demonstrating that as the radon concentrations elevate above non-detect to moderate levels, the risk of cancer actually goes down.

Basis of the EPA recommendation

Sure, I'll dig that up. They spoke about the cost to lower the Action level to two pCi/L, was like $6,000,000 per life saved.

Again, you are getting confused about what you said, confusing time-frames and documents, (something, I see that happens a lot with you). What you are now referring to is not, as you originally stated, (the basis of the original 4 pCi/l recommendation), but rather you are now talking about a document that came AFTER the establishment of the 4 pCi/l recommendation. Since you are confused, I don’t know what you have read, but I suspect it is similar to the finding of the SNM Committee On Radiobiological Effects Of Ionizing Radiation, wherein the societal cost of testing and mitigation at the EPA recommended level was estimated at 44.5 billion dollars (1991), and that cost would rise to 101.2 billion dollars if scientists like me lowered the action level to 2 pCi/liter. Even at the NCRP action level, 8 pCi/liter, the cost is estimated at approximately 15 billion dollars.

However, it is important to state that NOBODY, NOBODY, NOBODY, can estimate the cost per life saved, since NOBODY, NOBODY, NOBODY has demonstrated that a single life has been saved through the application of EPA recommended actions, and in fact, if the current EPA studies withstand the test of time, we will see that the radon mitigation systems that were installed may have actually increased the risk of cancer, and been the cause of more lung cancer related deaths than would have occurred by chance alone. I know you don’t understand what I just said, but it’s important for those who do follow these posts to see it again.

Editorial
No, you are advocating allowing higher Radon levels by minmizing the health aspects. Not sure why.

No. Not true, Mr. Gerhart. And you will not be able to find a single comment that I made anywhere that can support your subjective editorial. By the way, please learn to use the lower case for radon; “radon� is not capitalized except by you and at the beginning of a sentence – the use of the word “radon� is exactly like the use of the word “air� or “benzene� or “gasoline.�

Editorial
From what I am seeing here, not sure I would have learned much beyond your "radiation is good for you" agenda. I prefer critical thinking to recieting by rote.

Mr. Gerhart, with all charity, in your posts, you have demonstrated a complete lack of critical thinking, and instead you have cited tautology (or “rote� as you incorrectly call it). There is no part of any of your comments in this thread that have shown any elements of critical thought. I don’t mean that as a personal attack, it is just there for everyone to see. You get so much, so wrong, so often, on such a fundamental level, it is a bit embarrassing, and I am worried that I may be picking on someone I should not be picking on.

Editorial
Wow, Mr. Connell, you are smart. You have invented time travel or reversed cause and effect! The EPA doesn't have any building material/Radon standards but you say they somehow managed to get dozens of other countries to enact them.

No, Mr. Gerhart, wrong again. Your lack of critical thinking skills has once again let you down. You have not even followed the logical progression of your own thought, let alone accurate characterized mine. You are demonstrating on this board that you are truly not very skilled in reading what is printed and thinking things through.

Editorial
Mr. Connell,
you won't be the first "expert" that got his ears pinned back on these issues. Here is a Health Physicist Soceity press release that says low dose CAUSES CANCER. Got it? The legendary HPS, defender of nuclear power, Cat Scans, and the right to be wrong. 10 rem can cause cancer in 1% of those exposed.

Mr. Gerahrt, this is not what we are discussing. Please try to stay on topic, and if you are going to present information and references, please try to make them germane to the discussion. Which actually is a good transition to your next comment. I’m not sure where you are going with the BIER VII quote, except that you don’t seem to understand its context.

Spelling
…by the way, it is BEIR, not BIER. PLease scroll the page up and reread what BEIR VII stated.

Um.. Mr. Gerhart, people in glass houses should not throw stones. If I were to start nit-picking your spelling skills, I would lose the focus of how poorly you understand health physics and epidemiology.

False Logic
Please provide proof why BEIR VII should not be the definitive proof.

As a scientist, Mr. Gerhart, I don’t engage in the impossibility of attempting to prove a negative. I leave that to confused people, Mr. Gerhart.

False logic
Tell me why we should believe you are right and all these hundreds and thousands of scientists are wrong?

Wrong again, Mr. Gerhart. I am suggesting that these “hundreds and thousands of scientists� are RIGHT and we need to believe in what they have found – I am saying that the policy wonks in the EPA who have hi-jacked the findings of the vast majority of these “hundreds and thousands of scientists� and implemented public policy statements that are not supported by the findings of those very same scientists. Why should we believe you when you say these “hundreds and thousands of scientists� are WRONG and you, Mr. Gerhard, who can’t even figure out the simple progression of Roman numerals, is right.

Clearly, Mr. Gerhart, your skills sets lie elsewhere, I recommend that you stick to whatever it is that you do, and leave science to scientists.

Editorial
But you did say that it was impossible to measure Radon, all of us can read what you wrote.

No. Wrong again, Mr. Gerhart. It is difficult to understand how you can be so wrong, so often in such a short span of time. How can you expect to have any credibility in claiming to be able to interpret scientific data when you can’t even figure out what is being said to you directly, and which remains before you for instant reference. You have once again shown a complete lack of critical thought and instead you have attributed to me something that I never said. Please, try reading what I have written, before you conclude what it is that you want me to have said. Mr. Gerhart, straw-men do not make good debate fellows.

False logic
Why not defend your statements?

Seems to me like I am doing a pretty good job. Why can’t you defend any of our arguments?

False logic
You are the one claiming expertise, time to show us you know what you are talking about.

Again, it seems to me like I am doing just that. However, apparently your critical thought skills are apparently so vastly superior to mine, that you are seeing through my little ruse.

False logic
Neither now nor then were we talking about buildings, we were talking about granite countertops. Prove why barometric pressures increase or decrease the Radon emission. I can see it would affect a crawl space.

Hoo boy. Mr. Gerhart, you can’t be serious. Are you really this confused? I think so. I think this statement, by itself, nicely summarizes how terribly confused, you really are, and how poorly you are able to both follow a steady line of thought and present one. Mr. Gerhart, we are discussing buildings. As far as proving that radon emissions increase or decrease please just go to, even, the EPA documents and start reading something about radon. You are embarrassing yourself.

Editorial
Mr. Connell, you don't have many friends, do you?

Probably not in your circles, no.

False logic
But it doesn't take a college education to understand that BEIR VI came after BEIR VII.

My face is in my folded hands and I am weeping.

Legitimate question
And what is it with that long disclaimer after your signature line?

Because my work frequently takes me to court, where my work is used to present arguments before the trier of fact. Under those circumstances, the rules of presentation are very clear. On this board, however, the rules are much less stringent and I am allowed to use logical devices that are not otherwise permitted (such as humor). Since there are more than Home Inspectors who read these pages, and some of those people conduct depositions, and direct examinations, and cross examinations, I need to tell them, that my post is not a “work product,� it is akin to a conversation that you and I would have in a kitchen during a cocktail party.

Legitimate question
Why would someone post something that wasn't his "professional opinion"?

Because I enjoy explaining things. It’s just my nature. I particularly enjoy taking foundationless myths and rooting out the facts. And fora such as this one provides me the opportunity to explain things to a wide variety of interested people; some of whom raise very good objections and excellent points.

By contrast, professional opinions are documents that are prepared under specific rules of presentation. Those documents are required to meet specific standards, and are internally reviewed, and scrutinized, and painstakingly assembled; for which I am remunerated appropriately. This off-the-cuff posts are rattled off while I am sitting in my famously blue bathrobe, sipping my morning coffee.

Rhetoric
And are are your "employers, agencies, peers, or other professional affiliates" ashamed of you or something?

No.

Last dying gasp
Did mom make you put that disclaimer in your posts? What???

No.

Mr. Gerhart – with all due respect. I don’t think you possess the mettle for the fight. Your own words testify against you. So, I will give you the last word, and then I’m afraid I won’t be debating you on radon issues from this point forward. From your perspective, just assume that you won! You beat me up! I confess that you are much more technically astute than I. Good job.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[Ted Menelly]

Other than the tremendous amount of reading I have done since these radon threads started, I don't know crap about radon.

What I will say from what I have read is that all of you with the radon measuring toys better put them away until the battle is done by the folks that do nothing but lab testing and conclusions are tallied and all the "experts" come to an understanding, and definitive reasoning and testing methods and the real health concerns with particular findings.

Right at this moment the class is still going on and if I were any of you, what I would do is tell your clients that there is *nothing* definitive at this time where you can give them an absolute conclusion to your testing on whether or not there is any concern for their health. At the moment it appears that the only conclusive test you can do is to measure the radiation level in the products, give them the results of the radiation finding and give them the tremendous amount of links with this discussion and let them make their own conclusions.

What your clients concern would be is something you can tell them with out any doubt in reserve that a particular product might have adverse health affects on them. Other than a high dose of radiation there is no definitive conclusion as an absolute as to the radon health risk.

I have had so many x rays, Cat scans, mylograms, MRI's, and radiation pumped in for a heart stress test that it would seem that I should be dead now. I won't get into the serious amount of toxins and carcinogens that my body has sucked in and absorbed or asbestos I have inhaled.

There are with out a doubt that here are a handful of people out there that low levels of almost anything is going to have an adverse affect on them.

Can any of you tell any of your clients in the slightest that the radon in granite counter tops in there home is going to have an adverse health concern on *them* at this time.

I think not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is there a possibility, YES.

Will they be hit by a car tomorrow, MORE LIKELY.

Just my opinion.

[Rick Hurst]

Ted,

Its the end of the world as we know it.

But I feel fine.

:rolleyes:
rick

[Jerry Peck]

I would say you have a reading problem as well, from your comments is seems others would agree with me. Or is it just that you choose to read into things that others don't intend?

Al,

I read what a person writes. If you think they mean something other than what they write, then you should ask for clarification prior to restating their quote (which makes it no longer a quote) into what you wanted it to say.

You called him on it, he responded by pointing out that you said he said something he did not say - and he is correct, you were incorrect.

There is no way you can now reverse what you said he said he said (huh? hard to follow that myself :) ). :D

[Ted Menelly]

As someone stated in the other radon thread.

I will take all the granite from anyones home near where I live off there hands.

Anyone know of anyone in DFW that wants there granite counter tops hauled away. Not broken up.

For every one person that decides to get rid of their granite I am sure there will be a 50 to 100 folks that will be glad to have their granite. (at a discounted price of course.

How much is granite a square foot know???? Just to buy. Never mind install. Gees, the new great upstart business coming up.

Hmmmm

Entryway table tops, night stands, office space counters, bath vanity tops etc. etc.

[Bruce Breedlove]

HUH??

It appears some of the previous posts have disappeared.

I was responding to someone (Al Gerhart?) who referenced an article that stated that exposure to low levels of radon showed a health benefit. He asked if we should be recommending that clients install granite countertops for that health benefit.

My point was - how much exposure to radon (and its associated radiation) is healthy?

My contention is that no level of exposure to radon (or radiation) is safe. The less exposure the less health risk. To me it is foolish to say that low level of exposure to radon will in some way protect a person from lung cancer. It is like saying that smoking a half a pack of cigarettes every day will make you healthier and less prone to lung cancer than a non-smoker.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Richard Moore]

I think that was me Bruce. Not deleted. Those posts are in another thread. The one about lawyers.
http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/environmental-pests-health-safety-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/9245-lawyers-have-already-jumped-bandwagon.html

[Bruce Breedlove]

I think that was me Bruce. Not deleted. Those posts are in another thread. The one about lawyers.
[/URL]

Thanks. This is getting very confusing with so many threads on the same topic.

[Al Gerhart]

Ross, thanks for catching that, posting too fast and not proof reading. I did reverse the roman numerals. My point was that Mr. Connell is using an older BEIR report to attempt to discredit a newer one. I think we all understand that new info always trumps the old, especially in science.

As for my credibility, I seriously doubt that any of the posters here have the credintials nor is it apparent that they have the information to judge anything. Some of the Radon guys might have the ability for the radon portion, but not likely to be able to judge the radiation facts.

Thanks for catching my mistake.


Quoting Mr. Gerhart's most recent reply to Mr. Connell:
"But it doesn't take a college education to understand that BEIR VI came after BEIR VII. I suggest you learn the Roman Numeral system."

Al,
Please tell us there's a typo in there, before you lose any credibility you might have had left. Or what number did they start counting down from... Did I miss something?

[Al Gerhart]

HUH??


Jim, not saying that the posters here agree with me, I am saying that those who this guy regularly battles could possibly agree with me. What is the common thread? People are misunderstanding him, aparently constantly. My point is perhaps it is in his delivery of the facts.

If you see hoofprints, look for horses before looking for zebras.

[Jerry Peck]

If you see hoofprints, look for horses before looking for zebras.

Making sure I am 'keeping it in context' for you ... Al, doesn't that depend upon where you are?

[Al Gerhart]

Other than the tremendous amount of reading I have done since these radon threads started, I don't know crap about radon.

What I will say from what I have read is that all of you with the radon measuring toys better put them away until the battle is done by the folks that do nothing but lab testing and conclusions are tallied and all the "experts" come to an understanding, and definitive reasoning and testing methods and the real health concerns with particular findings.

Right at this moment the class is still going on and if I were any of you, what I would do is tell your clients that there is *nothing* definitive at this time where you can give them an absolute conclusion to your testing on whether or not there is any concern for their health. At the moment it appears that the only conclusive test you can do is to measure the radiation level in the products, give them the results of the radiation finding and give them the tremendous amount of links with this discussion and let them make their own conclusions.

Ted, I agree with you, all you can do is provide a measurement and let them decide for themselves. People will have different tolerances for health risks, one in a milllion is not a big deal for a guy. But I can tell you on two occasions when surveying slab yards, I had the owner's wife leave the building after she saw what we were finding.

That is the crux of the matter, the perception of the risk and a normal woman's unwillingness to take even a tiny chance of harming her offspring.

What your clients concern would be is something you can tell them with out any doubt in reserve that a particular product might have adverse health affects on them. Other than a high dose of radiation there is no definitive conclusion as an absolute as to the radon health risk.

Again we agree, just tell people it is there, let them decide if the risk is worth it.

I have had so many x rays, Cat scans, mylograms, MRI's, and radiation pumped in for a heart stress test that it would seem that I should be dead now. I won't get into the serious amount of toxins and carcinogens that my body has sucked in and absorbed or asbestos I have inhaled.

All the medical radiation was done knowing there was a health risk, but the testing was thought to help prevent a larger health risk. A risk, but a worthwhile payout in return. As to the other toxins, surely you would avoid them if you could, surely you would want the right for your daughter, wife, or mom to know the presence of potential problems?

There are with out a doubt that here are a handful of people out there that low levels of almost anything is going to have an adverse affect on them.

Can any of you tell any of your clients in the slightest that the radon in granite counter tops in there home is going to have an adverse health concern on *them* at this time.

Agreed, but we aren't talking about the "slightest amount of Radon. Wasn't the level found in the kitchen 5.7 pCi/L? The EPA says that carries a cancer risk, in so many per thousand exposed.

I think not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is there a possibility, YES.

Will they be hit by a car tomorrow, MORE LIKELY.

Just my opinion.

Heck, I agree with most of what you say.

[Al Gerhart]

Al,

I read what a person writes. If you think they mean something other than what they write, then you should ask for clarification prior to restating their quote (which makes it no longer a quote) into what you wanted it to say.

So I am held to that standard you you and Connell aren't? Connell was using valid points on the difficulty of measuring soil based Radon but was using them to dimiss a steady state source. Actuall it isn't quite steady state, one of the experts is saying that the emission initially is slowed by the Radon in the center of the slab working its way out, but long term it averages out slightly less than 100% due to some of the Radon decaying in place.
You called him on it, he responded by pointing out that you said he said something he did not say - and he is correct, you were incorrect.

No, his interpretation of what I wrote didn't agree with his intent. Totally different.

There is no way you can now reverse what you said he said he said (huh? hard to follow that myself :) ). :D
No need to, the guy was using false premisis in his arguments.

[Al Gerhart]

It appears some of the previous posts have disappeared.

I was responding to someone (Al Gerhart?) who referenced an article that stated that exposure to low levels of radon showed a health benefit. He asked if we should be recommending that clients install granite countertops for that health benefit. Sorry Bruce, it wasn't me. It is hard to keep who said what straight at times.

My point was - how much exposure to radon (and its associated radiation) is healthy?

My contention is that no level of exposure to radon (or radiation) is safe. The less exposure the less health risk. To me it is foolish to say that low level of exposure to radon will in some way protect a person from lung cancer. It is like saying that smoking a half a pack of cigarettes every day will make you healthier and less prone to lung cancer than a non-smoker.

Bruce, that is an excellent anology. It is also the law of the land currently despite what the Hormesis believers would have you believe otherwise. Your simple paragraph states our efforts entire purpose, that lower is better, and knowing what radiation level granite you have or are about to buy.

Sorry for the confusion.

Geez, Bruce and I are in agreement.:)

[Al Gerhart]

Making sure I am 'keeping it in context' for you ... Al, doesn't that depend upon where you are?

Good point Jerry, but we aren't in Africa. Again that shows the reason for context.

[Jerry Peck]

Good point Jerry, but we aren't in Africa. Again that shows the reason for context.

Al,

Except that we are in a zoo here :D , and zoos typically have more zebras than horses. :)

Keeping it in "context", of course.

[Jerry McCarthy]

Forget granite tops, can I eat pen raised salmon safely? :confused: :confused:

[Al Gerhart]

Good morning, Mr. Gerhart:

Nothing personal Mr. Gerhart, but frankly, I think that you are bringing a knife to a gunfight. In any event, I will try to help you out. And you sir are a one legged man in a butt kicking contest.

Standards:
The 4 pCi/l is not a standard, and pretending it is doesn’t make it one.

Then explain why the EPA says if Radon is above that level, you should mitigate?

The answer lies in your own question: Then explain why the EPA says if Radon is above that level, you should mitigate?

You recognize the correct word and you even use it in context (something you don’t do often, frankly).

Ahh, I love it when I run into an over educated ivory tower type. As with most, you don't understand the definitions of simple words like "should".

School is in session Mr. Connell.

Merriam-Webster defines "should" thus, "used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency".

Got it, or do I need to define obligation or propriety? I know you will have trouble with expediency, appropriateness or suitability for a task or purpose.

So once a home reaches 4 pCi/L, the EPA says you are obligated, you would be meeting the standards of propiety (sigh, Conformity to prevailing customs and usages), or you would be acting with appropriateness or behaving in a suitable manner if you mitigated the Radon.

Now, let's talk about the definition of standard.


Let’s look at a real EPA standard. Since we are dealing with radon, and much of the contention that you dn’t understand comes from the NESHAPS, let’s look at another contaminant out of NESHAPS- asbestos. And look at what a real standard encompasses. In this case, we would go to the place where standards are located – a collection of documents called the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Title 40 of the CFR contains the EPA standards, and Part 763 contains (some) of the asbestos standards. Now, if we go to Paragraph 97 of that section we read language like:

(a) Compliance with Title II of the Act. (1) Section 207(a) of Title II of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2647) makes it unlawful for any local education agency to:

(i) Fail to conduct inspections pursuant to section 203(b) of Title II of the Act, including failure to follow procedures and failure to use accredited personnel and laboratories.

(ii) Knowingly submit false information to the Governor regarding any inspection pursuant to regulations under section 203(i) of Title II of the Act.

(iii) Fail to develop a management plan pursuant to regulations under section 203(i) of Title II of the Act.

4) Section 16(a) of Title I of the Act (15 U.S.C. 2615) provides that any person who violates any provision of section 15 of Title I of the Act shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for each such violation. Each day such a violation continues shall, for purposes of this paragraph, constitute a separate violation of section 15.

And it goes on and on and on and on, long enough to ensure that I will be in business for awhile. This is an EPA STANDARD. Throughout the CFR you can read where the EPA, through legislated authority, has established actions that MUST be followed, and if the individual does not follow those protocol, and meet the specified attainment goals, they have committed a CRIME which is punishable by fines and/or prison sentences. In the case of radon, is a “recommendation� that one can do or not do or even just tell the EPA to eff-off with themselves without any kind civil penalty or retribution.

The main reason? In most cases, such as asbestos, there is an absolute unquestionable hazard associated with various types of asbestos, and the science necessary to support the standard was sufficient to allow the standard to be promulgated. In the case of radon, no such standard will ever be promulgated, since in spite of thousands of man hours spent in studying the effects, we now know that there are no demonstrable health effects associated with radon concentrations as normally seen in houses. And in fact, the studies are demonstrating that as the radon concentrations elevate above non-detect to moderate levels, the risk of cancer actually goes down.

Uh, Mr. Connell, we weren't talking about Asbestos, we were talking about Radon. Are you the gentleman who was accused of cutting and pasting "mucus" when asked to defend his points?

Merriam-webster says that "standard" means something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example. In this case, Radon of 4 pCi/L is considered the "standard" that a home should not exceed, or a point at which you should mitigate.

In your case, you seem to be refering to "technical standard", an entirely different definition. Again Mr. Connell, you really need to understand that things need to be taken in context, less hair splitting and you might develop a few friends.

And "must" means to be obligated or required by morality, law, or custom. Two of the three values were brought up in our lesson on "should". You can hang your hat on the use of "law" in your "technical standard".

So you see Mr. Connell, you don't understand simple words well enough to put together a coherent arguement, which leads you into splitting hairs and living without friends. So sad......




Basis of the EPA recommendation

Sure, I'll dig that up. They spoke about the cost to lower the Action level to two pCi/L, was like $6,000,000 per life saved.

Again, you are getting confused about what you said, confusing time-frames and documents, (something, I see that happens a lot with you). What you are now referring to is not, as you originally stated, (the basis of the original 4 pCi/l recommendation), but rather you are now talking about a document that came AFTER the establishment of the 4 pCi/l recommendation. Oh, I see why you have no friends. You seem have the final say on everything. In this case, you are assuming that the discussion of social cost per life saved came AFTER the EPA set the 4 pCi/L standard. Instead of nitpicking the statement, why not agree that it was set after considering the cost to impliment?


Since you are confused, I don’t know what you have read, but I suspect it is similar to the finding of the SNM Committee On Radiobiological Effects Of Ionizing Radiation, wherein the societal cost of testing and mitigation at the EPA recommended level was estimated at 44.5 billion dollars (1991), and that cost would rise to 101.2 billion dollars if scientists like me lowered the action level to 2 pCi/liter. Even at the NCRP action level, 8 pCi/liter, the cost is estimated at approximately 15 billion dollars.

However, it is important to state that NOBODY, NOBODY, NOBODY, can estimate the cost per life saved, since NOBODY, NOBODY, NOBODY has demonstrated that a single life has been saved through the application of EPA recommended actions, and in fact, if the current EPA studies withstand the test of time, we will see that the radon mitigation systems that were installed may have actually increased the risk of cancer, and been the cause of more lung cancer related deaths than would have occurred by chance alone. I know you don’t understand what I just said, but it’s important for those who do follow these posts to see it again.

B.S. Mr. Connell,

"We need your help to save lives by getting the word out about radon. Exposure to indoor radon is a serious health risk -- it's the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S. But the risk can be managed when people test their homes and take action to reduce high radon levels."

That is from http://www.epa.gov/radon/videocontest.html (http://www.epa.gov/radon/videocontest.html)

Gee Mr. Connell, by being a scientist, does that mean that you can claim the EPA says one thing while their websites say otherwise? I would like to be a scientist myself, would come in handy with arguements with the better half.

Editorial
No, you are advocating allowing higher Radon levels by minmizing the health aspects. Not sure why.

No. Not true, Mr. Gerhart. And you will not be able to find a single comment that I made anywhere that can support your subjective editorial.

Uh, you claimed it a few sentences up :
"we will see that the radon mitigation systems that were installed may have actually increased the risk of cancer, and been the cause of more lung cancer related deaths than would have occurred by chance alone."

Is it just me, or are you claiming that removing Radon increases cancer risks? I guess I have to keep repeating what the EPA stated "it's the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S." You seem to be saying exactly opposite of what the EPA states on their public websites.

Let's face it Mr. Connell, you have an agenda promoting that radiation is safe. Your views are not accepted by BEIR VII, they specifically studied Hormesis and rejected it. Either do the science to prove them wrong, or start cackling a new tune.

By the way, please learn to use the lower case for radon; “radon� is not capitalized except by you and at the beginning of a sentence – the use of the word “radon� is exactly like the use of the word “air� or “benzene� or “gasoline.�

Let me guess, you are under thirty five, right? Lack of proper education is so apparent in your generation, and some of those past 50 were stoned half way through college, regardless, you need an education in capitalization rules. The one that specifically addresses this case is the requirement to capitalize proper nouns. Let me make it easy for you, pretend you have regressed back to nursery school.

CaoimhÃ*n is ready for nappy time, but is hungry. He tuggs on the daycare workers smock, asking "Can I have a cookie?" Note that "cookie" is a noun, but not a proper noun, "cookie" can mean many different types or brands of cookies.

Now, let's change it up a bit. CaoimhÃ*n is again ready for nappy time, this he has been watching Barney on TV, he is quite explicit in his choice of cookie. This time he says "Can I have an Oreo?"
Notice that in this case, Oreo was capitalized because it is a proper noun, a word that refers to only one particular cookie.

I fear I have built a clock when all that was asked was the time, but this is the only way to show how utterly silly Caoimhin's hair splitting truly is. In our case, Caoimhin is claiming that Radon refers to many elements. No, he is confused. Were I to write "noble gas", then of course capitalization would not be needed, noble gas is a classification or type of element. In our case, Radon must be capitalized because there is only one Radon gas, it is an element (Caoimhin, that means it can't be divided into anything else save electrons, neutrons and such).

Got it Caoimhin? Oreo, Radon ----- cookie, noble gas.

You might want to brush up on your English skills. In your example, "air" could certainly be left uncapitalized, benzene could go either way. If you are refering to the aromatic hydrocarbon Benzene, it would need capitalization. If you are using it as another name for gasoline, you are correct it would not need capitalization as there are multiple type of gasolines. Benzene is listed as a noun in most dictionarys, which one could debate.... ahhh, heck. I am becoming like Caoimhin. Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/propernoun.htm (http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/propernoun.htm)

Editorial
From what I am seeing here, not sure I would have learned much beyond your "radiation is good for you" agenda. I prefer critical thinking to recieting by rote.

Mr. Gerhart, with all charity, in your posts, you have demonstrated a complete lack of critical thinking, and instead you have cited tautology (or “rote� as you incorrectly call it). Not so fast my English skills deficient friend. Rote has several meaning and again that old context thing rears its ugly head. Rote means the use of memory usually with little intelligence or mechanical or unthinking routine or repetition. Tautology is needless repetition of an idea or statement. Since I used "reciting" (type, extra e) it should (see above for definition) be obvious that I am saying you are repeating from memory in a mechanical or unthinking manner. However, Tautology also fits, and you seem to think it describes your arguement well, so let's use it.

There is no part of any of your comments in this thread that have shown any elements of critical thought. I don’t mean that as a personal attack, Sure you do, Cao. Can I call you Cao? it is just there for everyone to see. You get so much, so wrong, so often, on such a fundamental level, it is a bit embarrassing, and I am worried that I may be picking on someone I should not be picking on. I agree that you should be worried, you being a scientist and all, but not understanding the definition of common words. This is where the "experts" usually slink off in shame while proclaiming their refusal to debate the issue. Oh, right, you have already stated your intention to do just that.

Editorial
Wow, Mr. Connell, you are smart. You have invented time travel or reversed cause and effect! The EPA doesn't have any building material/Radon standards but you say they somehow managed to get dozens of other countries to enact them.

No, Mr. Gerhart, wrong again. Your lack of critical thinking skills has once again let you down. You have not even followed the logical progression of your own thought, let alone accurate characterized mine. You are demonstrating on this board that you are truly not very skilled in reading what is printed and thinking things through. Ahh, here it is, leaving the debate field victorious by his own declaration. So many words, yet Cao understands so few. Perhaps I should switch to using only monosyllables.

Editorial
Mr. Connell,
you won't be the first "expert" that got his ears pinned back on these issues. Here is a Health Physicist Soceity press release that says low dose CAUSES CANCER. Got it? The legendary HPS, defender of nuclear power, Cat Scans, and the right to be wrong. 10 rem can cause cancer in 1% of those exposed.

Mr. Gerahrt, this is not what we are discussing. Please try to stay on topic, and if you are going to present information and references, please try to make them germane to the discussion. Which actually is a good transition to your next comment. I’m not sure where you are going with the BIER VII quote, except that you don’t seem to understand its context.

Sorry Cao, it is germane. You wish to dispute the fact that low level radiation, including Radon, is not a health risk. That is ridiculous. You are no different than the HPS crowd.

Spelling
…by the way, it is BEIR, not BIER. PLease scroll the page up and reread what BEIR VII stated.

Um.. Mr. Gerhart, people in glass houses should not throw stones. If I were to start nit-picking your spelling skills, I would lose the focus of how poorly you understand health physics and epidemiology. Like you misspelled my name in the paragraph above? And I would say you understand health physics and epidemiology quite well to be able to twist it like you do.

False Logic
Please provide proof why BEIR VII should not be the definitive proof.

As a scientist, Mr. Gerhart, I don’t engage in the impossibility of attempting to prove a negative. I leave that to confused people, Mr. Gerhart. Not to confuse people, Cao. To educate them. Again please provide proof why BEIR VII rejected the very Hormesis claims you are spreading? I am waiting.......

False logic
Tell me why we should believe you are right and all these hundreds and thousands of scientists are wrong?

Wrong again, Mr. Gerhart. I am suggesting that these “hundreds and thousands of scientists� are RIGHT and we need to believe in what they have found – I am saying that the policy wonks in the EPA who have hi-jacked the findings of the vast majority of these “hundreds and thousands of scientists� and implemented public policy statements that are not supported by the findings of those very same scientists. Why should we believe you when you say these “hundreds and thousands of scientists� are WRONG and you, Mr. Gerhard, who can’t even figure out the simple progression of Roman numerals, is right.

Tchh, Tchh. Mispelled my name twice now, despite spelling it right at the start of the paragraph. Sighhhh..... such attention to detail, such precision, so worthy of an esteemed scientist. Now, your paragraph establishes that BEIR VII was correct on the issues, the law of the land so to speak, the authority on the subject. So again explain why they rejected Hormesis (claims that low level radiatin is good for you) yet you continue to cling to it? And a simple mistake on the Roman numerals, just pointing out that you yourself didn't comprehend that 4 comes before 7, that previous data is usually overridden by new data and facts.

Did you know that Hormesis isn't in the Merrian-Webster dictionary? Wikipedia had a nice article, that said it was B.S., and quoted BEIR VII :

"The possibility that low doses of radiation may have beneficial effects (a phenomenon often referred to as “hormesis�) has been the subject of considerable debate. Evidence for hormetic effects was reviewed, with emphasis on material published since the 1990 BEIR V study on the health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. Although examples of apparent stimulatory or protective effects can be found in cellular and animal biology, the preponderance of available experimental information does not support the contention that low levels of ionizing radiation have a beneficial effect. The mechanism of any such possible effect remains obscure. At this time, the assumption that any stimulatory hormetic effects from low doses of ionizing radiation will have a significant health benefit to humans that exceeds potential detrimental effects from radiation exposure at the same dose is unwarranted."

Clearly, Mr. Gerhart, your skills sets lie elsewhere, I recommend that you stick to whatever it is that you do, and leave science to scientists. I would suggest that you do likewise since a simple cabinetmaker/fabricator can defeat you in a debate. Are you really a scientist? Or do you do janitorial work in a lab?

Editorial
But you did say that it was impossible to measure Radon, all of us can read what you wrote.

No. Wrong again, Mr. Gerhart. It is difficult to understand how you can be so wrong, so often in such a short span of time. How can you expect to have any credibility in claiming to be able to interpret scientific data when you can’t even figure out what is being said to you directly, and which remains before you for instant reference. You have once again shown a complete lack of critical thought and instead you have attributed to me something that I never said. Please, try reading what I have written, before you conclude what it is that you want me to have said. Mr. Gerhart, straw-men do not make good debate fellows.

Uh, so you aren't going to support your stance? For such a verbose fellow, you certainly have a reluctance to answer questions. I think I like Dr. Steck better. When I asked him about one of his studies that was quoted, he reconstructed it with great effort, even admitted the weak points such as not having sufficient sample sizes (he did point out that he asked for larger samples but was refused). In comparision, you seem quite touchy when someone questions your claims.



False logic
Why not defend your statements?

Seems to me like I am doing a pretty good job. Why can’t you defend any of our arguments?

False logic
You are the one claiming expertise, time to show us you know what you are talking about.

Again, it seems to me like I am doing just that. However, apparently your critical thought skills are apparently so vastly superior to mine, that you are seeing through my little ruse. Finaly, a bit of honesty from Cao!

False logic
Neither now nor then were we talking about buildings, we were talking about granite countertops. Prove why barometric pressures increase or decrease the Radon emission. I can see it would affect a crawl space.

Hoo boy. Mr. Gerhart, you can’t be serious. Are you really this confused? I think so. I think this statement, by itself, nicely summarizes how terribly confused, you really are, and how poorly you are able to both follow a steady line of thought and present one. Mr. Gerhart, we are discussing buildings. As far as proving that radon emissions increase or decrease please just go to, even, the EPA documents and start reading something about radon. You are embarrassing yourself. Again, Cao descends into personal attack rather than stand his ground and defend his position. Cao, have you ever published anything at all? Did you cloak yourself in this attitude during the peer review process? Argumentum ad hominem might sway the ignorant, but to someone with a modicum of intelligence, it proves you can't support your claims at all.

Editorial
Mr. Connell, you don't have many friends, do you?

Probably not in your circles, no.

Mr Connell, please answer the question. Do you have any friends?

False logic
But it doesn't take a college education to understand that BEIR VI came after BEIR VII.

My face is in my folded hands and I am weeping. I am truly sorry, my typo shouldn't have hurt your feelings in such a manner. Is something bothering you?

Legitimate question
And what is it with that long disclaimer after your signature line?

Because my work frequently takes me to court, where my work is used to present arguments before the trier of fact. Under those circumstances, the rules of presentation are very clear. On this board, however, the rules are much less stringent and I am allowed to use logical devices that are not otherwise permitted (such as humor). Is B.S. allowed in court? Unsupported statements? Are you as adept as refusing to answer questions as you are here?

Since there are more than Home Inspectors who read these pages, and some of those people conduct depositions, and direct examinations, and cross examinations, I need to tell them, that my post is not a “work product,� it is akin to a conversation that you and I would have in a kitchen during a cocktail party. So it doesn't have to be accurate? Is that your point? No harm in misleading the rubes or something like that?

Legitimate question
Why would someone post something that wasn't his "professional opinion"?

Because I enjoy explaining things. It’s just my nature. I particularly enjoy taking foundationless myths and rooting out the facts. And fora such as this one provides me the opportunity to explain things to a wide variety of interested people; some of whom raise very good objections and excellent points. I understand that well. Debate sharpens the arguements. You like me, have an agenda and you want to spread the info around. Unlike you, I prefer proven science to buttress my claims.

By contrast, professional opinions are documents that are prepared under specific rules of presentation. Those documents are required to meet specific standards, and are internally reviewed, and scrutinized, and painstakingly assembled; for which I am remunerated appropriately. This off-the-cuff posts are rattled off while I am sitting in my famously blue bathrobe, sipping my morning coffee. Well, I agree with the rattle part.

Rhetoric
And are are your "employers, agencies, peers, or other professional affiliates" ashamed of you or something?

No.

Last dying gasp
Did mom make you put that disclaimer in your posts? What???

No.

Mr. Gerhart – with all due respect. I don’t think you possess the mettle for the fight. Your own words testify against you. So, I will give you the last word, and then I’m afraid I won’t be debating you on radon issues from this point forward. From your perspective, just assume that you won! You beat me up! I confess that you are much more technically astute than I. Good job.

Ahh, Cao, but I must force you to admit that I am right for it to have any value.:D

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

Cao, do you want a cookie or an Oreo?

[Al Gerhart]

Al,

Except that we are in a zoo here :D , and zoos typically have more zebras than horses. :)

Keeping it in "context", of course.

Yeah, but I think Cao is about to call me an a**, not a zebra.:eek:

[Al Gerhart]

Forget granite tops, can I eat pen raised salmon safely? :confused: :confused:

:) Now that is funny.

Tonight I was feeding the dog, but the bones were frozen (raw food diet for the old bugger) so I got a can of Tuna to go with his dinner. My wife stopped me and said she fed him some Tuna the other day, didn't want him to get too much mercury.

What about me????:)

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Al Gerhart]

Well Randy, I am aware that you had one position on Gardenweb and and another position on Fabnet. I am aware that if I did that people would call me two faced. I am aware that you started out with an agenda, then switched sides, and now are switching again.

I guess once you hear that Dr. Llope is finding that our geiger counters and scintillators are reading only a few percent of the gamma from some of the granites you will switch sides again.

Now tell me again why an insurance salesman (shudder) would spend so much time on this issue?

[Bruce Breedlove]

Geez, Bruce and I are in agreement.:)

Funny how things work sometimes.

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Jerry Peck]

I acknowledged the reasonableness of the question. That's still where I am. I'm very interested in any additional


I also acknowledge the "reasonableness of the question", I also acknowledge the "reasonableness of the question"s, asked or not yet asked, about other materials.

Performing a "reasonable test which equates to real reasonable risk" is what this will turn on.

No placing Geiger counters on a countertop, not placing a sealed bowl over a countertop and reading the radon in it, but making comparisons as have stated above, and doing so with the same devices in each location, and using multiple devices in each location, and multiple 'closed'/'sealed' devices in each location as a zero basis test.

It will be time consuming and expense (unless one's time is cheap).

Then, when you get results which start to indicate 'Hey, there might be something to this.'. you then remove the materials from the location they were in, construct a "clean" room (i.e., no radon from outside sources and no radon from inside sources, meaning no radon - at least not "measurable") in which to re-install those materials which were removed from the other location and rerun all the tests again. This time you will know that the results are inclusive *of only* that material being tested.

After all, that is how tests are done to establish fault - provide a "clean" room which produces no influencing whatever (in this case 'radon') and in which the test result include 'only' what is produced by the material undergoing testing.

Therein lies some of the major costs: finding suspect granite in homes, removing that granite from those homes, and ... 'Hey, who is going to pay for my granite countertop!' You got it, that's where it gets to be a sticky wicket.

The alternative is to create a "clean" house, an entire house, making sure there are *no* materials contributing radon or anything else which would/could be invasive to the testing, installing complete countertops and all appliances - replicating a real installation, then doing testing over time.

Can you say $$$$$$?

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Jerry Peck]

I can fully understand the need for all of the rigor that your approach would entail, if there were litigation involved, or a desire for a result that is meaningful in a scientific discussion.

"or a desire for a result that is meaningful in a scientific discussion"

Isn't that what this thread is about?

Isn't that what the ruckus is about (invalid opinions being stated on invalid data taken from invalid "tests" which someone thought up to try to "prove" their "opinion"?

~~~~~~~~

Okay, I guess we need to skip that part of this will just become more of a circus than it already is ...


What if you're just an ordinary person who already has a granite countertop, and you read the New York Times deal and wonder "What about mine?".

If such a person got one or more of the ordinary radon test kits that are available ($5 each from the State of Alabama, for example), and carefully followed the instructions, would they know anything meaningful when they got the results back?

No.


Particularly, if the results were very low, could they be confident that they didn't have highly radioactive rock on top of their cabinets?

I doubt the instructions tell them how to check the radon in countertops. So far, there is only one method being backed by the radon industry, but that does not definitively state anything about the countertops radon emissions.

If the consumer got a 'nope, no radon' report back, that would be a good indication that there was 'nope, no radon' during the period of the test. Not being a radon professional, I'll let the radon professionals answer that question for you, I'll only throw in some things to think about: What if the house was under positive pressure during the test? What would happen if the house became under negative pressure? What if the range hood exhaust fan was on during that test? What if the range hood exhaust
fan was a recirculating type? What if water had been used during that test? What if there was radon present in the water? What if ... the list could go on and on, and, not being a radon professional - I don't have those answers, only those questions.


I'm thinking, from a layman's common-sense perspective, that a false negative is unlikely, but I stand fully prepared to be corrected.

Far be it from me to correct you on that, I also think that could happen.


If the results are "high" (however one would define that), then you might call a radon mitigation specialist for more thorough testing. What do you think?

I would think that the average homeowner would do the same - call a professional, however, it is then up to that radon professional to advise the average homeowner that, no, there is no "approved" test and no "approved" limit, but, yes, there is a proposed method to use in the meantime - *DO YOU WANT ME TO DO THAT*?

I believe that the average homeowner would be thoroughly confused by this time and would look at the radon professional like a deer caught in headlights - and ask 'What do you recommend?'

It is up to the radon professional to respond "as a professional", setting aside their desire to "make money", ... that answer, too, will need to come from the radon professionals here.

Do you take their money? Do you suggest 'Hey, I really would like to find out more about this myself, and, being as this is for myself, would you *allow me* to do this and this and this and ... at no charge, of course, as I am collecting data so I may form in informed opinion. Do they suggest ... (what do they suggest)?


I'm just trying to approach this from the standpoint of a consumer who doesn't have specialized knowledge or equipment, and would like to do what they can (within reason) to find out about their own home. Thanks in advance for any input.

That's a laudable stance and a laudable goal, one that requires one to spend one's own time and money on the research.

You don't go up to someone's house (if you were a painter) and say 'I'd like to see what you house looks like in this yellow color, I'll paint it that color for only $xxxxx'.

No, you would go up to them and say 'Look, I'm doing some research, *I* will pay for painting your house this color, and, when *I* am all done, if *YOU* do not like it, *I* will pay to paint it whatever color *YOU* like - okay?'

[Ted Menelly]

laudable

One entry found.


laudable


"That's a laudable stance and a laudable goal,"
Commendable Commendable

Main Entry: laud·able Pronunciation: \ˈlȯ-də-bəl\ Function: adjective Date: 15th century : worthy of praise : commendable (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commendable)
— laud·able·ness \ˈlȯ-də-bəl-nəs\ noun
— laud·ably \-blē\ adverb

commendable

One entry found.

commend

Main Entry: com·mend http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?commen03.wav=commend')) Pronunciation: \kə-ˈmend\ Function: verb Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French comander, from Latin commendare, from com- + mandare to entrust — more at mandate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mandate) Date: 14th century transitive verb 1 : to entrust for care or preservation 2 : to recommend as worthy of confidence or notice 3 : to mention with approbation : praise (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/praise) intransitive verb : to commend or serve as a commendation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commendation) of something
— com·mend·able http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?commen04.wav=commendable')) \-ˈmen-də-bəl\ adjective
— com·mend·ably http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?commen05.wav=commendably')) \-blē\ adverb
— com·mend·er noun

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Bruce Breedlove]

I can fully understand the need for all of the rigor that your approach would entail, if there were litigation involved, or a desire for a result that is meaningful in a scientific discussion. What if you're just an ordinary person who already has a granite countertop, and you read the New York Times deal and wonder "What about mine?".

If such a person got one or more of the ordinary radon test kits that are available ($5 each from the State of Alabama, for example), and carefully followed the instructions, would they know anything meaningful when they got the results back?


Maybe.

At this time there are no EPA protocols to test for radon from countertops. So, any such testing would probably not meet EPA protocols. With that understanding, you can still do testing to find out if radon levels are higher in your kitchen area.

You need something to compare to so you should do multiple testing throughout the house. All the tests should be done at the same time so they test the different locations under identical conditions.

You should do a normal test in the basement which is where the radon concentration is the highest under normal conditions. If the house does not have a basement the device should be placed in a frequently-occupied room on the lowest level of the house (e.g., a bedroom).

In the kitchen I would test where the device is sampling air that the occupants would normally breathe. I would not place the device directly on top of the contertop. (And I certainly would not cover it with a bowl.) Rather, I would hang the device from the ceiling or place it on something so that the device is at least 24" above the floor or 24" above the countertop and well away from walls and cabinets so air can freely circulate around it. (See EPA protocols for device placement.)

Since the kitchen is the primary area of interest I would recommend placing multiple devices so their results could be compared. If possible I would spread them around the kitchen rather than testing only one location. That should give you a better representation of what is going on in the kitchen.

I would also recommend placing additional devices in other rooms on the same level as the kitchen. The results will show if the radon concentrations in the kitchen are higher than, lower than or similar to other rooms on that level and will also give clues as to whether the kitchen is a source of radon.

I would NOT recommend using a charcoal canister to test the kitchen. Charcoal canisters are greatly affected by moisture and can give erroneous results. (That is why EPA protocols say not to test in a kitchen or bathroom.) I would recommend using a device that is not affected by moisture for testing in the kitchen - something like E-PERMs or CRMs (Continuous Radon Monitors). You will likely have to hire a radon professional because these devices are not normally available to the general public.



Particularly, if the results were very low, could they be confident that they didn't have highly radioactive rock on top of their cabinets? I'm thinking, from a layman's common-sense perspective, that a false negative is unlikely, but I stand fully prepared to be corrected.

If the results are "high" (however one would define that), then you might call a radon mitigation specialist for more thorough testing. What do you think?


First, a radon test measures radon, not radioactivity in granite. These are two entirely different things. The primary concern with radiation from granite countertops would be gamma radiation that can be measured by a gamma meter. Unless the countertops are highly radioactive I don't think this is a huge concern (unless you spend your days laying on your countertops). You can reduce your exposure to the gamma radiation by simply moving away from the source. Your exposure drops by the square of the distance; i.e., your exposure at 2' is 1/4 that at 1'. (2 squared is 4).

False positives in your radon tests are entirely possible, especially with short-term testing. Radon concentrations in a house are constantly changing (hour-to-hour, day-to-day, week-to-week, season-to-season) because the house does not draw radon in from the soil at a constant rate. The weather and how the house is being used are the primary components of how much radon is being drawn into the house.

A short-term test is only a snapshot of the radon concentration in the house under the conditions that existed during the measurement period. Did you conduct the test when the radon levels are much lower than the yearly average? Or did you conduct the test when the radon levels are much higher than the yearly average?

The test that gives the most reliable results is a long-term test. A LT test must run for a minimum of 91 days up to one year. This is a test that you can do yourself with an ATD (Aplha Track Detector). You can buy ATDs at the big box hardware stores. They may also be available from your State Health Dept. ATDs are not affected by moisture (as far as I know) so you should be able to get reliable results in the kitchen. They are small (about the size of a film canister) and easy to use. At the end of the test you must send the device to a lab for processing; you should receive the results in a week or two.

[Jim Luttrall]

Randy, I think the point is that there are no quantitative readings or even methods for obtaining readings that are proven to be good or bad. The EPA basically said (and I loosely paraphrase here) "they are still studying the issue."

But I think we can all agree if it glows in the dark, it might not make a good counter top.:D

[Al Gerhart]

I used to think the idea of granite that could be radioactive enough to create a concern relative to radon or other issues was absurd, because the only data that you produced was irrelevant or contradictory. Llope got involved, and I acknowledged the reasonableness of the question. That's still where I am. I'm very interested in any additional information that he can provide on it.

It doesn't take all that much time. I'm curious by nature, I guess.

I work in the insurance business, but I don't sell it. I don't sell anything. That's your job, not mine.

Randy,
were the data that I produced irrelevant or contradictory, I wouldn't have been able to do what I have done. Like it or not I drove the radiation issue into the fray, Build Clean's Radon experts had dismissed it. Llope's best results will be from my samples, so will Dr. Kitto and the four Radon labs working over my samples.

You thought the idea of high radiation was absurb because you didn't understand what I was writing. Rather than ask questions to clear any doubts, you attacked. You have been reading Fabnet and following the last few days events, you know who brought this into the light. You know that I had to fight guys that I spent a couple of years educating on the subject.

What you can't seem to admit is that all of this completely vindicated me.

[Al Gerhart]

Randy, I think the point is that there are no quantitative readings or even methods for obtaining readings that are proven to be good or bad. The EPA basically said (and I loosely paraphrase here) "they are still studying the issue."

But I think we can all agree if it glows in the dark, it might not make a good counter top.:D

Jim, that is more correct than you know. Thanks for supporting the need to look into the issue. Measuring radiation from granite will turn out to be very difficult to do accurately, but the inaccuracy will be too low, not too high.

We know the EPA guy that is the head of the radiation effort. They asked for local slab yards that sold the Africa Range Collection stones and we sent them the info. Once those guys put a meter to some hot stone, this debate on whether or not granite can be dangerous is over. They will use portable Ion Chamber meters or portable Gamma Spectometers, they have all the neat toys.

[Al Gerhart]

Maybe.

At this time there are no EPA protocols to test for radon from countertops. So, any such testing would probably not meet EPA protocols. With that understanding, you can still do testing to find out if radon levels are higher in your kitchen area.

You need something to compare to so you should do multiple testing throughout the house. All the tests should be done at the same time so they test the different locations under identical conditions.

You should do a normal test in the basement which is where the radon concentration is the highest under normal conditions. If the house does not have a basement the device should be placed in a frequently-occupied room on the lowest level of the house (e.g., a bedroom).

In the kitchen I would test where the device is sampling air that the occupants would normally breathe. I would not place the device directly on top of the contertop. (And I certainly would not cover it with a bowl.) Rather, I would hang the device from the ceiling or place it on something so that the device is at least 24" above the floor or 24" above the countertop and well away from walls and cabinets so air can freely circulate around it. (See EPA protocols for device placement.)

Since the kitchen is the primary area of interest I would recommend placing multiple devices so their results could be compared. If possible I would spread them around the kitchen rather than testing only one location. That should give you a better representation of what is going on in the kitchen.

I would also recommend placing additional devices in other rooms on the same level as the kitchen. The results will show if the radon concentrations in the kitchen are higher than, lower than or similar to other rooms on that level and will also give clues as to whether the kitchen is a source of radon.

I would NOT recommend using a charcoal canister to test the kitchen. Charcoal canisters are greatly affected by moisture and can give erroneous results. (That is why EPA protocols say not to test in a kitchen or bathroom.) I would recommend using a device that is not affected by moisture for testing in the kitchen - something like E-PERMs or CRMs (Continuous Radon Monitors). You will likely have to hire a radon professional because these devices are not normally available to the general public.



First, a radon test measures radon, not radioactivity in granite. These are two entirely different things. The primary concern with radiation from granite countertops would be gamma radiation that can be measured by a gamma meter. Unless the countertops are highly radioactive I don't think this is a huge concern (unless you spend your days laying on your countertops). You can reduce your exposure to the gamma radiation by simply moving away from the source. Your exposure drops by the square of the distance; i.e., your exposure at 2' is 1/4 that at 1'. (2 squared is 4).

False positives in your radon tests are entirely possible, especially with short-term testing. Radon concentrations in a house are constantly changing (hour-to-hour, day-to-day, week-to-week, season-to-season) because the house does not draw radon in from the soil at a constant rate. The weather and how the house is being used are the primary components of how much radon is being drawn into the house.

A short-term test is only a snapshot of the radon concentration in the house under the conditions that existed during the measurement period. Did you conduct the test when the radon levels are much lower than the yearly average? Or did you conduct the test when the radon levels are much higher than the yearly average?

The test that gives the most reliable results is a long-term test. A LT test must run for a minimum of 91 days up to one year. This is a test that you can do yourself with an ATD (Aplha Track Detector). You can buy ATDs at the big box hardware stores. They may also be available from your State Health Dept. ATDs are not affected by moisture (as far as I know) so you should be able to get reliable results in the kitchen. They are small (about the size of a film canister) and easy to use. At the end of the test you must send the device to a lab for processing; you should receive the results in a week or two.


Bruce,

AARST is on it, Dr. Steck emailed today asking for us to participate in setting the testing standards with AARST. Now I can do little but listen and point out any bits of info that they assume incorrectly on the countertop trade, and I know a bit about all the fields, enough that I have been useful to these guys who are experts in their field, but have zero experience in the other fields. That and I have provided the samples that will be used to callibrate everyones equipment, with the samples being circulated from team member to team member.

The plan is to start a long effort for the ANSI standard and EPA supports this being done. But a quick and dirty temporary protocol will be developed as quick as possible to guide the Radon community until the ANSI standards are agreed on.

Let's face it, something has to be done quickly if not perfectly. The plan is to do as much as possible at the Sept meeting.

I won't comment on your suggestions, what little I know about the testing protocol makes what you say reasonable, but I have to stay quiet on this subject. Is it okay if I share your ideas with some of the others? Attributed to you of course.

[Al Gerhart]

Now, this discussion is on track. Instead of dismissal, the ideas are being debated. Wonderful.

I'll add one thing that the Radon experts need to know. Or I will bring it up, perhaps they already know it.

The granite radiation can screw with the Radon test, but there are correction factors available. The only other thing is that few know just how far some levels of radiation can travel. I am talking about six feet and more for some granites, in significant amounts. In a small home, you can't get away from the radiation in some granites if you are in the kitchen.

Were it me, I would use a pancake probe to make sure that the radiation was low enough that it didn't interfere with the Radon meter or canister.

If you need more info, Bill Levy knows this stuff backwards and forwards.

[Bruce Breedlove]

I won't comment on your suggestions, what little I know about the testing protocol makes what you say reasonable, but I have to stay quiet on this subject. Is it okay if I share your ideas with some of the others? Attributed to you of course.

Be my guest.

[Jim Luttrall]

You know, I see that irradiating food has been expanded because it is beneficial for preserving, killing of E-coli, etc. It could be that small doses of radon and radiation is actually good for you.
If I read what Mr. Connell posted correctly, that is precisely what past studies have hinted at and the EPA has developed an artificial number just in case, since the studies did not confirm the hypothesis that radon was bad in low doses.

Heck, "hot" rock slabs may be the rage in a few years as medicinal! Instead of tanning beds and oxygen chambers, there will be hot rock salons and the really lucky will have a slab in their house to stretch out on!:D

We just don't know if it is good or bad and to test for something as a hazard just to play on peoples fears is unethical. :eek: :eek: :eek: Mold is GOLD!

[Jerry Peck]

Let's face it, something has to be done quickly if not perfectly.

Al,

You have it backward.

It needs to be done "perfectly", without any questions remaining, "get it right" the first time, don't play EPA games of 'maybe, if, and, or, but possibly' - either do it "right" (i.e., "perfectly") or don't bother doing it.

As for "something has to be done quickly" ... why? Are we all going to die next week?

You are talking about a product which is been around since man walked the earth, for crying out loud - "man" has walked and lived entirely on mountains of granite for lifetimes, there is no need to rush into anything for some pieces of granite in the homes.

Get a grip, Al, we are say 'Yeah, do the testing, it is worth considering.', but "do it right" ... "the first time".

There is no pressing need for it to be "done quickly" - your words.

[Bruce Breedlove]

You know, I see that irradiating food has been expanded because it is beneficial for preserving, killing of E-coli, etc. It could be that small doses of radon and radiation is actually good for you.


Irradiated and radioactive are two different things. Irradiating food does not make it radioactive. The radiation kills bacteria in food. That's all.

Think of it this way: When you are out in the sun you are being exposed to ultraviolet radiation from the sun. This UV radiation may cause you to tan but you do not become radioactive.

[Kent Potter]

Al, How do you propose we test for the presence of radon in every slab of granite that comes through our ports? Are we to take each and every slab, lay it out horizontally and place a can with a bowl over it for 24 hours? Would these tests be done utilizing real science or your methods of testing?

As with rants you have had in many other forums, you are again way off base. Testing needs to be focused on gama radiation, not radon. This testing also needs to be perfected, established and documented at all levels of granite usage. From quarry to counter top. Involvement by any of our wonderful government agencies other than the recommendations already in place would be a mistake.

You have listed on your website that all granite sold by your cabinet company is tested safe. The fact that you even sell granite astounds me due to your obvious disdane for the material. After all, you are such a huge proponent of solid surface and we know that granite has well surpassed sales and use of this material. Or is this the whole basis for your rant? Anyway, I digress. Back to your certified safe granite program at the cabinet shop.

What method of testing are you using to come to this conclusion? What is the minimum readings you have determined as safe? Are you providing this in writing to your customers? Do you have a secret room with know air flow in the back of the shop to place the cut material before installation so as to be tested for radon? As someone who is looking to help the natural stone industry adopt acceptable and accurate testing methods to ensure public safety, perhaps some of your methods could be usefull if they pass muster.

Are you willing to work with the stone industry in this eneadvor or just go on crusading to espouse the dangers of stone?

[Al Gerhart]

Al, How do you propose we test for the presence of radon in every slab of granite that comes through our ports? Are we to take each and every slab, lay it out horizontally and place a can with a bowl over it for 24 hours? Would these tests be done utilizing real science or your methods of testing?

As with rants you have had in many other forums, you are again way off base. Testing needs to be focused on gama radiation, not radon. This testing also needs to be perfected, established and documented at all levels of granite usage. From quarry to counter top. Involvement by any of our wonderful government agencies other than the recommendations already in place would be a mistake.

You have listed on your website that all granite sold by your cabinet company is tested safe. The fact that you even sell granite astounds me due to your obvious disdane for the material. After all, you are such a huge proponent of solid surface and we know that granite has well surpassed sales and use of this material. Or is this the whole basis for your rant? Anyway, I digress. Back to your certified safe granite program at the cabinet shop.

What method of testing are you using to come to this conclusion? What is the minimum readings you have determined as safe? Are you providing this in writing to your customers? Do you have a secret room with know air flow in the back of the shop to place the cut material before installation so as to be tested for radon? As someone who is looking to help the natural stone industry adopt acceptable and accurate testing methods to ensure public safety, perhaps some of your methods could be usefull if they pass muster.

Are you willing to work with the stone industry in this eneadvor or just go on crusading to espouse the dangers of stone?

Kent,
I will answer your questions but you might want to consider that your choice of words like "rant" telegraphs a different attitude than one of curiosity or one that is asking a civil question. I can be helpful to any one that needs pointed in the direction of the available info on this subject, or I can call a spade a spade. You get to decide how you want to be treated.

Now, since you asked some excellent questions, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. Here we go....

I would suggest that all stone blocks be tested prior to purchase by the slab processors, then again after gang sawing before polishing. At that point, the quarry men tell me that at most there is $1.50 per square foot in cost. Better to trash a $75 slab than a $750 one.

This testing is so simple, you don't test for Radon at all, you test for radiation. Radiation is a proxy used to prove that Radon will be present, if you know what you are doing. More on that later in this post.

You are assuming that I test with bowls over the meter. I do not, in fact I stick to radiation measurements and leave the Radon testing to Dr. Kitto, Dr. Steck, and the four Radon labs I am currently supplying samples to. That said, the bowl method is for one simple thing and one only, to prove that it is the GRANITE that is causing the high Radon level. Remember the CBS morning show? One slab read only 8 pCi/L, the other was at 500 pCi/L. Instead of spreading multiple meters or canisters around the home, $$$$$, one is used, preferably an electric.

Now, I am helping with the Radon testing because I have access to samples and can provide some info on the granite countertop industry practices. Plus, my limited education comes in handy, I can translate what the scientists say with only a few questions to the experts, then I can explain it in laymans terms to the non experts.

Were you interested in helping the testing effort, the help would not be rejected. That has always been the case.

I agree that the focus should be on the radiation, specifically the Gamma, but for the fabricators, all types of radiation will need to be known. The dust carries the radiation into the lungs, 20 times more deadly there.

On that note, I have a Certified Industrial Hygenist in the Northern California area willing to do some free in shop dust surveys. Completely free, completely confidential, the company will use the results to show the need one way or the other, for a govt grant to make absolutely sure fabricators are not being harmed by the hotter slab dust. Any shop owner that gives as rat's a** for their health or their workers health should participate in my opinion. I have the state labor OSHA complaince office coming to test our air levels, unfortunetly, they can only check for silica. I wish I could participate in the CA test.

Do you know any shops in Northern CA that would help out by allowing the testing? I am not part of that, I know one of the Hygenists and am trying to help her find shops that will test.

Yes, the govt will be involved in the end. Must be to protect the workers and the homeowners. Too much money involved, your suppliers will be cheated or they will cheat you if no standards are enforced.

You realize of course that reminding everyone that I fabricate granite undermines your claim that this is all about sales? I make a lot more off a granite sale, twice to three times as much. This isn't about money.


We test with a PM 1703 scintillator, range is from .060 to 3.0 MeV, so only a small portion of the lowest electron volt level radiation might not be detected, and the low level stuff has little penatrating power. Our level of rejection for a slab is 25 uR/hr. Our main supplier, Pinnacle Counertop Solutions, has 20 uR/hr as the goal for their slabs. Despite the fact that they are tesing in Brazil, upon unloading, and before shipping, we will continue to check anyway.

I understand that Sensa is going with around 50 uR/hr Gamma limit. The Chinese limit seems to be around 41 uR/hr Gamma. That is close to some of the states NORM levels allowed, some over, some under. However, 20 uR/hr is closer to the levels that require clean up at nuclear plants. It is also an average level at some nuclear Super Fund sites, so never, ever, claim it is a "safe" level. It is a "safer" level than30, 40, or more.

That said, hand held detectors only catch around 2 or 3% of the radiation present in SOME granites. It is complicated, but one of the studies being done is about to remind the nuclear measurement industry of this forgoten fact. That doesn't mean that there won't be safe stone to sell, that means you have to be very, very, careful selling close to the upper limit.

We never, ever, say a particular granite is "safe". Even the Health Physicist Society admitted that normal background (6 uR/hr at my home) carries a small risk of 3 per 10,000 exposed per year. We tell customers that in our opinion, from reading all we could find on the issues, that 3 times background is all we will knowingly expose our workers too even with HEPA masks, wet cuttng, and ventilation. It is up to them to decide whether they want to take the small risk or not, but it MUST be an informed decision or even a disclaimer doesn't protect the shop from being sued, nor does it prevent a child or someone that didn't sign the wavier from suing.

Kent, I recognize you from stoneadvice.com. Not a problem helping with your research. I have a large team of experts backing me up, all volunteers, unpaid. Radiological Chemists, Uranium Geologists, 4 Radon labs doing sample testing for free, Nuclear Physicists, Certified Industrial Hygenists, Govt agency section heads, and Geo Phyisicsts.

Why are they helping? Some of them work for universities or govt, this is their job. The independents do this to learn more on the issues, the more they know the more they can charge.

As to whether or not I intend to work with the stone industry or continue to crusade, well that depends on what section of the stone industry you are refering to.

I have been working with portions of the stone industry, slab yards, importers, quarries, and other fabricators like me. The listened to what I was saying, saw enough that they wanted to know more, then saw that this wasn't going to put them out of business IF they didn't fight it.

I have also been fighting a whole bunch of ignorante people that are now aknowledging that I was right all along on these issues. They had a crusade to discredit me, and they lost because the facts were on my side.

So IF any portion of the stone industry is willing to listen to the facts, I will help. I expect to be questioned.... civilly. This will not be done in private, no way in h*ll will it be done in private. Any who realize that my "crusade" has always been about the ignorance of the risks of SOME granite and about those granite companies that lie like mad about their product, will find me quite reasonable to work with. My stone suppliers figured that out quickly. Most are helping Build Clean as well.

Here is a short list of the issues that I think are most misrepresented.

Some granites stain, some neeed sealed, so admit that. Also say that some don't.

sink and cooktop cut outs should always be rodded, fiber glass rodding, no plain steel. Rodd all for the customers long term benefit.

Granite has a variety of heavy metals, Uranium is one of those toxins that will be addressed with selling lower radiation level granite. Other toxins need looked into, scientificaly.

Warranty the material or don't call it a warranty. Fix it or replace it if it cracks.

Your SFA Black List was useful, consumers and fabricators need access to that list. People can read for themselves and can decide why the stone was put on the list.

That is a start, it is too late to get into the other issues.

It took some guts to stand up and ask questions and ask if I would help the stone industry. I respect that. I also don't remember you being one of the truly vicious ones, so that helped.

Email if you want more info, or ask here. Civilly.....

Thanks,
AL

[Al Gerhart]

Al,

You have it backward.

It needs to be done "perfectly", without any questions remaining, "get it right" the first time, don't play EPA games of 'maybe, if, and, or, but possibly' - either do it "right" (i.e., "perfectly") or don't bother doing it.

As for "something has to be done quickly" ... why? Are we all going to die next week?

You are talking about a product which is been around since man walked the earth, for crying out loud - "man" has walked and lived entirely on mountains of granite for lifetimes, there is no need to rush into anything for some pieces of granite in the homes.

Get a grip, Al, we are say 'Yeah, do the testing, it is worth considering.', but "do it right" ... "the first time".

There is no pressing need for it to be "done quickly" - your words.

Jerry,
Kent would disagree with you on the need to get some quick standards in place. I would also say he validated that this is a real issue and realizes that I know more than most laymen on this issue.

If you don't know what you don't know, you will have a strong opinion, but will it be a good opinion?

[Kent Potter]

Al,

I am quite encouraged by yuor last few posts. So you do know how to compromise!

While I will admit that standardized tests need to be established, I never used the word quickly. There is alot of work ahead to get everyone in the natural stone industry to agree upon these standards let alone getting them implemented. If we involve the government in this other than the exposure limits already established, it will never get done!

As to the hazards of breathing dust in the fabrication shop, silicosis is by far a greater hazard. Shops that still fabricate with high levels of airborn dust need to practice better abatement procedures or be shut down. Our facility is a dust free one and has been tested to affirm that. We test semiannually with air sampling equipment provided by a lab in NY. Can't recall their name at the moment. I for one would be very inerested in determining if there are detectable amounts of radioactive material present in airborn granite dust.

I think 20 urem may be to low a number and perhaps the 50 urem could be too high. What numbers are you using for exposure times and at what distance? A rough calculation for a 20urem constant source at 4 hours each and every day only results in a 26.3mrem annual exposure. This does not even take into consideration distance and sheilding. These are just some of the things that will have to be established for proper methods to be established.

As to the SFA Black list. It still exists, just not for the public at this time. The probelm was that too many guy's were placing selections into the list that should not have been there and people were beginning to perceive unwillingness to fabricate same. It was intended as a list of granites that were difficult to fabricate and maintain so as to better educate the customer. It will back again with some serious editing and monitoring.

[Jim Luttrall]

Irradiated and radioactive are two different things. Irradiating food does not make it radioactive. The radiation kills bacteria in food. That's all.

Think of it this way: When you are out in the sun you are being exposed to ultraviolet radiation from the sun. This UV radiation may cause you to tan but you do not become radioactive.

Yep, I understand the difference.
That was not my point.
The point is knowledge about radon and radioactivity is limited at this point and jumping to conclusions that something is good or bad based on incomplete or erroneous information is bad.
Think about how many products that we thought were good that have turned out to be bad to some degree.
And now, irradiating food, who would have thought it would be allowed.
And guess what not everyone likes irradiating our food... and they may be right, in twenty years we may find it mutates genes or such.

[Al Gerhart]

Kent,

I would say that my willingness to compromise is not new at all, but now an openminded stone fabricator is representing the stone industry. The question is, can you resonable guys control the ones that have been cr*pping in the corn flakes the last few years?

Perhaps what should be done quickly is a short TRUE statement that most stones are safe but a few are a real problem. I would hope that after seeing some hot slabs, you guys would realize that people need to know if their granite is one of the problem ones.

One thing about the radioactive content of the dust, no one really knows, so please don't be quick to dismiss it. Granite has radioactive content, when worked it creates dust, thus there WILL be radioactive dust present, we just don't know how much. The effects of ALL radiation inside the human body is very well know.

I am glad someone on your side is looking at the exposure rates, progress. But, the correct exposure of 20 uR/hr for 4 hours x 365 days is29.2 mR per year. Last I checked, there is a 100 mR per year limit on additional exposure, but only 25% can come from a single source, so that puts 20 uR/hr over the limit by 4.2 mR.

Now this is the important part, we can not measure the amount of radiation that accurately with a hand held meter, even the very expensive Bircon probes are suspect. The only way to measure accurately is through radiological chemistry (destructive sample needed) or Gamma Spectrometry (slow but very accurate). The hand held meters admit not only a "range" of KeV levels they will measure, but also a % of radiation impacts inside the meter that don't read. 30% one way or the other is a pretty accurate meter. With that in mind, Dr. Llope is saying that the best hand held meters read only 2 to 3% of the total radiation coming from his granite samples.

Once you guys grasp the fact that the hand held meters are for "comparative" surveys, telling if radiatin is present or not, then comparing one slab to another, you will see the need to have a "safe" limit as low as possible.

Another point that is inescapable. ALARA, As Low As Reasonably Achieveable, is the law of the land in regard to radiation safety. Only a fringe of wackos hold with the Hormesis therory. They don't tell you that it was one study in which 40% of the results showed a helpful effect, while the other 60% left no doubt that radiation was harmful. In the Spokane WA study ( all Mormons, non smokers) and the Iowa study (Farm wives that spent above average hours in the home) both showed higher than normal Radon/cancer results. So do the Uranium studies, but they are tainted with smoking men, corrected for, but still unsteady as proof in my opinion.

ALARA holds that you must sell the lowest radiation level granite that you can provide and still be able to sell granite countertops. Plenty of stone is available under 20 or 25 uR/hr.

In this case, distance is the only shielding, so pick one, not both to lower the risk. Then consider that the Gamma WILL reach out to six feet and further. The range INSIDE the stone will be one to three feet, and yes it does affect the measurements on the hot spots, but it is representitive of the actual dose you are getting.

I would think bringing the Black List back into public view would be an excellent way to regain some credibility with the public. I would restate that people can read for themselves the opinoins on why the stones were place there. Perhaps a lively debate on each stone placed on the Black list would be best?

I think we might be overstepping our welcome here with a prolonged discussion of the pros and cons of these issues. We have established that there are reasonable people on both sides and that the issue is being addressed, so that is great.

You know where my blog is, please ask any further questions there. Any thread/article will be kept fair and all civil, educated posters can ask questions and offer comments. I will not tolerate name calling or sarcasm, so expect the trouble makers to be quickly ejected.

Thanks, nice to finaly talk to a reasonable person on the other side. Darrel Miller was pretty decent on this subject, also a guy named Phil A something.

[Bernie Caliendo]

Some of the big scare came from an article in the New York Time. This is what startled the consumers. AARST came out with some voluntary guidelines to test including testing the house & granite top area. Do not place the devices on the tops and thay should be at lease 20" off the floor & 20" off the granite. Compare the house results with the granite area results. If the house results comes back high, recommend a mitigation system then do an exact placement test. If the house results are low which indicates the mitigation system is working but the granite area remains high, it could be a problem. However, radon gas has a half life of 3.8 days. How would a granite top keep getting the radon replenished?

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Good morning, All:

I just need to chime in.

I don’t sell counter tops. I don’t install or remove counter tops. I have no dog in this fight.

I am just an Industrial Hygienist (for 20 years). I was a Radiation Safety Officer for 16 years and I taught the syllabus on radiation toxicology at Red Rocks Community College in Golden, Colorado for four years. I also lectured in Radiation Toxicology at Denver University as part of the Masters Program in Environmental Policy, and I have performed certified radiation safety training for such obscure organizations as the D.O.E. Rocky Flats Nuclear Facility outside of Denver. I have also performed radiation safety audits for other obscure locations such as the Los Alamos National Labs in New Mexico, and the VA Hospital in Denver. I have been the on-site Radiation Safety Officer in the decommissioning of radiation laboratories and on NPL Denver radium sites. And I have been the radiation adviser on radiation exposure issues for the U.S.G.S.

So, unlike Mr. Gerhart, I’m not very well versed in counter tops – in fact, I don’t know nuthin’ about counter-tops.

But unlike Mr. Gerhart, I know a little something about radiation, radiation toxicology, and epidemiology and when I read Mr. Gerharts posts, I want to weep – since it is difficult to convey how so completely confused, misinformed, and generally uninformed about radiation Mr. Gerhart truly is. Reading his posts, is painful. It is hard to believe that someone could be so wrong about so much and yet have so much to say! So, I haven’t read through all of Mr. Gerhart’s posts or waded through all the gibberish.

So, I selected just one, post randomly, and thought I would comment on it. In that post Mr. Gerhart in his hallmark technical incompetence in the area of radiation issues makes the following statement.

Radiation is a proxy used to prove that Radon will be present, if you know what you are doing.

Actually – this is a good place to start since radiation is a proxy to prove that radon will be present only if you are a complete nut and you have absolutely no idea what you are doing or talking about. In fact, that would have to be the only way that you could possibly believe that “Radiation is a proxy used to prove that Radon will be present.� Maybe its true in the fantasy Counter-Top World created in Mr. Gerhart’s mind, but not in the real world occupied by you and me.

Ionizing radiation is all around us, all the time and inside us. Natural radiation is in our food, our water, and in the skies above us. Risks associated with radiation is not just a numbers game wherein high number mean high risk. If that was the case, and Mr. Gerhart was right, then for heaven’s sake, milk would be banned overnight as highly toxic since the natural alpha radiation associated with it is 1,200 pCi/L! Beer would be classified as dangerous since it typically has an activity of about 800 pCi/L, and bananas (good gawd, bananas, the most obviously toxic thing on earth) give off so much radiation that alarms were once triggered at the Rocky Flats plant by a single banana coming out of the facility in a worker's lunch box!

Bananas are actually an interesting analogy since if we look at the radiation of bananas, we see that much of the activity is associated with the naturally occurring radioactive potassium found in the banana, and it is the same material found in granite.

(Oh, by the way, I also worked for eight years at Hazen Research, where I had a real scientific laboratory, and I worked almost exclusively in geochemistry and geological mineral beneficiation. Coincidentally, I also had a (gleaming) laboratory when I was a chemist at the Colorado School of Mines Research Institute. So, you might say I dabbled in geology and mineralogy and I may know a little something about geology as well.)

Now, if we look at granite, we see feldspar, and therefore, we see potassium. And, we also see the same radioactive potassium that is in bananas. So let’s look at that potassium. Most Americans (even those who do not like bananas and never eat granite) will consume about 3 to 4 grams of potassium each day. This radioactive material calculates to about 2,100 pCi of K40 which means a little over 80 radioactive decays each second. The average person reading this post has about 150 grams of potassium in their body right now. As you sit and read this, if you are a normal human, you are irradiating 4,400 Bq (120,000 pCi) of K40, (that equates to about 4,400 radioactive disintegrations per second. And that’s just from the potassium! And that occurs in our bodies each second we live! At least 98 % of these disintegrations take place within body cells, and are potentially capable of altering the cell's DNA. So why aren’t we all dead from cancer by the age of two years old? (I have little interested in knowing Mr. Gerhart's explaination).

Cosmic radiation pours down upon the Earth. Every SECOND, some 2,000,000,000,000,000,000 high energy protons (each greater than one billion eVs) are incident upon the earth. A single high-energy proton may give rise to hundreds of millions of secondary particles including electrons, muons, photons and even neutrons. In Denver, we receive approximately 190 mrad each year from JUST cosmic radiation! The party-goers at the DNC this week will be receiving approximately 20 µR or cosmic radiation EACH HOUR – and that is just from the cosmic radiation.

Our own bodies irradiate us with ionizing radiation, at a rate of one fifth of that the average US citizen receives from radon (when we express the exposure as “dose� in mrems per year). So granite has radiation (yawn); big deal, so do I.

K concentrations in granite are similar to other geological materials such as shale and igneous rock. Virtually all granite is radioactive. That’s it. Always has been, and always will be.

What is driving this current fear-train is ignorance used to fuel the “sky-is-falling� mentality of people like Mr. Gerhart who otherwise do not have even a foundational grasp of the technical issues at hand. But since virtually none of his readers are well versed in radiation issues, they can’t determine if what he is saying is technically accurate or not. This is precisely the same set of circumstances that allows the charlatans in the “toxic mould� business to rip off so many people. 1) First you scare the willies out of them with scientific sounding Latin names and scientific units of expression and bogus pseudoscience, and then 2) you $tep in with your $ales $piel and a$$ure the poor $ucker that you are a $$pecialist who$e $ole concern i$ their health and welfare.

We could sit and debate and discuss and argue for weeks about how much radiation a banana gives off – we could present lengthy scientific papers on the best way to measure the emission rates from bananas – we could petition the government for new radioactive banana mitigation standards – we could present scientific papers arguing about the spatial and temporal variations of how much radiation a Mexican banana gives off versus a Colombian banana – but until somebody demonstrates that the radiation received from eating a banana actually increases the risk of an adverse health effect by one iota – the ENTIRE argument is a presentation on the number of angels that will fit on the head of a pin.

And so it is with radon and granite counter tops. In spite of all the lengthy mumbo-jumbo on the best way to monitor and who has the hottest granite and how much does it increase the radon concentration in a building… it is all missing the big picture which is this:

1) There is not one study, yet performed on the planet earth, by ANY organization (including the US EPA) that has measured radon concentrations in homes and has demonstrated that those exposures increase the risk of cancer by even the slightest degree.

2) The U.S. EPA in its various documents has published its acknowledgement that studies performed thus far show that as the concentration of radon in an home (from non-detect to moderate levels) goes up, the risk of cancer goes DOWN. Let me repeat that for the benefit of any members of the US Ninth Circuit who may be reading this: The most reliable and confident studies performed thus far, as reported in EPA scientific literature conclude that as radon in an home goes up, the risk of cancer goes down.

There may be kooks who peddle the dangers of microwave ovens, toxic moulds, and overhead power lines, and they are likely the same individuals, like Mr. Gerhart, who embrace the current fear du jour of radon in counter-tops. They may present all kinds of scientifically valid emission studies and comparison studies, and comparative levels, but none of them can relate those emission studies to adverse health consequences without drawing on the misconceptions that the EPA or BEIR has demonstrated that a provable health consequence exists at all.

Folks interested in how some of those studies get perversely twisted, may find my discussions on radon studies interesting.

You may find the critical reviews of some of the studies here:
Radon: Truth vs. myth (http://www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html)

There is no point in attempting to discuss radon issues with the Mr. Gerharts of the world. They don’t understand the basic tenets of radiation, toxicology or epidemiology, and they do not care a farthing for objective facts. They see themselves as self appointed enlightened heroes but they cannot backup anything they say – but they can regurgitate large sections of text and tautology without having to understand what they just said.

I have no intention in responding to Mr. Gerhart, he has already demonstrated that he doesn’t listen, or think, about what is being said – primarily because he lacks the technical foundation to understand what is being said.

But then, see, I’m just a lowly Radiation Safety Officer and Industrial Hygienist for the last two decades with an additional 10 years experience as a chemist, so I don’t know nuthin about selling or installing counter tops – That is Mr. Gerhart’s area of expertise.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[Al Gerhart]

Some of the big scare came from an article in the New York Time. This is what startled the consumers. AARST came out with some voluntary guidelines to test including testing the house & granite top area. Do not place the devices on the tops and thay should be at lease 20" off the floor & 20" off the granite. Compare the house results with the granite area results. If the house results comes back high, recommend a mitigation system then do an exact placement test. If the house results are low which indicates the mitigation system is working but the granite area remains high, it could be a problem. However, radon gas has a half life of 3.8 days. How would a granite top keep getting the radon replenished?

Bernie,
You have read a representitive from the stone industry say that the radiation issue is real on some stones. The majority of the radiation comes from U 235 and U 238, Radon comes from both decay chains, that is scientific fact.

The granite countertop continually replaces the radon, for millions of years.

And Randy, you are misquoting and that is easily proved. No one said the hit men were waiting at the air port, I said they were placing odds on whether or not he would make it to his hotel. Typical make it up Randy, if you can't make something up, you use a personal attack.

And they do call themselves a "brother hood". No women allowed I guess, like the Mulsim brotherhood or the aryan brotherhood. They brag about strong arming machinery companies, trade associations, non profits, and material companies. I think that "brotherhood" fits the bill till they clean up their act.

Cao, I'll read your reply later today, got to go measure a lady's countertop.

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Ted Menelly]

Mr Connell

A quote from you

"We could sit and debate and discuss and argue for weeks about how much radiation a banana gives off – we could present lengthy scientific papers on the best way to measure the emission rates from bananas – we could petition the government for new radioactive banana mitigation standards – we could present scientific papers arguing about the spatial and temporal variations of how much radiation a Mexican banana gives off versus a Colombian banana – but until somebody demonstrates that the radiation received from eating a banana actually increases the risk of an adverse health effect by one iota – the ENTIRE argument is a presentation on the number of angels that will fit on the head of a pin."

You had to go picking on bananas. I loved bananas. You see I said loved. I will never eat a banana again :(

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry,
Kent would disagree with you on the need to get some quick standards in place. I would also say he validated that this is a real issue and realizes that I know more than most laymen on this issue.

I am sure there are a lot of people who would disagree with me and agree with you: you say that doing it fast is better than doing it right; whereas I say doing it right is more important than doing it fast.

I mean, look at all of the "Mold is Gold" people who jumped on that bandwagon, doing fast and not right. With the same intentions many would have doing this fast and not right - make the money while the making is good.

Unless there is something to show that *WE WILL DIE NEXT WEEK*, there is no reason to promote doing it "fast" versus doing it "right". Doing it "fast" only means that you may well end up with useless information, which is subsequently proven to be false information.

It is far better to "DO IT RIGHT", the world's population is not going to die next week because it was not done "fast". Think about it, do we know that smoking tobacco kills people? Yep. Does that stop people from smoking? Nope. Does that stop people from taking up smoking? Nope. Does that stop people from making tobacco products? Nope.

Yet that is a far more pervasive problem than radon in granite, and far more in urgent need of doing *the right thing* "fast", and it just is not happening.

There is absolutely *no need* to do it "fast" versus a need to do it "right".

Go cry 'Mold is Gold', yeah, that was the last big popular flare-up, and it is still around, albeit slowly dwindling down.

Because yelling "FIRE!" you need to make sure *that there is a fire*. Unless, somehow, you benefit from yelling "FIRE!" - like your yelling "FIRE!" and then saying 'But our granite is 'fireproof', so you can buy OUR granite, just not granite from those other guys, they have not tested theirs to see if it is 'fireproof'.

Hmmmm ... kind of like the solid surface countertop industry pouring gasoline on your *fire*, makes for good business for them, puts you in the position of having to say 'but our is *fireproof* I tell you - you do not need to worry about OURS'.

First, *prove there is a fire*. Until then, don't go around yelling "FIRE!".

[Kent Potter]

Al,
I paid a visit to your website and was neither impressed nor amused. I for one do not like being compared to the "Aryan Brotherhood", we do have women members and you obviously do not know the difference between stoneadvice.com and the SFA. By the way, your article could get you sued, you might want to run those by an attorney first prior to posting.

I am looking for credible sources on the topics of ionizing radiation exposure. Looking through past posts here, you are nothing more than an alarmist with no credentials to support what you are espousing. All I see is someone who really has an axe to grind with the SFA. I’m sorry for you that Silestone decided to come along with us (to work toward an industry solution) and terminate their relationship with Buildclean since I also discovered you were trying to bend their ears as well.

If you understood the geology of stone or some mineralogy, you would not be recommending chemical analysis as a credible procedure. While there are some things you have mentioned that peak my interest, most of what you have written is off base.

Mr. Connell,
Even though you may be "a lowly Radiation Safety Officer and Industrial Hygienist", I find your comments very insightful. Because there are so many radioactive minerals present in nature I know that this presence will not always mean radon and further agree with the overall conscience that radon is not the issue and that radiation exposure is the main problem. Since the deposit of radioactive minerals is not constant throughout a granite formation (or slab for that matter), what testing method is best? We’re looking at testing using dosimetry devices which may better represent true exposure.

Randy,
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!

Ted,
Sorry about your love for banana’s. Cao’s comment does have me looking at the banana trees in my back yard wondering if I should eat any of the crop this coming spring.:confused:

Jerry,
"Do it right" is correct. We are not going to all die this week or next. But there are those killer banana trees in the back yard...

[Curtis Marburger]

Thank you for your input Mr. Connell
you explain things in away that is easy for a lowly Stone Cutter like me to understand
Thank you
Curtis Marburger
Cornerstone Granite Inc

[James Duffin]

My nieces husband recently bought part interest in 15 granite mines in South America. They currently do not ship to the US. I saw him today at a wedding shower for another niece and he said his fear is that people will simply put in another solid surface counter top and the entire market will be flooded with unwanted granite. He said he has three kids and he would not put it in his house if there was ANY chance it could be a health hazard. The facts may not be as important as the hype.

[Jerry Peck]

The facts may not be as important as the hype.


James,

That's what I'm saying: Al is yelling "FIRE!" and people are running to the exits without know where the fire is, or even if there is a fire. Many deaths are caused by people trampling over people when that many are in panic and fleeing.

If there is no fire, I wonder if the person yelling fire can be sued for damages?

[Al Gerhart]

Kent,
were I a SFA member I would also be wondering if discussing price fixing, extorting businesses like machinery companies and materials companies, and attempting to pressure non profit organizations is also a basis for a lawsuit.

But let's look at what the Silestone/SFA alliance did.

First off, Silestone used the SFA, giving little while gaining much. By turning on their old partners, they lifted some of the pressure from the stone industry. Even better from Silestone and Build Clean's point of view, now the SFA is forced to admit there is a problem with the radiation content of some granites being sold. Even better, now the SFA is doing what Silestone set out to do, bring this issue into the light. The SFA will lose members over this switch from "testing is B.S." to "testing must be done". Plenty of stoners that fought tooth and nail to suppress this debate are now discredited. But they join Randy Evans, or revans1 as he goes on Gardenweb.com, so they have company.

Now, what exactly, if anything, did the SFA receive? Well, besides a heaping platter of "Crowe" (Pun intended, tell Miles I said hello), the lose of members over the fight, they also lost the support of the MIA (Marble Institute of America). In return, Silestone was supposed to silence Build Clean, something that they knew was beyond their ability, as they had one seat on the board. I'll give Hernando this, he did try, but the rest of the board was drafting the papers for his removal, which prompted Hernando to resign.

Sure, you stripped an ally from Build Clean's testing effort, but Silestone had given the maximum amount of money all ready, which had to be offset by raising twice that amount from other sources.

So basically, Silestone asked that Build Clean give in to your demands to stop the testing, then somehow convinced the SFA to start their own effort? Master full, Machiavelli would have been impressed. Those on our side of the debate are liking the turn of events as it furthers our goals, to insure the testing of all stones prior to marketing.


"If you understood the geology of stone or some mineralogy, you would not be recommending chemical analysis as a credible procedure."


Well, our Radiological Chemist and our Uranium Geologist would be amused to hear your views on lab testing. Nothing could have shown your ignorance more than that statement. Using the lab report, like the one from ARS on the Houston granite countertop, experts can determine both the amount of radiation and the amount of Radon. In fact, it was this very Silestone funded lab report that turned the EPA around last month. See, they thought that your average granite countertop had 1 pCi/G of Radium, not the 1,130 pCi/g found in that slab of Juparana Bordeaux.
It sounds like you have been listing to Dr. Hans Henson who prefers to sell his geologist services, dearly, to the stone industry.

Yes the random distribution of radioactive elements will mean that every slab be tested, no way out of it. There is a method of scanning a slab with an array of 12 probes, then dumping the data into a spread sheet in seconds, giving a color coded "map" of the radioactive hot spots, as well as a computed average of the radiation present. Done prior to polishing, problem solved.

Dosimeters would be an excellent way to prove or disprove the radiation exposure. One of the experts we spoke with called it "Tag and release", you put the dosimeter on the homeowner or fabricator, then after a period have the badge read at a lab. The absolutely best way to give the exposure. I highly recommend doing it.

"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 to the Silestone executive hit, another source said it was the slab processors, but then again, he was a quarry owner. Who knows....but you are finding out few want to talk of it. Draw your own conclusions.

Now, bananas are not large radioactive sources. Those that drag that straw man into the debate are admitting they have no other info but what few urban myths or lies they can fabricate. We tested rack of bananas at Walmart, nothing. We brought some home and repeated the testing while video taping the test, nothing. The video is posted at Youtube.com. Do a simple google search on the topic and you will realize there is something wrong when someone brings it into a debate.

YouTube - TCSRock78's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/TCSRock78) Look for the "Disproving more MIA lies" or the "No radioactive bananas or potatoes"
See why I am the target of personal attacks? It is all they have!

Now, Cao,
"Actually – this is a good place to start since radiation is a proxy to prove that radon will be present only if you are a complete nut and you have absolutely no idea what you are doing or talking about."
Dr. Llope, a Nuclear Physicist at Rice University said that there was a tight correlation between Radon and radiation. Can't cut and paste his reply since it is a pdf.

http://www.des.state.nh.us/ARD/EHP/Radon/r_r_natural_stone.pdf

Look on page 3, right above the chart. That PDF is posted on the state of New Hampshire's DEQ site. I suppose Cao would have us believe they are lying as well?

"If that was the case, and Mr. Gerhart was right, then for heaven’s sake, milk would be banned overnight as highly toxic since the natural alpha radiation associated with it is 1,200 pCi/L!"

True! But what Cao's agenda doesn't allow him to tell you is that your body retains only so much Potassium 40, and although you must have the element for health, it exposes you to 14 to 18 mrem per year, part of your normal 360 mrem exposure. However, one must point out that we aren't at all concerned about potassium 40 at all, there was only 54 pCi/g in the Houston Bordeaux lab report, but there was 1,130 pCi/G of Radium and hundreds more of pCi/g of Radon decay products, all proving that the Radon was present in the sample.

Now your conclusions.

1. There is no study showing that granite causes cancer, but there are exhaustive studys showing the Radon from granite causes cancer, few deny that but Cao and his fringe group. Radiation has been proven to cause cancer, granite has radiation.

2. Prove that statement that the EPA says cancer goes down when Radon levels go up. The EPA has pages of public statements and info that say the opposite of what you claim.

Sorry, Cao. Your agenda is obvious and like you say, anyone that posts long enough without providing any proof, oh.... you did link to your own site as proof!!! How about something published? Like a study? Maybe the Spokane or the Iowa study?

[Curtis Marburger]

What Mr. Connell Said



Good morning, All:

I just need to chime in.

I don’t sell counter tops. I don’t install or remove counter tops. I have no dog in this fight.

I am just an Industrial Hygienist (for 20 years). I was a Radiation Safety Officer for 16 years and I taught the syllabus on radiation toxicology at Red Rocks Community College in Golden, Colorado for four years. I also lectured in Radiation Toxicology at Denver University as part of the Masters Program in Environmental Policy, and I have performed certified radiation safety training for such obscure organizations as the D.O.E. Rocky Flats Nuclear Facility outside of Denver. I have also performed radiation safety audits for other obscure locations such as the Los Alamos National Labs in New Mexico, and the VA Hospital in Denver. I have been the on-site Radiation Safety Officer in the decommissioning of radiation laboratories and on NPL Denver radium sites. And I have been the radiation adviser on radiation exposure issues for the U.S.G.S.

So, unlike Mr. Gerhart, I’m not very well versed in counter tops – in fact, I don’t know nuthin’ about counter-tops.

But unlike Mr. Gerhart, I know a little something about radiation, radiation toxicology, and epidemiology and when I read Mr. Gerharts posts, I want to weep – since it is difficult to convey how so completely confused, misinformed, and generally uninformed about radiation Mr. Gerhart truly is. Reading his posts, is painful. It is hard to believe that someone could be so wrong about so much and yet have so much to say! So, I haven’t read through all of Mr. Gerhart’s posts or waded through all the gibberish.

So, I selected just one, post randomly, and thought I would comment on it. In that post Mr. Gerhart in his hallmark technical incompetence in the area of radiation issues makes the following statement.

Radiation is a proxy used to prove that Radon will be present, if you know what you are doing.

Actually – this is a good place to start since radiation is a proxy to prove that radon will be present only if you are a complete nut and you have absolutely no idea what you are doing or talking about. In fact, that would have to be the only way that you could possibly believe that “Radiation is a proxy used to prove that Radon will be present.� Maybe its true in the fantasy Counter-Top World created in Mr. Gerhart’s mind, but not in the real world occupied by you and me.

Ionizing radiation is all around us, all the time and inside us. Natural radiation is in our food, our water, and in the skies above us. Risks associated with radiation is not just a numbers game wherein high number mean high risk. If that was the case, and Mr. Gerhart was right, then for heaven’s sake, milk would be banned overnight as highly toxic since the natural alpha radiation associated with it is 1,200 pCi/L! Beer would be classified as dangerous since it typically has an activity of about 800 pCi/L, and bananas (good gawd, bananas, the most obviously toxic thing on earth) give off so much radiation that alarms were once triggered at the Rocky Flats plant by a single banana coming out of the facility in a worker's lunch box!

Bananas are actually an interesting analogy since if we look at the radiation of bananas, we see that much of the activity is associated with the naturally occurring radioactive potassium found in the banana, and it is the same material found in granite.

(Oh, by the way, I also worked for eight years at Hazen Research, where I had a real scientific laboratory, and I worked almost exclusively in geochemistry and geological mineral beneficiation. Coincidentally, I also had a (gleaming) laboratory when I was a chemist at the Colorado School of Mines Research Institute. So, you might say I dabbled in geology and mineralogy and I may know a little something about geology as well.)

Now, if we look at granite, we see feldspar, and therefore, we see potassium. And, we also see the same radioactive potassium that is in bananas. So let’s look at that potassium. Most Americans (even those who do not like bananas and never eat granite) will consume about 3 to 4 grams of potassium each day. This radioactive material calculates to about 2,100 pCi of K40 which means a little over 80 radioactive decays each second. The average person reading this post has about 150 grams of potassium in their body right now. As you sit and read this, if you are a normal human, you are irradiating 4,400 Bq (120,000 pCi) of K40, (that equates to about 4,400 radioactive disintegrations per second. And that’s just from the potassium! And that occurs in our bodies each second we live! At least 98 % of these disintegrations take place within body cells, and are potentially capable of altering the cell's DNA. So why aren’t we all dead from cancer by the age of two years old? (I have little interested in knowing Mr. Gerhart's explaination).

Cosmic radiation pours down upon the Earth. Every SECOND, some 2,000,000,000,000,000,000 high energy protons (each greater than one billion eVs) are incident upon the earth. A single high-energy proton may give rise to hundreds of millions of secondary particles including electrons, muons, photons and even neutrons. In Denver, we receive approximately 190 mrad each year from JUST cosmic radiation! The party-goers at the DNC this week will be receiving approximately 20 µR or cosmic radiation EACH HOUR – and that is just from the cosmic radiation.

Our own bodies irradiate us with ionizing radiation, at a rate of one fifth of that the average US citizen receives from radon (when we express the exposure as “dose� in mrems per year). So granite has radiation (yawn); big deal, so do I.

K concentrations in granite are similar to other geological materials such as shale and igneous rock. Virtually all granite is radioactive. That’s it. Always has been, and always will be.

What is driving this current fear-train is ignorance used to fuel the “sky-is-falling� mentality of people like Mr. Gerhart who otherwise do not have even a foundational grasp of the technical issues at hand. But since virtually none of his readers are well versed in radiation issues, they can’t determine if what he is saying is technically accurate or not. This is precisely the same set of circumstances that allows the charlatans in the “toxic mould� business to rip off so many people. 1) First you scare the willies out of them with scientific sounding Latin names and scientific units of expression and bogus pseudoscience, and then 2) you $tep in with your $ales $piel and a$$ure the poor $ucker that you are a $$pecialist who$e $ole concern i$ their health and welfare.

We could sit and debate and discuss and argue for weeks about how much radiation a banana gives off – we could present lengthy scientific papers on the best way to measure the emission rates from bananas – we could petition the government for new radioactive banana mitigation standards – we could present scientific papers arguing about the spatial and temporal variations of how much radiation a Mexican banana gives off versus a Colombian banana – but until somebody demonstrates that the radiation received from eating a banana actually increases the risk of an adverse health effect by one iota – the ENTIRE argument is a presentation on the number of angels that will fit on the head of a pin.

And so it is with radon and granite counter tops. In spite of all the lengthy mumbo-jumbo on the best way to monitor and who has the hottest granite and how much does it increase the radon concentration in a building… it is all missing the big picture which is this:

1) There is not one study, yet performed on the planet earth, by ANY organization (including the US EPA) that has measured radon concentrations in homes and has demonstrated that those exposures increase the risk of cancer by even the slightest degree.

2) The U.S. EPA in its various documents has published its acknowledgement that studies performed thus far show that as the concentration of radon in an home (from non-detect to moderate levels) goes up, the risk of cancer goes DOWN. Let me repeat that for the benefit of any members of the US Ninth Circuit who may be reading this: The most reliable and confident studies performed thus far, as reported in EPA scientific literature conclude that as radon in an home goes up, the risk of cancer goes down.

There may be kooks who peddle the dangers of microwave ovens, toxic moulds, and overhead power lines, and they are likely the same individuals, like Mr. Gerhart, who embrace the current fear du jour of radon in counter-tops. They may present all kinds of scientifically valid emission studies and comparison studies, and comparative levels, but none of them can relate those emission studies to adverse health consequences without drawing on the misconceptions that the EPA or BEIR has demonstrated that a provable health consequence exists at all.

Folks interested in how some of those studies get perversely twisted, may find my discussions on radon studies interesting.

You may find the critical reviews of some of the studies here:
Radon: Truth vs. myth (http://www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html)

There is no point in attempting to discuss radon issues with the Mr. Gerharts of the world. They don’t understand the basic tenets of radiation, toxicology or epidemiology, and they do not care a farthing for objective facts. They see themselves as self appointed enlightened heroes but they cannot backup anything they say – but they can regurgitate large sections of text and tautology without having to understand what they just said.

I have no intention in responding to Mr. Gerhart, he has already demonstrated that he doesn’t listen, or think, about what is being said – primarily because he lacks the technical foundation to understand what is being said.

But then, see, I’m just a lowly Radiation Safety Officer and Industrial Hygienist for the last two decades with an additional 10 years experience as a chemist, so I don’t know nuthin about selling or installing counter tops – That is Mr. Gerhart’s area of expertise.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[Kent Potter]

Al

I really do not want to waste allot of time on this site arguing about the SFA. The SFA (or MIA) has never denied Granite as non radioactive nor that it doesn't emit radon. This however does not fit with your conspiracy theory. Do you have the results of that study that shows the link between granite and cancer? No you do not. Here again, twisting the facts to meet an agenda. We call that "Alarmist Mentality".

No machine comany has been strong armed by our organization, otherwise they would'nt be sponsors! There has never been any price fixing as everyone knows, this would be in direct violation of US Anti-Trust laws!

I'll have to give Hernando at C&C NA a call on Monday to congratulate him on his narrow escape. Thank god for good intel, wouldn't you agree? Btw, he never had a trip planned to Brasil and none of Cosentino suppliers had ever cut then off!

Why wouldn't Silestone ally with us? Their material is 93% quartz (thats a natural material, Al), many of our members sell and fabricate their materials (me included), they are a major importer of granite and they too wish to improve the industry. We're hoping they also come on board with the MIA, would'nt that be great! Damn, that blows another conspiracy theory for you, sorry.

As to losing members? Membership is up! But then again, you don't know the difference between a registered user of stoneadvice.com and a card carrying member of the SFA. Brothers and sisters alike, bro.

Your last post answers a question previously asked. Your problem is not with granite or any burning desire to save the world from it's dangers. You are pissed with the SFA and you figure this is a way to get back at them. That is real petty Al. I urge you to take a look through this thread and see if you have anymore support for your radon rant here than you did over stoneadvice.com before you were banned for name calling and abusive behavior! I see the same results here and at some point tese guy's will get tired of your crap too.

I guess now that buildclean is on the rocks for the same alarmist activity (since they were the ones responsible for the leak to the NYT) you have lost another partner in you campaign against the SFA. Maybe Cambria will come on board with us too! Wouldn't that be great, AL?!

By the way, did you know there are all kinds of sites on the internet that will sell you hot minerals and granite samples? Of course you did, look at who I am asking!

[Michael Larson]

However, radon gas has a half life of 3.8 days. How would a granite top keep getting the radon replenished?The Decay Chain of Radon:

Radon originates from Uranium-238 which naturally occurs in most types of granite and soil in varying degrees. The following table for uranium-238 shows the various changes. As it undergoes radioactive decay, a chain of products is formed as a result of one by-product itself decaying to another element, which in turn decays further until finally reaching an element that is stable. In this case that stable element is Lead. The element we're interested in is Radon-222 (there is another form, Radon-218, but the half-life of this isotope is only a few hundredths of a second, so it is less of a problem). This is produced roughly halfway down this decay chain from Radium-226. Radon is a particular problem because it is a gas, and as such can leave the surrounding rock and enter buildings along with atmospheric air.
Radon-222

Half-life : 3.825 days - Emissions: Alpha 5.48MeV - Beta None - Gamma None
http://www.atral.com/U238.gif

[Al Gerhart]

Al

I really do not want to waste allot of time on this site arguing about the SFA. The SFA (or MIA) has never denied Granite as non radioactive nor that it doesn't emit radon. This however does not fit with your conspiracy theory. Do you have the results of that study that shows the link between granite and cancer? No you do not. Here again, twisting the facts to meet an agenda. We call that "Alarmist Mentality".

No machine comany has been strong armed by our organization, otherwise they would'nt be sponsors! There has never been any price fixing as everyone knows, this would be in direct violation of US Anti-Trust laws!

I'll have to give Hernando at C&C NA a call on Monday to congratulate him on his narrow escape. Thank god for good intel, wouldn't you agree? Btw, he never had a trip planned to Brasil and none of Cosentino suppliers had ever cut then off!

Why wouldn't Silestone ally with us? Their material is 93% quartz (thats a natural material, Al), many of our members sell and fabricate their materials (me included), they are a major importer of granite and they too wish to improve the industry. We're hoping they also come on board with the MIA, would'nt that be great! Damn, that blows another conspiracy theory for you, sorry.

As to losing members? Membership is up! But then again, you don't know the difference between a registered user of stoneadvice.com and a card carrying member of the SFA. Brothers and sisters alike, bro.

Your last post answers a question previously asked. Your problem is not with granite or any burning desire to save the world from it's dangers. You are pissed with the SFA and you figure this is a way to get back at them. That is real petty Al. I urge you to take a look through this thread and see if you have anymore support for your radon rant here than you did over stoneadvice.com before you were banned for name calling and abusive behavior! I see the same results here and at some point tese guy's will get tired of your crap too.

I guess now that buildclean is on the rocks for the same alarmist activity (since they were the ones responsible for the leak to the NYT) you have lost another partner in you campaign against the SFA. Maybe Cambria will come on board with us too! Wouldn't that be great, AL?!

By the way, did you know there are all kinds of sites on the internet that will sell you hot minerals and granite samples? Of course you did, look at who I am asking!


No price fixing or strong arming huh? All this is from the SFA site. I believe it will dispel any claims that there is not a serious issue, so you can drop the alarmist business. It also shows that some of your members do not want you to admit that some granites are "hot as hell"

You just wrote this:

"There has never been any price fixing as everyone knows, this would be in direct violation of US Anti-Trust laws!"
And this is one of many, many, comments proving that the Dark Room is used for price fixing.

"Another cool development is a forum we call the "Dark Room" It is only visible to SFA members. We can talk amongst each other in private. We can talk about pay, pricing, machine makers or whatever. This a room that is only seen by other fabricators. This is powerful stuff!"

Now, you just wrote: No machine company has been strong armed by our organization, otherwise they wouldn't be sponsors! Here is one comment of one thread of many that disprove what you just wrote.

"One of our fellow fabricators was having issues getting good support from a machine co.company. Our members emailed and called the company. (20 or 30 of us) and were able to exert some pressure to get our members machine up and running. Talk about a brotherhood."

"The statements are political documents. Don\'t read into them. It is the end result that matters. Build Clean is going to go away (we are pretty sure)."

Looks like to me you were applying undue influence on a nonprofit. Look up the laws on that will ya?

"Ron and Mark,Is the Build Clean site going black and when. Is that at the sole discretion of Cosentino or does everyone have to agree to it?"

"We will prepare for phase 2 of this operation. Target Cambria. They do not understand or believe that we will wreak havoc. "

Blackmail, extortion!

"Now that we have the Cosentino part of the question put to bed it is time to focus on the other half. We can direct our energy on the next objective. Divide and conquer!"

"So did you get COSENTINO to cut a SPONSOR check yet"

Ah, it is a money shakedown as well?

" Dan Dauchess wrote:We need to come up with a reasonable and scientifically defensible testing protocol that does not make us look like a bunch of idiots like Al the Crapenturd."

Oh, Kent, care to explain why it is okay to name call and then expect me to help? We both know this is one of many insults and threats against me.

"Trust me on this one detail...if your customer found a spot has hot as the one I came across, you could wind up in a courtroom having your ass handed to you on a platter. I have a huge investment in my shop.....i want to protect my self.This radiation shite is no joke.....we have implicit liability."

Geez, and this is from SFA leaders? Sounds like "Alarmist activities"? Or the friggin truth.

"Some people believe the earth is flat...that does not make it so.I watched the meter go right off the charts, we reviewed alot of data....how would you like some radon home inspector to find that crap? And then your customer sues you into the stone age....you wind up paying not only for the tear out, replacement.....you get a judgment against you for millions of dollars for the exposure of her life dose of radiation. You lose your shop....your house....and then have the joy of filing banktruptcy. THIS IS REAL! IT WILL HAPPEN! We can claim ignorance for our past.....we can not do so going forward.I don\'t think you telling the judge \"I still think granite is safe\" is going to fly. "

Uh oh, more "Alarmist activity" from the SFA leaders....

"We went into the board room swinging a bat and did so to the very end. It was a 5 hour nut crushing meeting, these men are very very smart and very tough negociators. I am almost 100% certain they did meet with the MIA, and I am almost 100% certain they signed such docs....which is why we never heard about the failure. I do not \"know\" this to be TRUE....but I feel it in my bones. (you can almost never prove these types of things)"

Yup, the MIA did meet with them, several times. The MIA were exposed to the same data you saw. And it was no "failure", it was the MIA refusal to admit the facts like the SFA did. That very after noon they launched the Defense of Granite Fund to pay the lawyers and settlements that will be needed. Yet they contiue to claim that all stone is safe??? Hmmm, swinging a bat?

"Dude....we dont\' lose our nukes.....we just took our finger off the trigger. We can torch it off if they don\'t play team ball. That is the power we wield. They perceive it is real and act accordingly.Ron and I discussed this....we decided to post this here first (dark room) before we post in the public. We do not want to appear fractured and un-united in the public. It will turn our nukes in to fire crackers.

I guess your Bang went Fizzzz. Your extortion attempt seems to have failed.

"Mark and Ron - Please do not post in a public forum that certain granites may not be safe and needs to be tested. This would be disasterous. We cannot claim ignorance for the past. One lawsuit from an ambulance chaser would cost thousands to defend. The EPA states that their is not any significant risk. Keep that line until more data is revealed."

Uh oh, this guy doesn't want you to admit the truth, says it would be "disaterous". Hide the facts till we are forced to admit it!!!!!

"Think about this...The issue is in the press....the radon & radiation inspection crowd is out there testing this stuff.....the American Bar Association is gearing up for law suits and issuing briefs on how to do this.As this moves forward (think about the mold thing a few years back) It is going to keep coming up in the news...To say all granites are fine is simply not the truth. The press will eat our lunch if we continue to deny this. Can you imagine the headlines when some reporter flys to Africa films a uranium mine and then walks a few hundred yards over to a stone quarry?"

And the SSA has been telling you this for months now, that some of the quarries were a few hundred yards from Uranium mines. Hello!!!!!!!!

"I know for a fact I do not want granite that is loaded with uranium in MY house. I do not want to install it in others houses....and I sure as hell do not want to NOT know.Not all of that stuff coming out of that quarry is super hot....some of it IS."

"we know that some of these African granites are possibly a disaster. We need to have a way to check for this to protect ourselves. Saying that all stone is safe will fuel the fire more.....we (like the MIA) will lose credibility in our customers eyes. The challenge will be how do we do this....without turning it into a debacle. We must say this....or we are liars. Deliberate omission of fact is the exact thing as a lie. It is what Build Clean and the MIA are doing. "

The point the SFA leadership is missing is that they have already been proven to be liars and have spent a lot of effort to suppress any discussion on the subject for a couple of years running, even blackmailing and extorting companies that supported the testing and warning consumers of this problem. The ONLY thing that will save them is for the leaders to step down and the new leaders to accept that improper activities did occur and that steps are being taken to prevent more strong arming, extortion, and suppresion of the facts.

"Boyd,I think we are going to have a \"party\" with cambria. Too bad they are an American company.Get out the pitch forks. "


"Sam,We hold the cards.....our ability to deploy the threat still exists.I believe they will play team ball".


Now, I don't need to find a "link between granite and cancer". You guys admit that some granite needs "boxed up and buried" and that some is "Hot as hell". A news flash, Sherlock, Silestone sent me five samples last week that they said were "the hottest they ever found". I guess they were like a falling soldier throwing a weapon to his buddies so it didn't get used against them. Anyway, I have Silestones data sheet off the samples right here, 274,304, 500, 604, and 1242 cpm (counts per minute). I responded back that these weren't that hot compared to what we were finding, up to 7,000 cpm, but they insisted they were high Radon emitters, so off the the researchers they went. The point is that it is a proven fact there there are high levels of radiation found in granite. It is also a fact that radiation causes cancer. The law of the land is ALARA, with industry spending vast sums to keep the exposures low because of the health risks. End of story.

And Hernando wasn't the Silestone Exectutive, I was quite specific it was Roberto. Get your story straight.
93% quartz by weight, between 28 and 35% by volume, again get it right. And do I need to show some of the comments you guys make on regular basis? Like Stink and gravel?

Losing members? You know that that thread I took the comnets off of also was about SFA members dropping the MIA membership over this. Add the SFA members that can not afford to have the truth come out, read Mark's comments above, how many of them will stick around.

As to the SFA, I am not at all "pissed" at them. I fully expect them to realize that without me and my allies, they will have zero crediblity in addressing this issue, and our cooperation requires them to come clean in public. I have always thought that the SFA was doing some work to clean up the stone industry, like Mausizio (sp?) the guy that recently passed away, he too was trying hard to clean up some of the B.S. going on. Don't confuse being "pissed" with driving you guys into a position where you have no choice but to come clean, which is exactly what I have done. All that is left is for you to admit it and start cooperating, but then again, you are already doing some of what I wanted.

Now, you know that I wasn't banned for "name calling and abusive behaviour". I was banned for asking the MIA guy to start cooperating. You guys banned Joe Corelett for saying exactly what Mark and Ron are saying not, Joe's crime was pointing out the obvious and all know it. David's crime was the same, pointing out that you guys had your head in a dark place.

And please explain why they changed one of my last posts, adding comments in some childish attempt to get a laugh? That is something a "brotherhood" would do, falsifying someone's public comments then banning them so it couldn't be corrected? Talk about crooked!!

Now, go back and scrub your site if you wish, it is all copied already and in a safe place. The fact that the stuff disappears will prove the intent. Destroying evidence is not a good thing for a trade association to be part of, nor will those who wrote the threads be exempt from penalties from the destruction of evidence.

Kent, I appreciate the email you sent yesterday, but it was 180 degrees from what you are posting here. Forget the public stance and politics, act the same in private as in public, being two faced will not win much trust. If needed, I will post your email here to prove the fact. If you have to act this way, it tells me I will be wasting my time as you don't have the respect of your fellow members if you have to behave this way to be accepted. Follow Mark and Ron's example, stick your neck out or leave it to those with courage.

And Build clean is not on the rocks, nor did they leak anything to the NY Times. News flash Kent, Kate Murphy told me she interviewed the MIA first, Dr. Llope second, then me. I gave Kate Liebert, Chiodo,Kitto, the Houston Geologists, and the rest of the background for the story. The story was supposed to be about a fight between Build Clean and the MIA, instead the reporter shocked her editors with a real story about the dangers of some granites.

As to Cambria, if they switch sides, I will buy you dinner at the next Surfaces show in Orlando.

And Kent, after you knowing what your own SFA leaders have said about the existence of hot granite slabs, attempting to claim that our samples were somehow tainted is pretty ridiculous.

Kent, thanks for reaching out, but you have showed an astonishing lack of integrity in your last post. I suggest you find another to represent the outreach to our side, unless you do some quick apologizing and set the record straight. One thing our founding fathers knew was that character counts, few can lead without it.

[Al Gerhart]

MIcheal,
that was a good thing posting the decay chart, it clears up the question of why granite continues to release Radon forever from our viewpoint.

However, notice that the decay chain listed no Gamma radiation, only Beta and Alpha. Dig a little deeper, as I had to, and you will find more detailed charts that list the Gamma. You will find that it is a random thing, but some of those elements are known high Gamma emitters.

"* in addition, all decays emit gamma radiation "

Look right below the U 235 and U 238 decay charts. Four scroll pages down here

Uranium Radiation Properties (http://www.wise-uranium.org/rup.html)

As you can see, it is not easy to dig through the nuances of this field. The devil is in the details.

Don't ask me why the chart you used didn't list the Gamma, I have wondered myself.

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Hello Mr. Potter:

You ask about the most appropriate type of testing. The concept of “testing� especially laboratory testing or “sampling� is a bit misunderstood in the mind of the general population, not least of all because of what I call “The CSI Effect� (1) wherein there is a misplaced belief by the general public that “laboratory tests� represent truth, and can just generally answer questions.

However, that is not the case, and often, sampling and testing actually misleads the recipient of a lab report and directs decision making in the wrong direction.(2) Laboratory results are worthless, except within the context of a set of interpretive rules called “Data Quality Objectives (DQOs);� without DQOs, one doesn’t have data on a laboratory report, one has numbers and units that may be entirely uniterpretable, and are usually useless and untenable, and you could end up looking as looney as Mr. Gerhart.

So when you begin to seek the best testing method, you first have to ensure that you have actually defined your question in a manner that can be answered by “testing,� and then develop a set of DQOs that will answer that question.

In this case, you probably have one of three objectives:

1) Determine the variance (limits) associated with specific activity for numerous batches of granite.

2) Develop an academic database of surface measured activities of randomly selected batches of granite.

3) Determine the contribution of exposure from granite for either your workers or a specific home.

In any case, your data quality objectives will need to address “PARCC� parameters:

Precision:
How reproducible are measurements?

Accuracy:
How close is the value to the true value?

Relevancy:
Do the data speak to the a priori question being asked?

Comparability (Points of reference for decision making process):
This is not needed for an academic database, but is imperative for everything else. Can decisions be based by comparing the results against regulatory or nationally accepted guidelines or at least arbitrary guidelines that are established specific to the case, all before we sampled?

Completeness:
Have the DQOs been met?

These are the foundation of producing tenable data, instead of mumbo-jumbo numbers and useless labreports, and these are the defining character between good defensible data and junk-science. As I have explained elsewhere, (3) it is also the foundation that will permit your data to stand-up in court, if necessary, or withstand scientific rigor.

In your case, you mentioned “exposure,� and that may be putting the cart before the ass, because until you have something against which to compare your “test,� you may only be measuring total exposure, and not be able to make a statement as to what was the contribution of the exposure from the granite. If you want me to address this kind of “testing� in detail, I will do that for you.

Measuring specific activity for batches of granite would not provide any information about exposure. In this type of testing, you would select, from a batch of granitic materials a representative portion that would be submitted to the laboratory. The lab would then prep the materials by ultimately pulverizing the stone. In one of the labs I used to work (Hazen Research), we could easily handle several tons of rock and stone, that would slowly be prepared for analysis – the sample I would eventually receive for analysis would typically be about 300 grams, and it would be representative of say, a five ton sample.

The prep stage goes through a series of stages wherein the sample prep lab ensures that the total mass of material is reduced to a manageable size, whilst ensuring that a representative sample is maintained. Pulverizing the material in imperative since this is how you will reduce sampling error. Then from the final material, samples will be analyzed for a variety of parameters, and most appropriately for your needs would probably include total alpha, beta and gamma. This allows one to confidently speak to the issue of specific activity. By looking at the gamma spec, then we can also speak to the issue of what is decaying.

Developing an academic database is both the easiest, (and least expensive) and also the method which provides the least useful and least tenable information. In developing an academic database, you decide that you don’t really care about exposure, and you don’t really care about confidence in the results (accuracy or precision), and you select any particular type of radiation (alpha, gamma or beta), and you then employ any kind of real-time field instrumentation for that type of radiation. You try to maintain the same reading protocol for each piece of material (raw material or even finished product), and then after thousands of readings, a picture will begin to emerge that will allow you to make certain statements about both composition and intensities (but not a lot else.)

All investigations begin by properly defining the “question.� The question needs to be very specific, and it then is put into the form of an hypothesis; and it is the hypothesis that really gets tested. So begin here by telling me as specific as possible what question are you are really trying to answer, and then on this board, I will walk you through the development of the hypothesis, the establishment of DQOs, and selecting the best “test method.�

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

References:
Connell CP, Forensics by Any Other Name, The Monitor, American Society of Safety Engineers, Vol 6, No.2, December 2006

Connell CP, Sample results… What do they really tell us? Presented to the IAQ in Schools and Commercial Buildings seminar, Corpus Christi, Texas, March 2003

Connell CP Sample Results: IAQ Sampling Myths, 13th Annual AIHA/ASSE OEH&S Conference, “Exchanging Knowledge – New Times, New Ideas� Denver, CO October 2007

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[Al Gerhart]

Cao,
not that I believe you will stop your personal attacks, being that is all you have, but the lab report we used was from a reputable lab, one recommended by a guy that does certification testing of these labs, indeed he pointed us to a website where labs are rated for their accuracy in testing.

I believe I will have a look and see what your former lab is rated. Might just check into your current employer as well.

Even after knowing the lab was both reputable and competent, we had an Uranium Geologist and a Radiological Chemist look the report over and advise us, as well as conversations with the ARS lab director.

In short, once again you make claims that you can't or won't support.

However, your advice to Kent sounds proper from the conversations with our experts, so please do continue to advise Kent. I'll pass along the info to our guys and see if they concur. I can assure you that our guys know a lot more about these issues than you ever will, but it will be interesting to see what you come up with.

I do see a theme in your replys, that no one is right except you, even competent labs. How does this work for you when on the witness stand? I believe I will take a look at that and see what I can find. Arrogance rarely wins over juries.

[Kent Potter]

Mr. Connell,

Thank you very much for the info. This give me a good place to start.

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Al Gerhart]

Mr. Connell,

This thread is being followed closely by a number of folks who are interested in the granite/radon issue. Your skepticism about that has been interpreted to mean that you are skeptical generally of the idea that radon AND/OR radiation might ever be harmful.

I read you to say the following:

1. Radon PROBABLY IS harmful at high enough levels and long enough exposures (enslaved miners, etc.), but levels typically measured in American homes (with or without granite countertops) are not scientifically established to cause health problems. The fact that an industry has grown up around the 4 pCi/L level that the EPA advertises is unrelated to any scientific consensus about the appropriateness of that level.

2. Radiation can be harmful, but it is important to understand the terms, units of measurement, and other important ideas surrounding it before you make statements about it. An untrained person waving a meter around and reading things they don't understand is quite likely to make unfounded conclusions and say something stupid.

That's what I'm understanding you to say, in my layman's terms. Am I close?

Randy

You might want to add that most of the governments disagree with Cao including our own. Listening to a crack pot "expert" who seems to be a toxic defense lawyers go to guy might cause some harm to consumers.

Also, an untrained person listening to a crackpot "expert" might make some unfounded conclusions and say something stupid as well.

Lord knows you wouldn't want to read the BEIR VII executive summary and see where they reject Cao's crackpot Hormesis claims. After all, despite the majority of science being against him, you have found someone that fits your agenda.

I don't think Cao ever answered the questions about how many cigarettes should be smoked each day to gain these same health benefits.

Good one Bruce. Excellent logic.

[Jerry Peck]

Cao,

I do see a theme in your replys,

Al,

I, and I am sure others do also, "see a theme in your replys" (should have been 'replies', but, that is a quote from you).

That theme is not unlike that of Chicken Little, to wit: "Oh my goodness!" said Chicken Little. "The sky is falling! I must go and tell the king."

All because "One day Chicken Little was walking in the woods when — KERPLUNK — an acorn fell on her head."

What happened to you, Al, to start you on this journey?

[Al Gerhart]

Al,

I, and I am sure others do also, "see a theme in your replys" (should have been 'replies', but, that is a quote from you).

That theme is not unlike that of Chicken Little, to wit: "Oh my goodness!" said Chicken Little. "The sky is falling! I must go and tell the king."

All because "One day Chicken Little was walking in the woods when — KERPLUNK — an acorn fell on her head."

What happened to you, Al, to start you on this journey?

So, Jerry. What do you have besides one discredited "expert" and sarcasm? Have you read BEIR VII? The Executive summary is only around 20 pages, and they have some pictures. I'll look for a comic book version for ya. Or a childrens book which seems to be your limit.

Was Chicken Little smoking a cigarette to ward off lung cancer when that acorn hit her?

[Kent Potter]

Al, To what extent are you an expert in this feild? Do you have any formal training in these matters which can be substantiated by diploma, certificate, or license?

The vast majority of guy's here have some credentials to support their responses but yet you quickly discount any other veiws which do not meet your agenda. Why is this?

Is it because in the last 9 months or so, your level of self education has far surpassed any accredited formal education that others may have?

Just curious.

[Jerry Peck]

Or a childrens book which seems to be your limit.

I think you read that children's book and decided that, hey, if the king saved Chicken Little and her friends from the fox, maybe the king can save you too.

Al, the first thing, the absolute very first thing, you need to do is prove there is a "fire". You need to do that before yelling "fire".

If you hope to hold your head up and expect any respect at all, you need to document and prove, beyond doubt (meaning ' do not try to do it "fast" ', but ' do it "right" ') that there is a "fire".

When you do, you will have me as a convert.

Until then, though, if you run past us yelling "fire", we will throw cold water on you trying to help 'put it out' - after all, without knowing where the fire is, we can only presume it is you who is on fire.

I think that pretty much describes:

a) what you have been doing (running around here yelling "fire")

b) what we have been doing (throwing cold water on you trying to help you put it out)

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Good morning, Mr. Evans:

If anyone were to conclude that I have ever stated that radon or radiation is never harmful simply has not paid attention to what I have said. It is unlikely that I would have survived as a Radiation Safety Officer on an NPL site, or have ever be tapped to teach radiation toxicology for the DOE if I held that opinion.

For almost 20 years my writings have been available, and my position on an whole slew of topics has been readily available, including radon. And those writings have literally been expressed around the world, for example I was the guy who performed the Radon Endangerment Study for the newly unified German Government in Grafenwöhr, Germany.

For almost 18 years, without interruption my radon discussion (Radon: Truth vs. myth (http://www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html)) has been on the internet, wherein the following statement has been present since I first posted it:

Elevated levels of radon (and thus the SLRDs) are unquestionably a significant health hazard, but how high is "elevated"?

Now, let’s compare that statement with my two statements appearing in the above post, starting with the first:

1) There is not one study, yet performed on the planet earth, by ANY organization (including the US EPA) that has measured radon concentrations in homes and has demonstrated that those exposures increase the risk of cancer by even the slightest degree.

Is there a contradiction? Not yet. Next statement:

2) The U.S. EPA in its various documents has published its acknowledgement that studies performed thus far show that as the concentration of radon in an home (from non-detect to moderate levels) goes up, the risk of cancer goes DOWN.

Contradiction? No. My position is precisely as stated; nothing more, nothing less.

In toxicology, have a paradigm called “The wisdom of Paracelsus� which essentially states that all substances are poisons, there is none that are not poisons – but the dose makes the poison. That is, there is no substance so innocuous that a large enough dose will not kill a person. From this, then, we necessarily get the corollary: There is no material so poisonous that a small enough dose will have no effect. Therefore, for all substances, as a toxicologist, I am interested in a “dose-response relationship.�

The “dose-response relationship� is one of the foundational tenets of how an Industrial Hygienist determines threat, makes decisions concerning the magnitude of that threat, makes decisions on how to appropriately mitigate the threat, and ultimately communicate the rationale behind the decision. That is what I do for a living (amongst other things).

At the very heart and foundation of the unsupported argument that radon, as commonly found in homes, increases the risk of cancer is the argument that the model used to predict that risk is accurate. Essentially, the EPA and the BEIR Committees have used what is known as a “linear, no-threshold, dose response curve.� The EPA, and the BEIR Committees, have both admitted what epidemiologists have argued for decades that the model is GROSSLY inappropriate and ENTIRELY incapable of confidently predicting risk based upon the starting data (underground miners). The EPA makes the following statement about its own model:

Currently there is very little information about...the health effects associated with exposures to radon at levels believed to be commonly encountered by the public. The only human data available for predicting the risks to the public are studies examining the health effects of exposure to radon and its progeny in underground miners. This information would be appropriate for predicting the risks to the public if everyone was a miner, everyone lived in mines, and a large fraction of the general population smoked cigarettes. (1)

Unlike the goofballs who like to erroneously believe that I disagree with the EPA, I have always made it clear, that I absolutely agree with the EPA, and I too, for years have stated that the model used by the EPA (which completely ignored the effects of smoking on lung cancer) “…would be appropriate for predicting the risks to the public if everyone was a miner, everyone lived in mines, and a large fraction of the general population smoked cigarettes.� However since everyone is not a miner, everyone does not live in mines, and a large fraction of the general population do not smoke cigarettes, the startng data set and the LNTDR model used by the EPA to support its conclusion is GROSSLY GROSSLY GROSSLY inappropriate. It always was, and it always will be because it fails to take into account reality. And that reality is that actual epidemiological studies performed to date, and even reported as recent as March of this year, and noted here on this board(2), have shown that as the concentration of radon in an home (from non-detect to moderate levels) goes up, the risk of cancer goes DOWN. (Now where have I heard that before?)

Radon is a gas, and so let’s put things into perspective and look at another common gas – oxygen. Is oxygen toxic? Damn straight it is!!! Elevated concentrations of oxygen are extremely toxic to humans. So, using the EPA LNTDR model, we should reduce exposures to oxygen to almost zero, right? Ooooppps… wait a minute, I forgot, we need oxygen to survive. DANG, that darned LNTDR model thing again. Again we see that the gas, oxygen, exhibits a range of physiological responses depending on the dose received. At too high a dose – toxic responses; at too low a dose, toxic responses. (By the way, as a toxicologist, I will make the a priori statement that any upset in homeostasis will be considered a “toxic response.�) And so, too, it is with radon (and an whole host of other materials to which humans may be exposed).

In a nut-shell, one cannot discuss risk using exposure, whilst at the same time ignoring dose. And yet, that is EXACTLY what the pseudoscience … no JUNK science, used by the policy wonks have done. In order to promote the idea that normal residential radon is harmful, the EPA was required to ignore its own findings, and those of countless other researchers across the globe. The EPA will similarly have to ignore the recent findings of Thompson, and Nelson et al, since it doesn’t fit in with their “public policy� mandates – all science and objective fact notwithstanding.

By the way, just to return to basics, we need to remember that radon, per se is not the issue, rather what is at issue is the SLRDs (and not just the SLRDs but more importantly, only the unattached faction of SLRDs) – an human could quite safely breath an atmosphere of 80% pure radon, in the absence of SLRDs, provided that the balance was oxygen, with a smattering of CO2 to help balance blood pH.

Although the EPA likes to use a LNTDR curve which slopes down from right to left, never passing through zero (a point called a NOEL) , in fact, what we see with radon is a complex dose-response relationship that resembles a backward capital “N� wherein not only is there a NOEL, but in fact, there are two points on the curve each representing a NOEL, as the risk curve passes through “zero� twice.

The dose makes the poison. As of today, Monday, August 25, 2008, there is not one study on Planet Earth, that has measured radon concentrations as normally found in homes, and has been able to demonstrate that those exposures (those doses received) have increased the risk of cancer by even the slightest degree.

The dose makes the poison.

Mr. Evens, you concluded with:
An untrained person waving a meter around and reading things they don't understand is quite likely to make unfounded conclusions and say something stupid.

I could not agree with you more, Mr. Evens. One just needs to look at Mr. Gerhart’s posts for evidence of that. But then, that’s just my opinion as I sit here in my famously blue bathrobe, at an altitude of 9,000 feet where the air is thin, the cosmic radiation is enormous (both of which possibly adversely affect my brain), and the snow has already fallen, and it’s still August.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

References:

(1) (U.S. Department of Energy "Radon- Radon Research Program, FY 1989, DOE/ER-448P., March 1990)

(2) Thompson RE; Nelson DF; Popkin JH; Popkin Z, Case-Control Study Of Lung Cancer Risk From Residential Radon Exposure In Worcester County, Massachusetts, Health Physics, March 2008, Volume 94, Issue 3

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[Ted Menelly]

Sorry Mr Connell

Your quote

"and the snow has already fallen, and it’s still August."

That is not snow it is fallout from the vast amount of counter tops that have been installed lately. Nuclear winter I think they call it. :)

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Sorry Mr Connell

Your quote

"and the snow has already fallen, and it’s still August."

That is not snow it is fallout from the vast amount of counter tops that have been installed lately. Nuclear winter I think they call it. :)

OH MY GAWD!!! Mr. Gerhart is right!!

THE SKY REALLY IS FALLING!!!!!!


CaoimhÃ*n

[Curtis Marburger]

The Sky is Falling ?
What do I do ?
will it help if I put tin foil on my head?
How about a paper Bag ?
Should I lay down or stand Up ?
How about if I hide under my bed ?

[John Arnold]

The Sky is Falling ?
What do I do ?
will it help if I put tin foil on my head?
How about a paper Bag ?
Should I lay down or stand Up ?
How about if I hide under my bed ?

Actually, a paper bag isn't a bad idea. Helps with the hyperventilation.

[Bruce Breedlove]

2) The U.S. EPA in its various documents has published its acknowledgement that studies performed thus far show that as the concentration of radon in an home (from non-detect to moderate levels) goes up, the risk of cancer goes DOWN.

. . .

And that reality is that actual epidemiological studies performed to date, and even reported as recent as March of this year, and noted here on this board(2), have shown that as the concentration of radon in an home (from non-detect to moderate levels) goes up, the risk of cancer goes DOWN.

. . .

Although the EPA likes to use a LNTDR curve which slopes down from right to left, never passing through zero (a point called a NOEL) , in fact, what we see with radon is a complex dose-response relationship that resembles a backward capital “N� wherein not only is there a NOEL, but in fact, there are two points on the curve each representing a NOEL, as the risk curve passes through “zero� twice.


Said another way, as the concentration of radon in an [sic] home goes down (from moderate levels to non-detect), the risk of cancer goes UP.

Can I conclude from this that when a house is mitigated so radon is reduced from "moderate levels" to low levels that we are actually INCREASING the occupants' risk of lung cancer due to radon?

This is an amazing revelation. Someone needs to notify the New York Times.

What would you say is the "ideal level" of radon that every home should have to minimize the occupants' risk of lung cancer due to radon? Would it be around 4.0 pCi/L? Or 6 pCi/L? How about 12 pCi/L? Could it be 20 pCi/L?

This may revolutionize the way we mitigate houses. Instead of intercepting radon before it enters the house and exhausting it to the exterior so that we reduce radon in the home to low levels perhaps the mitigation system should be modified so it can provide the "ideal level" of radon in the home. This new mitigation system will operate much like current active depressurization systems but it will have radon monitors located throughout the house that constantly monitor radon levels in those areas. If the radon concentration drops too low in a zone a valve will open releasing radon into that area until the "ideal radon level" has been reached. (This will be accomplished via a series of piping connected to the mitigation system that pipes the radon collected by the mitigation system to the different zones throughout the house.) For existing homes with radon mitigation systems the mitigation system might be modified to simply shut down until the radon concentration in the home rises to a "safe level".

How many people in the US are needlessly being exposed to dangerously low levels of radon? This could be a health concern of major proportions. Someone needs to do a study to determine that "ideal radon level" so these poor souls living with dangerously low levels of radon can lower their risk of cancer due to radon by bumping up the radon levels in their homes.

On a side note, I am a non-smoker. I may be increasing my risk of lung cancer by not exposing my lungs to enough cigarette smoke. Does anyone know how many cigarettes I should smoke every day to reduce my risk of lung cancer?

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Randy –

I think if you search out Mr. Breedlove’s previous posts, you will find that he has a lot in common with Mr. Gerhart.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[Bruce Breedlove]

So Mr. Gerhart has been a Radon Measurement Provider for over 6 years?

[Kent Potter]

I don't believe Radon Al even knew of any radon issues until Paul Harvey brought it up last year advertising radon detectors for the home. That is when all this really started for this go around.

[Al Gerhart]

So now Bruce is going to be painted with the "loony" brush for pointing out the obvious?

Myself, I am going to use Cao's position to start advocating people shoot themselves on frequent occasions with small caliber weapons to immunize themselves from large caliber gun fire. How about using a cigarette lighter on your hand? Might prevent lots of fire fatalities. Perhaps advocating "small" car crashes to ward off injury when a real one occures?:)

And Kent, you are partially right, wrong time frame. When Lenny Elbon pointed out this issue to me in March of 2006, I kind of cringed. I knew long ago that soil based Radon was a risk, and I had heard the granite /Radon thing eight or ten years. I cringed because I didn't think it could be proven. I soon learned that it could and had been proven.

Cao,
let's assume for a second that you are more right than wrong. Why does the EPA website not agree with you? Why did BEIR VII stated that it looked at the Hormesis claims and rejected them? Can you provide one scientific, peer reviewed study that proves Hormesis is a real theory and not a crackpot sceme to keep exposure levels as high as possible?

I was told by the president of Air Chek, one of the countries largest Radon labs, that the Spokane WA and the Iowa study showed increased cancer rates with increased Radon. I have not read the Spokane study yet, will soon, so I can't vouch for that one.

Now, without sarcasm, can you explain why the two studies above and the two large organizations have such opposite public positions than your own?


On the March 2008 study. To start with it was not published after peer reiview. Then the MIA paid for the thing. Helloooooo!

I'll post about the gaping holes in the thing tonight. One of the guys that Dr. Chyi quoted in his study is one of our guys, and he said it had some issues that would prevent it from being published.

Dr. Chyi got offended when I sent him a copy and asked if the furnished report was the actual report given to the MIA. to show the difference,Dr. Steck is still sending me stuff from his work that was done 20 years ago, even pointed out the weak points (sample size mostly).

One guy clams up, gets mad. The other spends a lot of time reconstructing the data for me, answering questions on it, and even said he would try to find an original hard copy for me by the AARST meeting.

I ask, which is the most believable?

By the way, Curtis Marburger is a stoner from the SFA site. I'll have to look at their Dark Room info to see which side of the room he is on, the cover it up side or the admit it and deal with it side.

On that note, Kent, now that you know that I know that the SFA has admitted the existance of both hot granite and the seriousness of the issue, exactly why are you here saying this is not a problem?

Did your leaders not say they found granite hot enough to box up and bury? Weren't they warning that if the SFA didn't admit the truth, the media would brand them as liars? Was there not mention of being sued into the stone age? I believe bankruptcy was brought up.

If you admit that there can be high radiation, why are you refusing to admit the possiblity of high Radon? You do understand that it is close to a linear relationship?

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Rick Hurst]

Picked up my radon / granite tester today.

Ready to make those extra bucks.

:rolleyes:
Rick

[Kent Potter]

Al, Are you ready to admit that not all radiation is Urananium produced? Of course there is a near linear relationship for radon! You fail to acknowledge that there are even other radioactive elements at play here. Hence, my new name for you, Radon Al.

I have been in the stone business nearly my whole life and have actually gone to the trouble of learning the geology behind it's formation. The SFA nor myself have ever stated that there is no radiation or emitted radon in granite, quite the opposite. This has been known since the late 1800's!

The difference here is this. You are an alarmist and publicity hound who is more worried about who's on your side! You search the archives for research results that fit your needs, discount the ones that don't and then scream we are all going to die from radiation and/or radon poisoning and those of us that don't will be sued into oblivion. The end result? Everyone is looking at the lunatic at the top of the hill.

By the way, still waiting on the credentials that qualify you to even be speaking about the effects of radiation or radon. Did you go to college? What was your major? I'm here to seek some knowledge, why are you here?

[Al Gerhart]

Al, Are you ready to admit that not all radiation is Urananium produced?

Kent, where did you come up with the idea that I ever said that? This is the classic straw man arguement, claim your opponent said something, then prove him wrong.

I assume you are refering to Potassium based radiation in some granites. If so, save yourself a lot of trouble because we aren't too worried about it either. A little concern.

If you study the studies (heh heh!), you will find that most report three sources, Radium (Ra), Thorium (Th), and Potassium (P 40).

Of course Radium is the sixth step in the Uranium decay chain, 19 decay steps in all. Lots of Gamma radiation is released from the Uranium decay chain, and of course Radium is the decay step above Radon. So we are concerned about the amount of Radium present as well as the Uranium.

Radium decays by a mix of Alpha, Beta, and Gamma decay. If a person was exposed to 1 pCi/G of Radium, 4 people per 10,000 exposed for a lifetime would develop a fatal cancer. The Houston granite top had 1,115 pCi/G of Radium (two isotopes, 228 & 226), so expect 446 extra fatal cancers per 1,000 people exposed for a lifetime. That is huge, and the data from studying Radium dial painters and Radium chemist has proved the risk.

Next is Thorium, which is the 9th step in a 20 step decay chain. Strangely enough, the Thorium decay chains start at Californium 252. Don't ask me why, hadn't figured that out yet. Regardless, Thoron, another radioactive gas is the 5th decay step below Thorium.

Thoron is usually not considered a problem because it most likely decays before it enters a home IF FROM A SOIL BASED SOURCE. It will decay into Polonium before it is breathed in if from a soil based source. But, what if the source is 12" under a child's nose, or 18" from an adult's nose? Is it a danger then? No one knows, no one ever thought anyone would put a Thoron source into homes on a massive scale.

Thoron is not much of an external risk, only a small amount of the radiation is Gamma. However Thorium is taken into the body more easily by inhalation than by ingestion, meaning once again that fabricators are the most at risk. The lifetime excess cancer risk is one forth to one half that of Radium. The Houston slab lab report showed 115 pCi/G, normal soil has around 2 pCi/G.

Potassium 40 is not considered a huge external danger because as it decays into Calcium 40, 89% of the radiation is Beta radiation with NO ATTENDENT GAMMA. The other 11% iof Potassium 40 decays into Argon gas and that releases a Gamma Ray. So only a small percentage (11%) of the radiation from Potassium is dangerous externally. With a very large amount of Potassium 40, cataracts and skin problems may be possible from the Beta, but it would take quite a bit. Internal exposure, dust inhaled or ingested, is another matter. The body thinks potassium is calcium, and it is readily absorbed and distributed in the body. Think bone seeker..

The external exposure risk for Potassium 40 in a soil at 1 pCi/G would be 4 in 100,000 extra cancers for a lifetime risk. The Houston granite countertop lab report found 54 pCi/G. Radiation dose is linear according to the consensus of experts (apparently not Cao), so that would be a 2.16 in 1,000 excess cancer risk, plus any internal risk form leaching (water or cleaning solutions).

Argonee National Lab is a great resource to learn more about the paticular radiation isotopes.

Besides, we are using scintillators for testing, Gamma only, which means we are using only 11% of the potassium radiation as a risk factor.

Dude, it doesn't matter if you bring up Potassium based radiation or not.


Of course there is a near linear relationship for radon! You fail to acknowledge that there are even other radioactive elements at play here. Hence, my new name for you, Radon Al.

All of a sudden the stoners are all over the radiation issues, admitting them, yet they still want to argue with me?????

I have been in the stone business nearly my whole life and have actually gone to the trouble of learning the geology behind it's formation. The SFA nor myself have ever stated that there is no radiation or emitted radon in granite, quite the opposite. This has been known since the late 1800's!

But when it was brought up, you guys attacked everyone that mentioned it, called us liars. You ridiculed, that is a fact easilyi proven. You banned me, Joe, and David because we dared to ask questions about it or even say you should take the issues seriously. Don't start claiming that the SFA never denied these issues as being health risks. Even Randy has to admit the stoners, including SFA members, fought tooth and nail to supress this discussion on the consumer sites. Now they are coming here, say hi to Curtis for me.

The difference here is this. You are an alarmist and publicity hound who is more worried about who's on your side! You search the archives for research results that fit your needs, discount the ones that don't and then scream we are all going to die from radiation and/or radon poisoning and those of us that don't will be sued into oblivion.
Okay, how dumb do you have to be to know that I have access to your darkroom and can quote directly from it yet still make these claims like I am the only one saying them.

"one more thing.....I tested a piece of granite slab that was so damn hot it should have been put in a lead box and buried. This is no joke. It could have been on a countertop. I think the radon thing is idiotic....The radiation thing....well it is another matter. Alberto Antolini (not cambria or silestone) was explaining to my supplier the the african quarry in question is right next to a damn uranium mine. Mark Lauzon, SFA"

"Post subject: Re: Message to our Members Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:19 pm

Some people believe the earth is flat...that does not make it so.I watched the meter go right off the charts, we reviewed alot of data....how would you like some radon home inspector to find that crap? And then your customer sues you into the stone age....you wind up paying not only for the tear out, replacement.....you get a judgement against you for millions of dollars for the exposure of her life dose of radiation. You lose your shop....your house....and then have the joy of filing banktruptcy. THIS IS REAL! IT WILL HAPPEN! We can claim ignorance for our past.....we can not do so going forward.I don\'t think you telling the judge \"I still think granite is safe\" is going to fly. Mark Lauzon, SFA"

"Post subject: Re: Message to our Members Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 4:01 pm

Mark and Ron - Please do not post in a public forum that certain granites may not be safe and needs to be tested. This would be disasterous. We cannot claim ignorance for the past. One lawsuit from an ambulance chaser would cost thousands to defend. The EPA states that their is not any significant risk. Keep that line until more data is revealed. Dan K, Stone Top"

"Post subject: Re: Message to our Members Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 4:17 pm

Think about this...The issue is in the press....the radon & radiation inspection crowd is out there testing this stuff.....the American Bar Association is gearing up for law suits and issuing briefs on how to do this.As this moves forward (think about the mold thing a few years back) It is going to keep coming up in the news...To say all granites are fine is simply not the truth. The press will eat our lunch if we continue to deny this. Can you imagine the headlines when some reporter flys to Africa films a uranium mine and then walks a few hundred yards over to a stone quarry?It is coming.

I do not want granite that is loaded with uranium in MY house. I do not want to install it in others houses....and I sure as hell do not want to NOT know.Not all of that stuff coming out of that quarry is super hot....some of it IS.

we know that some of these African granites are possibly a disaster.

Saying that all stone is safe will fuel the fire more.....we (like the MIA) will lose credibility in our customers eyes. The challenge will be how do we do this....without turning it into a debacle. We must say this....or we are liars. Deliberate omission of fact is the exact thing as a lie. Mark Lauzon, SFA"

Kent, some of the guys at Fabnet said these guys talked like they were my half brother or something. You need to understand that they are saying what I have been saying all along.


The end result? Everyone is looking at the lunatic at the top of the hill.

Kent, I would say that it must be you they are looking at.

By the way, still waiting on the credentials that qualify you to even be speaking about the effects of radiation or radon. Did you go to college? What was your major? I'm here to seek some knowledge, why are you here?

I am here to provide some information that few understand. Like it or not I have had years to prepare for this, learning as I go. You and most of the stoners have yet to understand what we are talking about.

Did you go to college to learn to fabricate stone? How many years? Got the diploma? You either know something or you don't.

Now, you send nicer private emails than you post in public, but I will definetly say that you aren't the guy to ask for help from me. I wouldn't trust someone that acts as you have acted.

Go away or quit attacking the facts. You have been thourghly discredited.

[Al Gerhart]

The "March 2008 study" being referenced isn't Chyi, but this one:

Thompson RE; Nelson DF; Popkin JH; Popkin Z, Case-Control Study Of Lung Cancer Risk From Residential Radon Exposure In Worcester County, Massachusetts, Health Physics, March 2008, Volume 94, Issue 3

Okay, I found it.

That is interesting,

1.00, 0.53, 0.31, 0.47, 0.22, and 2.50 , The adusted odds ratio was all over the place. I can't make out exactly how the thing leans cause there isn't enough info on that little blurb available, but usually less than one means a protective result, parity (1.00) means you can't tell,and the 2.5 means that the Radon caused the cancer.

The Iowa study said this "The observed risk estimates suggest that cumulative ambient radon exposure presents an important environmental health hazard". So these two cancel each other out, but the wikipedia listing of studies over whelmingly support the Iowa study.

Until more studys prove otherwise, the Worchester study has to be taken with a grain of salt. It is interesting, I would like to see the entire study so see the actual conclusions of the authors.

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Al Gerhart]

I'll ask around, someone at one of the labs or maybe Dr. Steck has a copy he will share.

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Al Gerhart]

Dr. Steck sent me a copy of the Worchester, MA radon study. They did show a "dip" in the results that predicted lower cancer rates, however..... to get there, the study had to use simple Odds Ratio instead of the usual Adjusted Odds Ratio. They use the AOR for a reason, not using it poked a giant hole in their "dip".

The study also said that the "dip" was not statistically significant. The conclusion was that Hormesis shouldn't be dismissed because there was a chance that it could possibly be proved some day.

Shooting blanks here .....

Anyone see the NBC story yesterday? The Today show?

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Al Gerhart]

But the MIA side was represented by a paid consultant who studied some studies that others did. And the guy was not experienced in Radon or radiation.

If you read his "white paper", you will notice that he didn't include the MIA/Chyi study which showed Crema Bordeaux at 67% of outdoor air Radon levels, when Mccarthy claimed the hottest granite ever tested was at 300 times lower. 33% low or 300 times lower, which is it?

Same thing on granite Radon emitted compared to the EPA action limits, Chyi claimed 13 times less than the EPA action levels, and McCarthy claimed 1,000 times less. 13 times less or 1,000 times less, which is it?


Liebert and Llope aren't being paid by anyone.

And Dr. Steck and almost everyone else including the EPA says radon does have risks, half pack of cigarettes a day from 4 pCi/L. That .27 pCi/L from Chyi's Cream Bordeaux result is like everyone in the home smoking 246 cigarettes per year. Do the math.

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Al Gerhart]

No, the science is there showing a danger at 4 pCi/L .

Read the Iowa study and the Spokane study. Except for a few fringe nut jobs, the link between Radon and lung cancer are accepted world wide.

There is no debate on this matter. Only some crackpots making themselves look foolish. You really think that the BEIR committes with their hundreds of scientific organziations involved are wrong?

[Jerry Peck]

Except for a few fringe nut jobs,


Only some crackpots making themselves look foolish.

Al,

I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but, some fringe nut jobs and some crackpots said:

- The universe DID NOT revolve around the earth, that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

- That the Earth WAS NOT flat, that the Earth was round.

- That sanitation WAS critical in stopping disease and infection, that not washing hands and tools before surgery and between patients WAS causing infections and deaths in patients.

- The list could go on and on, those "fringe nut jobs" and "some crackpots" have been proven correct in so many major cases, which are now are taken for granted as being "What? Why? Why would any have thought any differently? It is *just so obvious* that those are given truths."

Think about it.

[Ted Menelly]

I was going to pass this up but I do have to make a statement.

It seems just from the difference of opinion on this site and the difference of opinion on about the entire radon/radiation groups from about everywhere has to tell that even the most simplest folks or the highly technical folks should hold their final opinion until all can come to a consensus. When I am asked by clients "what about radon" I say "what about it"

If the scientific groups cannot come to an opinion or general consensus then how could I, or any home inspector or radon tester give you any kind of informed opinion that could possibly mean anything to anyone.

Not just radon from counter tops but the radon from counter tops has opened back up even the legitimacy of even if radon at low levels is even causing cancer unless you never have ventilation of any kind in your home and you take the highest reading in your home and sleep on it.

It is good to have conversation and good to have an opinion but the reality is there is no real opinion that coincides with other opinions. Take all the testing agencies and individuals that are spouting their opinion, put them in a room and when they come out in agreement then and only then at that time should you give your client an opinion.

[Kent Potter]

Al, When are you going to give this up?! Radon emitted from granite is mitigated by the natural exchange of air in the home. The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineering (ASHRAE) recomends that the air in homes needs to be exchanged 35% by volume every hour. Most homes in the US are far worse at around 60%. This doesn't leave much room for radon or anything else to accumulate to dangerous levels.

[Al Gerhart]

Al,

I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but, some fringe nut jobs and some crackpots said:

- The universe DID NOT revolve around the earth, that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

- That the Earth WAS NOT flat, that the Earth was round.

- That sanitation WAS critical in stopping disease and infection, that not washing hands and tools before surgery and between patients WAS causing infections and deaths in patients.

- The list could go on and on, those "fringe nut jobs" and "some crackpots" have been proven correct in so many major cases, which are now are taken for granted as being "What? Why? Why would any have thought any differently? It is *just so obvious* that those are given truths."

Think about it.

Now Jerry,

That is a good arguement. I respect people that put that much effort into defending their views. Excellent try.

What I would point out is that every one of the three examples
was proven using sciencetific observation and research. In all three cases you brought up there were real world (empirical) data that showed the earth was not flat, the earth revolved around the sun, and that washing the hands helped stop the spread of disease.

In our example of Hormesis, there is not one study available that has shown the Hormetic effect from Radiation. Industrial Hygeinists say that some chemicals do have Hormetic effects at low dose, just like snake venom can make one imune to that particular snake bite.

I kept an open mind when Randy brought up this study, went to some length to question Dr. Steck about it and read the entire study. It is obvious that the author of the study wanted to prove a hormetic effect from radon, but to get it he had to resort to improper statistical methods.

In a conversation such as this, one can claim anything (think Cao) but in a published study, every word and nuance has to pass the peer review committee. In this case the author was able to bring in his pet theory, but he HAD to point out the weak statistical method to arrive at the conclussion. This is a prime example of publishing a negative result in a study, in other words, publishing a study that did not answer the question or prove the theory that the study was intended for. Sure it keeps another researcher from traveling the same path to a dead end, but it is a poor use of time for most.

Opposed to the Coa's of this world, the majority (consensus, or collective agreement while allowing for some individual variation) of organizations and govts believe what this site believes.
Orange County Health Department - EVH - Radon Information (http://www.orchd.com/EVH/Lead/radon.asp)

Look for the Risk evaluation chart about a quarter of the way down.

Google this "EPA Radon half a pack of cigarette" and look at all the state Radon depts that say the same thing, 4 pCi/L is the same as smoking a half pack of cigarettes a day. No one can argue that Hormesis is taken seriously by the majority of the scientists and organizations.

Now, I will keep an open mind if someone brings forth a study that using the normal methods of testing and statiscical analysis shows that Radon has a Hormetic effect. Please don't link to an abstract like the previous one, read it and tell me where it says that there is positively a hormetic effect. Then link to it or send me a copy.

Ted, good points too. In this case though, there is a consensus. Don't confuse consensus with 100% appoval of the theory, consensus is the majority opinion or the general opinion. And scientific fact is not opinion, the problem arises when someone uses their opinion as fact without backing it up.

I agree a debate is good, it educates those that have wrong opinions on the issues and sharpens the arguement of the facts. This only works with folks that will provide studies that back up their claims. I agree opinion against opinion is a senseless arguement, not a debate.

Kent,

I like it that your side has finaly gotten the facts right on ventilation rates in homes. The MIA was claiming 6 air changes per hour were the norm, now you are saying .33 which is more in line with the truth. Actual rates run from .1 to .5 , so I'll applaud your use of .33 for discussion of the AVERAGE home.

Yes, ventillation rates dilute the Radon emission. The volume of the home really is of no concern unless the ratio of countertop granite is out of whack with the cubic volume of the home. But, if the ventilation rate is enough to prohibit buildup, why did one of the inspectors on this very site find above average levels of Radon in a home with granite countertops?

Wasn't it like below 3 pCi/L in the basement, 5.5 pCi/L in the kitchen, and around 3 pCi/L in the second floor hallway? Using the normal rule of thumb, they should have found 1.5 in the kitchen and .75 pCi/L maximum in the second story.

What about the levels being found all over the country in the same manner? The Houston case had elevated levels where there is extremely small amounts of soil based Radon, the Sugarman case of 100 pCi/L in the kitchen (several thousand pCi/L when a meter was placed under a bowl) after 6 pCi/L was found in the basement, the Hampton VA case, 2 pCi in the basement and 7 pCi/L in the granite top kitchen?

You are assuming that the air in a home will mix completely and that the Radon emitted is below a certain level. The MIA's latest "expert" claims that 30 is the highest emmanation found from granite, conviently ignoring the MIA's previous study (Chyi) showing far higher emmanation rates.

In a couple of weeks Kitto and Brodhead will both revel their research at the AARST convention. We will be there, but I have some of the results already, in the hundreds of pCi/SF/Hr.

Kent, you guys had to admit that there were extremely hot granites being found, said that some needed to be boxed up and buried. If you take the time to google "Radon radiation ratio" you will likely find plenty of studies that correlate the radiation level to Radon emission in stone studied. Once you realize that where the radiation is Uranium based, there will be Radon present in equilibrium, and where the radiation comes from Thorium, there will be Thoron gas in equilibrium, you might stop this senseless objection to the facts.

Do some research before you argue, you will be more effective and might stop fighting the facts.

[Jerry Peck]

What I would point out is that every one of the three examples was proven using sciencetific observation and research. In all three cases you brought up there were real world (empirical) data that showed the earth was not flat, the earth revolved around the sun, and that washing the hands helped stop the spread of disease.

Al,

Incorrect.

The "empirical data", the "scientific data" *of the day*, had previously proven that those persons were nut cakes and flakes, that the theories (which is all that their work was until *they* proved otherwise), and the scientific standards of those times, all "proved" that the nut cakes were nut cakes. Only later, and with much resistence, were those nut cakes accepted into the mainstream and their theories believed and used to replace the previous theories.

Until the nut cakes proved the existing "scientific and empirical" *facts* to be *fiction*, the existing scientific standards were accepted as empirical *fact*.

Even then, some of those nut cakes were derided for their silly theories by those who were in power at those times.

I am not one to say which side of this argument and discussion is the "nut cake", time will do that.

I am simply stating that, in many cases, those who defend 'the status quo' end up being "the nut cakes".

[Al Gerhart]

Jerry,
of course the obvious, but those who pioneered the three theories had some sort of empirical information that lead them to believe they were right. Had scientific methods been used, the existing theories wouldn't have existed.

In this case, no one can point to any reputable science to buttress the Hormesis theory for radiation. At best we have some people that want to minimize the risk of radition so as to sell hot granite countertops, nuclear power, and nuclear medicine. I support the use of both of the later, but don't see the need to minimize radiation risk in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I have no problem for people believing what they wish, but using it to advocate the continued sale of high radiation level granite is irresponsible. Not saying you are on that side, I am saying those that are on that side are pushing profit over safety.

Here is another view of the matter.

YouTube - Granite & Radon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGATX_mNWjE)

[Jerry Peck]

Here is another view of the matter.

YouTube - Granite & Radon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGATX_mNWjE)


Al,

"Here is another view"? No, that is "your view", not "another" view.

However, the last words she said were the most true of everything anyone says ... "There is always something to worry about."

And, yes, there *IS ALWAYS* something to "worry about".

You can drink too much water, you can not drink enough water, you can work your heart too much, you can not work your heart enough ... "There is ... ALWAYS ... SOMETHING ... to worry about."

A couple of years ago it was mold. KILLER TOXIC MOLD at that.

[Billy Stephens]

.
."There is always something to worry about."

. KILLER TOXIC MOLD .
.
And bees, " Killer BEES ! "
.
Life as we Knew it is Over. :rolleyes:
.

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Brandon Chew]

Al, To what extent are you an expert in this feild? Do you have any formal training in these matters which can be substantiated by diploma, certificate, or license?


Al, ...
... still waiting on the credentials that qualify you to even be speaking about the effects of radiation or radon. Did you go to college? What was your major?


Bump. For me, this "debate" is little more than white noise in cyberspace until those posts are answered.

It's long been known that granite emits radiation and radon. What I want to know about a stone countertop installed in a home is:

1) What type and what level of radiation emitted from a stone countertop is ok and not ok? What is the protocol for measuring it? Who determined this and how was it determined?

2) What level of radon emitted from a stone countertop is ok and not ok? What is the protocol for measuring it? Who determined this and how was it determined?

3) What level of radon in a room that has a stone countertop is ok and not ok? What is the protocol for measuring it? Who determined this and how was it determined?

Do credible answers to these questions exist at this time?

[Jerry Peck]

It's long been known that granite emits radiation and radon. What I want to know about a stone countertop installed in a home is:

1) What type and what level of radiation emitted from a stone countertop is ok and not ok? What is the protocol for measuring it? Who determined this and how was it determined?

2) What level of radon emitted from a stone countertop is ok and not ok? What is the protocol for measuring it? Who determined this and how was it determined?

3) What level of radon in a room that has a stone countertop is ok and not ok? What is the protocol for measuring it? Who determined this and how was it determined?

Do credible answers to these questions exist at this time?


Jeez Brandon ... you are seeking scientific answers to questions in a scientific manner, backed up with scientific data ... no one has offered that up here ... now why would you throw those kind of questions and ideas into the fray? :D

[Al Gerhart]

Al, why are you stuck on hormesis? It's irrelevant. Does exposure at low levels, including the EPA level of 4 pCi/L, cause disease? Yes or no. It's the only thing that could possibly matter about granite countertops, unless somebody is alleging that hormesis is a good reason to buy granite.

The alleged inadequacy of the science supporting the idea that a little radon is good for you has no bearing whatsoever on the alleged inadequacy of the science supporting the idea that a little radon is bad for you. If you were to get everyone to agree that you had utterly demolished hormesis as a theory, it wouldn't have advanced your cause one iota.

Randy,
I am not stuck on Hormesis, but it is being thrown out there as a red herring. If the EPA claims that 4 pCI/L is like smoking a half pack of cigarettes a day, and if one believes that cigarette smoking causes health problems, then exactly what do you not understand?

The EPA and just about everyone else agrees that radiation dangers, including the radiation present in Radon, has no threshold and is linear in its effects (LNT theory). So for anyone to claim that there are no health risks from low level Radon is to ignore the consensus of present science. It also follows that any who claim the issue isn't settled needs to read some studies and take a look at the EPA website on Radon. Good lord, they call it the second leading cause of Lung Cancer!

Here is one of the things that Dr. Steck had to say in an email to me today on the MA study.

"From a retrospective radon-related exposure reconstruction, this study has a bunch of problems, poor QA radon performance, gaps in history and of course, the small sample size. Their conclusions are unwarranted in my view, more hype and spin than substance."



Brandon, good questions.

1) Radiation is radiation, that coming from stone is coming from the same elements as those used in X Rays or nuclear fuel.

There are no safe levels of radition, ALARA is the law of the land for radiation protection. If background is at 60 cpm and the granite with background is at 180 cpm (most granites will be at this level or above) then you have three times the background radiation present. The Health Physicists Society, the most conservative group on these matters, says that background radiation levels add 3 extra cancers per 10,000 exposed, so tripling the radiation would triple the excess cancers to 9 per 10,000 or .9 per 1,000 which is not a small risk.

The protocols for measuring radiation are well known in other fields, just now entering the home inspection industry. This is not a need for invention, but to simply borrow established methods from other industries.

2) Radon is Radon, same gas as from soil based Radon from the same radioactive decay of unstable elements. Some of the usual Radon measuring protocols will have to be changed due to the radiation present from a granite countertop, but the heart of the matter remains, if over 2 pCi/L, one should be concerned. For now home inspectors know about the possible risk, therefore they should be either testing for the problems or recomending testing so as to CYA.

The only things that will be likely diffeent between soil based Radon and granite based Radon will be the likelyhood of concentrated dose from sitting at a granite surface and the likely hood that Thoron gas in this concentrated dose will be far more dangerous than any Thoron being exhaled from the soil.

Questioning my credintials is pretty silly when all I am doing is refering to studies done by qualified researchers or datat on sites beyond reproach like the EPA. I would say that these same detractors aren't qualified to drive their car if they apply the same standards.

Bottom line, the inspection community knows about the issue, they should either test or warn to test if they want to CYA.

[Billy Stephens]

Bottom line, the inspection community knows about the issue, they should either test or warn to test


.
Wrong !

My bottom lines.

How, By Who and to What Standard?

I don't conduct an Indoor Air Quality ( nor Guarantee ) such.

Maybe I could Stop by your place of business and tell You What You Need to be Doing.:rolleyes:

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Billy Stephens]

I'm not an inspector..
.
Really?
.

. We probably are abusing the good hospitality of this site,
.
Ya Think?
.

Do you presume to criticize the Great Oz? Er, the Great Al?

.
So What's Your Story Steam Boat ? :rolleyes:
.

[Rick Hurst]

Anyone notice how these threads such as this one always gets started by a new member who asks a simple question or makes a statement and the whole thread then gets taken over by someone else.

Where is the Jeff Spencer who started this tread? Not one response from him on the whole matter.

Is this AL character maybe Jeff and just wants to answer his own questions?

Funny he showed up on this thread and has been the most active on here with his rantings.

I like the comment that he made. Inspectors should at least warn homebuyers of the potential danger. How about warning them about getting hit by an asteroid too? It could happen.

Just a thought.

rick

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Jerry Peck]

How about warning them about getting hit by an asteroid too? It could happen.

Rick,

Have you noticed that many people say to check the radon level in the basement and compare it to the radon level in the kitchen?

Aren't they aware that most accidents in the home are people falling down stairs? How else do you get to "the basement" is not using "the stairs"?

Does that, therefore, infer that *measuring* radon levels is more dangerous than *the actual level* of radon? :eek:

Maybe we should ban stairs, or encapsulate them in foam padding to reduce injuries? :rolleyes:

[Billy Stephens]

Thanks.
.
Why are you here ?

What is your ( In$urance or other ) Ax to Grind on this issue ?
.

[Randy Evans]

edit.

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Good morning, Randy:

I just noticed your private message and I responded. I never notice the private message thing, and so most private messages to me remain unread for extended periods; the best way to contact me is directly, or via public posts.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell

[Al Gerhart]

Bernie,

I think your question is a new one, if not this has already been said,

The Radon is continually produced for millions of years. It doesn't stop so it continually renews the Radon.

[Al Gerhart]

Looks like Cao has some new people to discredit.

The AARST conference was this week and Radon from granite was the talk of the conference. Dr. Kitto reported as much as 24 pCi/L in a home, with ventilation cutting that in half. Dr. Steck confirmed that he has found high enough levels for serious concern. Bill Brodhead had calculations showing that air exchange levels can be far lower than ever thought possible, and he provided calculations of an average of 3 pCi/L in an example home, with 2 pCi/L in the bedroom and 4 pCi/L in the kitchen.

Radon Symposium Research Papers and Presentations from all Previous AARST and EPA Radon Conferences (http://aarst.org/radon_research_papers.shtml)

Dr. Kitto's info was not published because the MIA is trying to get their hands on it before it is finished. His original study is posted in its place, and shows that most granite will raise a homes level under 1 pCi/L but it is possible to raise the Radon levels over 4 pCi/L.

CRCPD is going to work on new standards for radiation and Radon in granite countertops.

End of debate, gentlemen. Best warn consumers that a small percentage of granite countertops are dangerous so all granite countertops need to be tested.

[Jerry Peck]

End of debate, gentlemen.


Wish it was, but you keep coming back and yelling "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! I must get to the King to tell him the sky is falling!"

"End of debate,"

If only ... :rolleyes:

[Billy Stephens]

Bernie,

I think your question is a new one, ----
.
He was just responding to Bernie's post made on 8-23.

And couldn't work him in one of his next 17 posts until now. :rolleyes:
.

[Al Gerhart]

Jerry,

If you have nothing to add to the conversation, why do you run your mouth so?

This is hardly good for your reputation.

Have you nothing better to do?

Have you no convincing arguements at all?

Have you no facts to prove that these scientists are wrong?

[Jerry Peck]

If you have nothing to add to the conversation, why do you run your mouth so?

Al,

Likewise, why do you insist on coming back yelling "The sky is falling. The sky is falling."?

[Al Gerhart]

So in your opinion, providing proof from scientists on this issue is alarmist?

More like you were on the wrong side of the issue and don't like the way it makes you look.

Now, do you have anything constructive to add to this debate, or are you content to waste everyones time being unpleasant?

[Jerry Peck]

Dr. Kitto's info was not published because the MIA is trying to get their hands on it before it is finished. His original study is posted in its place, and shows that most granite will raise a homes level under 1 pCi/L but it is possible to raise the Radon levels over 4 pCi/L.


So in your opinion, providing proof from scientists on this issue is alarmist?

You call that "proof"?

You want "proof" go make some tests which would "prove" it. Don't try to push a paper every one is not behind, just those who support your view point.

Tell you what, do this:

Go out and select a couple of houses with granite countertops in various geographical areas around the country.

Measure the radon in those houses. Use the regular EPA protocols.

Take out the granite countertops, install laminate counter tops, repeat radon tests.

Take out the laminate countertops and install solid surface countertops, repeat radon tests.

Take out the laminate countertops and install another type of countertop, repeat radon tests.

Okay, that is *the first round of tests*.

Now, re-install the granite (same granite, having removed it without breaking it), repeat radon tests.

Repeat cycle with all the types of countertops and repeat radon tests.

*IF* (and only *IF*) the second readings match the first reading countertop-type-to-countertop-type (repeatability of rest results) can you consider comparing test results *between* countertop-types.

If you cannot get repeatability with the same materials, you as proving that the radon varies to great to make comparison between 'same material tests' and between 'different material tests'.

Now, *IF* you get the required repeatability between tests for same material, *AND* the comparison between material types is significant, *ONLY THEN* have you been able to "prove" any thing.

And that repeatability must be consistent throughout *ALL* the geographical locations.

You want to give us "proof", go out and do that, THEN come back and yell the sky is falling, until, it's just an acorn fight and you got hit on the head with an acorn.

[Al Gerhart]

You call that "proof"?

You want "proof" go make some tests which would "prove" it. Don't try to push a paper every one is not behind, just those who support your view point.

Tell you what, do this:

Go out and select a couple of houses with granite countertops in various geographical areas around the country.

Measure the radon in those houses. Use the regular EPA protocols.

Take out the granite countertops, install laminate counter tops, repeat radon tests.

Take out the laminate countertops and install solid surface countertops, repeat radon tests.

Take out the laminate countertops and install another type of countertop, repeat radon tests.

Okay, that is *the first round of tests*.

Now, re-install the granite (same granite, having removed it without breaking it), repeat radon tests.

Repeat cycle with all the types of countertops and repeat radon tests.

*IF* (and only *IF*) the second readings match the first reading countertop-type-to-countertop-type (repeatability of rest results) can you consider comparing test results *between* countertop-types.

If you cannot get repeatability with the same materials, you as proving that the radon varies to great to make comparison between 'same material tests' and between 'different material tests'.

Now, *IF* you get the required repeatability between tests for same material, *AND* the comparison between material types is significant, *ONLY THEN* have you been able to "prove" any thing.

And that repeatability must be consistent throughout *ALL* the geographical locations.

You want to give us "proof", go out and do that, THEN come back and yell the sky is falling, until, it's just an acorn fight and you got hit on the head with an acorn.

Jerry,
I don't expect you to agree with this, you have taken a position and now you aparently feel you can't admit the obvious without losing face. How sad, that exposes you as a weak person. But I will speak to the others on your wild excuses for not taking a PhD with the Dept of Health at New York State at his word.

First off, it is moronic to think one needs to test laminate, solid surface, or any other type of countertop to "prove" anything. Only natural stone has shown to have enough Uranium or Raduim to generate Radon gas. Nor is it necessary to use different geographic areas.

Now for some sort of legal constultant or expert witness or what ever it is that you claim to be, it is pretty ignorant not to understand that if you test the home for Radon prior to installation of the granite, it matters not if additional Radon coming from the soil. You've already baselined what was there already. Got that? Be it high or low, you just take it off the readings found with the granite countertop installed.

Dr. Kitto gave that paper in front of a packed room, even the CRCPD (state radiation officials that meet at the same conference that AASRST holds) members skipped one of their sessions to be there to listen. Not one person challenged Dr. Kitto's methods or findings.

No doubt you are far more educated and experienced than this group of radiation and Radon experts. Might I suggest that your talents are wasted here and would be better used by straightening out these two associations who by your standards must be complete idiots.

And finally,

"And that repeatability must be consistent throughout *ALL* the geographical locations."

That statement is about the most obtuse statements I have read in a while. If a stone has a certain amount of Radium present, it will emit a certain amount of Radon and radiation. It doesn't matter if it is in NY or TX, CA or FL. It can be on Pikes Peak or Death Valley, it matters not one bit.

Making statements that someone is saying "the sky is falling" is called the Straw Man arguement(misrepresenting your opponent’s argument). You think you are scoring cheap points by making a claim that your opponent has a ridiculous point of view, then poking holes in your imagined weak point. Another way of putting it in logical terms is "Argumentum ad hominem" or argueing that your opponent is an idiot.

Regardless which dodge you are employing (assuming that you are clever enough to have a stratagey and not just blundering about), your use of these tactics merely shows that you have no arguements worth bringing to a discussion, perfering to be disrespectful instead.

Were I an "expert witness", I would stay out of these sort of debates or at least think about my reputation for being intelligent enough to support any arguement in a court of law.

[Jerry Peck]

First off, it is moronic to think one needs to test laminate, solid surface, or any other type of countertop to "prove" anything. Only natural stone has shown to have enough Uranium or Raduim to generate Radon gas. Nor is it necessary to use different geographic areas.


I guess that is true to someone who apparently never did any work in Quality Control, Research and Development, or Standards Laboratory ... otherwise you would know that you need to establish a basis between materials used for the same purpose, and to establish consistent measurements between tests conducted at different times, while establishing a base to compare to.

Otherwise, ... all you will have will be just a bunch of meaningless numbers which will allow people to read into them whatever they want, as meaningless as that will be, ... wait ... I bet that is what you are looking for ... meaningless data numbers you and others with your point of view can manipulate into what you want them to say. :eek:

Now I get it ... you want meaningless number you can manipulate ... Dang, and I thought you were actually trying to find out something. :rolleyes:

See, I don't know anything much about radon, but I do know how you can "prove" your theory, ... or disprove it ... but I suspect you do not want to take that chance, meaning you really do not want "to know", you just want something to back up your theory.

Did you know ...

... that the world *is not* "flat"?

Really. I'm not kidding.

But then, eyes taint got no coolege edumacation teither.

[Al Gerhart]

Jerry,

Granite is a source of uranium ore, in fact, much of the most expensive granites come from quarries surrounded by Uranium mines. There is a court battle in Namibia going on as we speak, a granite quarry and an Uranium mine fighting over the same plot of ground.

Granite has been proven in many studies to have high concentrations of Uranium, Thorium, and Potassium, all sources of Radiation.

Solid surface is made with plastic resins and ATH (aluminium trihydrate) which is completely inert radiologically speaking after processing. It has been tested and absolutely ZERO radon or radiation has been found.

Formica countertops are made with paper and resins, no Uranium or radiation present.

Now this is really, really, simple. Only granite and other natural stones have Uranium present, therefore only those type of materials need testing.

Of course you could add concrete countertops, but the highest level found in concrete so far is around 35 uR/hr. They had a 3" diameter core sample from a granite countertop in a NY apartment that read 1,080 uR/hr, over one millirem of radiation per hour from a darned 3" diameter chunk of granite. Kitto reported that one of our samples hit 40,000 counts per minute.

Bottom line is that if you are testing for radiation, there is no need to test products that aren't radioactive.

People really pay you as a litigation consultant? Now that is insane from the quality of your logic in this debate. I think I'll become a construction litigation expert too if it is this easy!

[Billy Stephens]

Of course you could add concrete countertops, but the highest level found in concrete so far is around 35 uR/hr.

Bottom line is that if you are testing for radiation, there is no need to test products that aren't radioactive.


.
Wow AL,

You got me convinced ( I'm headed to U - Rent for a Jack Hammer. Better Start taking this ( could be because of the mass size ) Dangerous SLAB of the House.

Wonder if The Throw Rug will match the Dirt Floors. :rolleyes:

[Al Gerhart]

Well, they also had a study on that, concrete Radon emanation. You are right, the larger area means just as much Radon as a hot granite top, add them together, plus some hot tile, and you got a high Radon level in areas of the country that aren't known for Radon.

[Brandon Chew]

Al, To what extent are you an expert in this feild? Do you have any formal training in these matters which can be substantiated by diploma, certificate, or license?



Al, ...
By the way, still waiting on the credentials that qualify you to even be speaking about the effects of radiation or radon. Did you go to college? What was your major?



Bump. For me, this "debate" is little more than white noise in cyberspace until those posts are answered.



Questioning my credintials is pretty silly when all I am doing is refering to studies done by qualified researchers or datat on sites beyond reproach like the EPA. I would say that these same detractors aren't qualified to drive their car if they apply the same standards.

Al,

1. You've been asked more than once to provide your credentials. I have not yet seen you provide them. We can't question what is not here.

2. Silly ... not at all. This is serious business for us, not idle chit chat. We have a legal duty of care to our clients, and can incur substantial liability if we screw up or give our clients bad advice...not to mention having to fend off the folks who want a piece of us if "the deal" starts to get bumpy. Far from being silly, questioning your credentials is ESSENTIAL.

3. "...all I am doing is refering to studies done by qualified researchers or datat on sites beyond reproach like the EPA." No sir. You are doing much more than that. Throughout this thread and the others on this subject on this board, you have been selectively quoting studies, out of context, drawing your own conclusions from them, and using them to further your agenda.

Here is your agenda:


Bottom line, the inspection community knows about the issue, they should either test or warn to test if they want to CYA.


End of debate, gentlemen. Best warn consumers that a small percentage of granite countertops are dangerous so all granite countertops need to be tested.


Now, who the hell are you to come in here and tell us what to do? What qualifications do you have to make those statements? Is this now the consensus opinion and recommendation of AARST, CRCPD, USEPA or even New York State DOH or DEC? If so, provide the documentation that supports it.

[Billy Stephens]

Al,

You've been asked more than once to provide your credentials.

you have been selectively quoting studies, out of context, drawing your own conclusions from them, and using them to further your agenda.

Here is your agenda .
.
Al has TESTING EQUIPMENT that is under utilized ( needs help paying for. )
.
Information on Countertop Selection (http://www.thecarpentershop.net/countertop.html)
.

[Al Gerhart]

Brandon,

Uh, how hard is it to follow that link where Dr. Kitto, a PhD that works for the Dept of Health at New York State says this is a problem? Dr. Steck, a St. Johns professor has studies on that link as well, and Dr. Steck was one of the authors of the Iowa Radon study, the largest Radon study done to date.

Then read the Radon labs that presented papers on this at the same conference, the researchers from Czechlovokia (sp?) that gave the paper on their radiation standards for building materials.

What I am trying to do is wake you guys to the liability that you are facing if you don't learn about this issue. If you want to question the credintials of those that are expert in this field, flail away. I am just the guy that pointed the issue out to you.

" Is this now the consensus opinion and recommendation of AARST, CRCPD, USEPA or even New York State DOH or DEC? If so, provide the documentation that supports it."

All you have to do is check with the CRCPD and AARST, who started the process to develop standards and protocols Wednsday afternoon. Does Dr. Kitto represent the NY stat DOH? Got me, but you can bet they have paid for his research and no doubt paid for his trip to Vegas to present his study.

And I linked to the AARST website so you could read the papers and studies yourself.

I am telling you guys, this is the end of the debate. The issues are real, and if nothing else, you guys ought to consider at least exclude the issues of Radon and radiation from your inspection contracts, but after pointing out that there is real evidence that there could be issues.

Shoot the messanger if you wish, it doesn't change the facts.

[Al Gerhart]

Billy,
every day I try to track down a tester for people that email or call for help. We don't make a dime off referals and some of our testers that have signed up are govt employees in Radon offices that don't charge for testing.

They say they don't turn down cookies or cakes though.

On occasion, we tell the people that their kind of granite is known to be low level and may not require any testing.


Now, please go read the studies and papers presented. You might learn something that will CYA in the coming months.

[Billy Stephens]

Billy,

You might learn something that will CYA in the coming months.
.
See Attached ( My A Has Been Covered. )
.

[Al Gerhart]

Excellent, now add radiation to that list and indeed you have CYA.

[Jerry Peck]

Now this is really, really, simple. Only granite and other natural stones have Uranium present, therefore only those type of materials need testing.

Bottom line is that if you are testing for radiation, there is no need to test products that aren't radioactive.

Al,

You really do not know how to do research which can withstand peer scrutiny, do you?


Well, they also had a study on that, concrete Radon emanation. You are right, the larger area means just as much Radon as a hot granite top, add them together, plus some hot tile, and you got a high Radon level in areas of the country that aren't known for Radon.

BINGO! We have a winner!

Al, you need to test *ALL* available materials used for that used (in this case, countertops).

That is the only way to establish a baseline reference for *ALL* materials.

And, in fact, "radon" should not be the only thing being tested, *ALL* known or suspect things (radon, formaldehyde, you name it) should be tested for all the available materials.

*ONLY THEN* than you make an educated decision on which material(s) are suitable for use and which material(s) are not suitable for use.

There may be other substances (other than radon) which would preclude the use of some of the other materials.

*THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW* ... is to test them all ... for everything ... in real life installations.

Yeah, that includes in houses with concrete slabs, might mean that concrete has to go to, of course, though, would would that say about those 20-30-40-50 story concrete high rises where you are surrounded with concrete?

Did that open your eyes even just a twinkle? It sure should have. Your 'the sky is falling, granite is emitting radon' may well pale in comparison to other real life installations.

Gosh, would that mean that all high rise buildings would need to be leveled and replaced with steel? Boy, the steel industry would sure like that! :rolleyes:

[Billy Stephens]

Excellent, now add radiation to that list and indeed you have CYA.
.
Don't Have to already included ( Similar Environmental Hazards.)
.

[Al Gerhart]

Al,

You really do not know how to do research which can withstand peer scrutiny, do you?



BINGO! We have a winner!

Al, you need to test *ALL* available materials used for that used (in this case, countertops).

That is the only way to establish a baseline reference for *ALL* materials.

And, in fact, "radon" should not be the only thing being tested, *ALL* known or suspect things (radon, formaldehyde, you name it) should be tested for all the available materials.

*ONLY THEN* than you make an educated decision on which material(s) are suitable for use and which material(s) are not suitable for use.

There may be other substances (other than radon) which would preclude the use of some of the other materials.

*THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW* ... is to test them all ... for everything ... in real life installations.

Yeah, that includes in houses with concrete slabs, might mean that concrete has to go to, of course, though, would would that say about those 20-30-40-50 story concrete high rises where you are surrounded with concrete?

Did that open your eyes even just a twinkle? It sure should have. Your 'the sky is falling, granite is emitting radon' may well pale in comparison to other real life installations.

Gosh, would that mean that all high rise buildings would need to be leveled and replaced with steel? Boy, the steel industry would sure like that! :rolleyes:

Jerry,
you are one of those guys that is never wrong, aren't you?

There is no need to measure all materials if one is studying one material. This issue has allways been focused on granites that emit Radon and radiation, not any other health issues. Granite does have others, toxic heavy metal content is one that stands out. In fact, lawyersandsettlements.com has two cases that just scream Selenium posioning, but they are both blaming it on Radon from granite.

Before you ask, no we aren't addressing it at this time. It would complicate the issues, and the reporters have enough to get right as it is. Besides, removing the high uranium content granites will get many of the suspect toxic heavy metal stones off the market as well. Later on we will address the issue.

No, concrete doesn't have to go. The levels are low, no more than 35 uR/hr, simular to a low level granite, and there are few other products to replace it. ALARA is all about Reasonably Achievable, so simple to pick the lowest radiation level material that will do the job. Granite has some low level choices, or other materials like quartz or solid surface can do the job as well with no Radon or radiation exposures.

And really, you aren't likely to open my eyes to anything. I see you as close minded and dismissive, not likely to embrace new ideas. Very set in your ways and resistant to anything you don't come up with.

Now, from now on, I am going to add "construction Litigation expert" to my signature line. I think everyone ought to adopt the title as well. Send me an email and I'll print up a nice certificate you can hang in the office restroom.

Al Gerhart
"construction Litigation expert"

[Jerry Peck]

There is no need to measure all materials if one is studying one material. This issue has always been focused on granites that emit Radon and radiation, not any other health issues.


Al,

That's the problem, you are not thinking outside the box (not even the crayon box you have there), if you are going to go around yelling the sky is falling, we need to know *what the sky is*, and, *is it actually falling*, along with all other related health issues related to *OTHER MATERIAL* would would be used in place of the granite.

One would not want to create a problem where the answer to the problem was worse than the original problem.

You brought up a valid issue which needs to be discussed and tested - do countertops (of all kinds) affect the health of the occupants of the house.

Did you catch the "(of all kinds)" there?

[Al Gerhart]

Jerry,

Both Quartz and Solid Surface are NSF 51 approved, and the Solid Surface uses FDA approved materials. It is the same resin and filler that dentists use, so it has been tested to death, plus the NSF 51 is not a test, it is a process that is ongoing.

There are no health issues with the manufactured materials, quartz and solid surface.

Granite on the other hand, is dug out of the ground and the greedy fools don't spend a dime on testing for radiation or heavy metals, or they do and don't let it stop them from selling the stuff to unwitting consumers.

"You brought up a valid issue which needs to be discussed and tested - do countertops (of all kinds) affect the health of the occupants of the house."

Thank you for recognizing that. That is all I am asking you guys to do is accept a heads up on the issues. If all do as Billy does, everyone has CYA but it wouldn't hurt to bring up the subject on a disclaimer specifically.

I know I am going to have to reconsider selling granite after these two recent cases that might possibly be related to heavy metal poisoning.

[Kent Potter]

I know I am going to have to reconsider selling granite after these two recent cases that might possibly be related to heavy metal poisoning.


Isn't this the whole purpose of your crusade? You are a fabricator of Solid Surface and don't even fabricate granite counter tops. I am continually amazed at the amount of time and effort you put forth to tear down an industry that you only sell "some" products from and only because customers demand granite. It is no secret that Natural and Engineered Stones have all but destroyed the Solid Suface market. I imagine this to be quite a heavy hit to your Cabinet Shop's bottom line.

Through this entire thread, you have discounted and subsequently attacked the opinions of experts who have presented factual data contrary to yours. These guy's have been in the feild for a hell of alot longer than you have been attacking granite, when are you going to get a clue?

In the Natural Stone Industry, you my freind are known as what is referred to as a "Hack"! Someone who professes to know the business but yet has no clue.

The Natural Stone industry is in the process of setting standards for certifying granite as safe on numerous fronts. This will take some time as there is "Real Research" to be performed. This of course would rule you out Mr. Gerhart.

BTW, I wouldn't make any trips to Brazil soon, you never can tell what that Portegese mafia has planned!:p

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry said: "You brought up a valid issue which needs to be discussed and tested - do countertops (of all kinds) affect the health of the occupants of the house."


Thank you for recognizing that. That is all I am asking you guys to do is accept a heads up on the issues. If all do as Billy does, everyone has CYA but it wouldn't hurt to bring up the subject on a disclaimer specifically.

Al,

*I* have stated that before, last year when you first posted your stuff here (wait, it just SEEMS it was a year ago).

*IF* that "was all you wanted", which you said before too, then you would leave it at that.

But you don't. :(

If only you would. :rolleyes:

[Jerry Peck]

I know I am going to have to reconsider selling granite after these two recent cases that might possibly be related to heavy metal poisoning.


Isn't this the whole purpose of your crusade? You are a fabricator of Solid Surface and don't even fabricate granite counter tops.


Kent,

Al DOES sell granite, that's why he is in "panic mode" over this.

He now has to re-think his business of selling granite, does he continue to sell granite, does he only carry the types of granite which emit radon at acceptable levels, does he test and certify his granite (and to what protocol), does he stop selling granite and do something else?

That is why Al is in panic mode right now.

[Al Gerhart]

Isn't this the whole purpose of your crusade? You are a fabricator of Solid Surface and don't even fabricate granite counter tops.
Well, then Mr. Potter, you are either a liar or ignorant. Surface Fabrication magazine did a story on our shop in May of 2007 that documented the fact that we do fabricate granite, as well as another major wood magazine that did a "Point-Counter Point" article on bringing in hard surface fabrication into a cabinet shop operation. I was one of three interviewees on that one, Wood & Wood Products was the name of the magazine if I recall correctly. Fabnet has an article on our first granite job as well, providing info on tools and equipment needed to get into fabrication of stone.

Plus one can vist my website, thecarpentershop.net, and see past jobs we have fabricated in granite.

Now, this is one of the difficulties when discussing this subject on a forum, the stone only fabricators will do and say anything in crude attempts to discredit anyone that dares bring the subject up. The fact that they will lie about something so easily proven is beyond my comprehension, but thank god for retarded enemies.
I am continually amazed at the amount of time and effort you put forth to tear down an industry that you only sell "some" products from and only because customers demand granite. It is no secret that Natural and Engineered Stones have all but destroyed the Solid Suface market.
More ignorance or outright lies. According to the Freedonia Report last spring, Laminate had the most market share, followed by solid surface at around 33% market share, then quartz (around 17%) followed by granite (at 16% market share,for the first time it was behind quartz).

I imagine this to be quite a heavy hit to your Cabinet Shop's bottom line.

Actually, we sell more solid surface since we started fabrication of granite. We can show the consumers granite samples, show the radiation present in almost all colors in varying degrees, show the UV damage to the black stones, stain samples (even after sealing), and give them a chunk of mesh back stone that can be broken apart with the hands alone. Then our top polished seams, which are razor blade tight, the best in OKC hands down, but compared to 99% invisible solid surface seams, well, you get the picture.

Then show them quartz seams, that can have some lippage at times, cause you can't top polish quartz very well. Add our samples of various granite tops that are stained, and not that many people will buy granite once they have been educated.

This is why I advocate all solid surface shops to start fabrication of granite. It is very low skilll level work, far easier than solid surface, takes a few thousand dollars in tools to get started (heck, your first job will pay for the tools), and the quality expected is very, very, low compared to solid surface work. So sell everything, educate the consumer before the sale, and make some very, very, good money on those too blinded to avoid granite.

Through this entire thread, you have discounted and subsequently attacked the opinions of experts who have presented factual data contrary to yours. B.S., none of these guys are trained on Radon AND radiation, some are Radon guys and I would listen to them on the testing and mitigation of Radon, but none of them were aware of the granite Radon/radiation issues. I have seen little factual data if any, that opposed the position held by me, the EPA, AARST, and now the MIA and the CRCDP (did i get those initials in the right secquece!). And Mr. Potter, don't forget that the SFA has adopted my radiation stance. We both know that, so how can you possibly argue that I am wrong when your own leaders at the SFA had to drag you guys kicking and screaming into admitting that I was right? Remember the "granite so hot it needs boxing up and burying"?

These guy's have been in the feild for a hell of alot longer than you have been attacking granite, when are you going to get a clue? I agree that these guys are experts at inspecting homes, and you aren't going to find me argueing with them on any issue but the safety of some granite countertops.


In the Natural Stone Industry, you my freind are known as what is referred to as a "Hack"! Someone who professes to know the business but yet has no clue. I would say that the stone industry is full of hacks if they didn't know that granite was radioactive, emitted Radon, or had heavy metal content that could leach out with ordinary cleaning products, or even plain old water. Or maybe they did know, Mr. Potter, and prefered to lie about it?

The Natural Stone industry is in the process of setting standards for certifying granite as safe on numerous fronts. This will take some time as there is "Real Research" to be performed. This of course would rule you out Mr. Gerhart.

"process of setting standards for certifying granite as safe on numerous fronts."
See, there is the problem, Mr. Potter, you are telling us out loud that the standards will be set to prove that granite is safe. You guys don't have any intention of doing some actual science to find out if it is safe or not.

As to ruling me out, you are unaware that I run an email group with the leaders in this research field contributing to the discussion. Do you really think these guys will trust the MIA? One of the leaders of the CRCDP effort on granite radiation is Dr. Steck, who the MIA claimed was helping them back in June. Steck quit the MIA effort, but he is on our email group.

Face it, Mr. Potter, no one that is sane would trust any of the members of the MIA or the SFA to guide the setting of any standards. You guys lied about this issue for too many years.

BTW, I wouldn't make any trips to Brazil soon, you never can tell what that Portegese mafia has planned!:p

Well, this certainly isn't the first time I have been threatened, but I will add yours to the long list.

And, Jerry, you are close to right. By now I understand the nuances of testing and measuring and I'll be the first to say that above a very low level, no one has a clue on the real level of a granite until it is ran through a Gamma Spectrometer and a Radon emission test on the entire slab. We thought that low radiation granite was safe (below 25 uR/hr), but the highest Radon emitter Brodhead found was Four Seasons which measured 25 uR/hr.

That changes everything. I'm not panicked yet, cause we have sold nothing over 14 uR/hr, but Brodhead's finding will impact future sales.

[Curtis Marburger]

the Sky still falling ?

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Good morning, Mr. Caliendo:

The issue of half-life and “replenishment� are a bit misunderstood by a lot of people.

The gas we call radon is merely one of many transitional elements in a longer chain of events, wherein one element is changed into another element, which is then changed into another … and so on. Each change is marked by a loss (emission) of an atomic particle and the atom is then re-arranged into a new element.

The rate at which this change occurs is probabilistic for any one atom. Since there are billions of available atoms, the overall probability is given as the half life – meaning that if one has a finite number of millions of radon atoms the probability that one half of them will undergo a change in 3.8 days is very high. The probability that one half of the remaining millions will undergo a change in 3.8 days is also very high. This probability chain continues on theoretically until there are just two atoms left, however, the probability that one will decay in the next 3.8 days is actually very low. The reason is that if we look back at the entire original mass of radon, we realize that many millions of those radon atoms have now been around unaltered for many, many half-lives. Yet, their probability of a change has not changed.

So it is rather like thinking about a frog, hopping along a length of a log; with each hop, the frog traverses one-half of the log’s length. And with each leap the frog closes the distance to the end of the log. However, the frog never can make it to the end of the log, since there always remains a half distance to go – no matter how small that distance is. This is known as an asymptotic decay curve.

Radon, by the way is a biologically inert gas, meaning that one could harmlessly breathe some 80% radon (billions and billions of pCi/l) – provided that the balance was O2 and a smattering of CO2 thrown in to maintain blood pH. The radon kooks, don’t get this, and would rather hang on to, and ferociously promote junk science and myth, and they do it by repeating the same myths over and over and over and over, without understanding the technical aspects which underpin the rationale of the statement.

The fact remains that the radon issue vis-Ã*-vis granite is a storm in a tea-cup, since there is not one study, yet performed on the face of the planet earth, that has demonstrated, without confounders, that radon exposures as commonly seen in residential houses, raises the risk of cancer by any significant amount. And EVERY legitimate study performed thus far, including the studies used by the US EPA, and as described deep within their literature, has acknowledged that there is an inverse relationship between radon concentrations and observed lung cancer rates – that is – as the radon concentrations in homes goes up, the risk of lung cancer goes DOWN!

But that is coming from me, a lowly forensic industrial hygienist, who has actually performed epidemiological studies for a living for the last 20 years, and who has taught radiation toxicology at university level, and was a radiation safety officer for 16 years – so what the heck would I know, eh?

By the way, you may find my discussions on the issue interesting. Just follow the links from my home page given below.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[Al Gerhart]

Once again Cao uses a lot of correct science to support his wingnut idea that radiation and Radon is actually good for you despite what the rest of the science community think.

In his usual condesending manner, he points out what all of us know, that Radon itself is harmless, but he neglects to point out that the daughter producsts are not. The decay of Radon is easily proven with a clean tissue and a dusty TV set, do a wipe, then watch the resulting dust decay down as a few days roll by.

However, Cao wants us to believe that the decay of radon is a rare thing, despite it's importance in testing samples for Radon. Let's face it, Bubba, the frog's first hop covers half the distance, little matter than the hops keep getting smaller.

But that is not enough for Cao, to talk of frogs and logs, he has to mislead the public on what the EPA publically states, that 1.3 pCi/L of Radon kills 21,000 Americans per year. Cao states:

"And EVERY legitimate study performed thus far, including the studies used by the US EPA, and as described deep within their literature, has acknowledged that there is an inverse relationship between radon concentrations and observed lung cancer rates – that is – as the radon concentrations in homes goes up, the risk of lung cancer goes DOWN!"

Ahhh! The info is buried deep within the EPA literature, not out where it is easily found by mere homeowners. I wonder what lead the EPA's management to hide this crucial info? Hmmm, perhaps they are selling tin foil hats on the side and don't want to disrupt sales?

Now, Mr. Cao, perhaps you would link to one of these "legitimate" studies that show Radon increase lowers cancer rates? Randy Evans covered for you last time and dug up a study from Worchester, but alas the study was deeply flawed according to one professor, small cohort, and even I picked out that they had dropped the normal statistical analysis to force the data where the author wanted it to go.


As for what the heck you know, I suspect it is alot and you use it to foist an agenda on the public for what ever odd reason you might have.

How about it Cao, how about a couple of these "legitimate" studies that back up your claims?

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Good morning, all –

I was recently contacted off-list and advised that some participants of this list may suffer from legitimate mental and/or emotional issues and made it clear earlier that I had no intention of increasing the personal burden on anyone. Having said that, I think it is equally important to address specific objective issues, without my usual tongue-in-cheek jabs (however harmless I may mean them to be).

So, without identifying any person in particular, where, for example, a participant like, Mr. Gerhart, makes a statement or tautology that is objectively incorrect, it benefits all to point out those errors.

As I have mentioned in the past, it is truly incomprehensible how profoundly incorrect Mr. Gerharts assertions are, and how profoundly incompetent his technical grasp of the subject matter. It is similarly difficult to understand how when one answers Mr. Gerhart, he doesn’t seem to realize that someone has actually provided him with the information he requested, and he seems to carry one with his arguments as if no-one is actually responding. Mr. Gerhart banters around a lot of words and phrases of which he clearly has absolutely no concept of what they mean, how they are used, their limitations, or the concept which underlie they terms and words. Instead, he seems to just keep repeating links, and references to work he has never read, and clearly is incapable of understanding.

As an example – in an earlier post, Mr. Gerhart stated:

Dr. Kitto's info was not published because the MIA is trying to get their hands on it before it is finished. His original study is posted in its place, and shows that most granite will raise a homes level under 1 pCi/L but it is possible to raise the Radon levels over 4 pCi/L.

This is a good example of how Mr. Gerhart exhibits not only a complete lack of understanding of what a researcher is saying, but even an apparent obsession to take what is being said, and pervert the statement into something that is not being said, but that seems to support his otherwise unsupported argument. So, Let’s see what Dr. Kitto actually said…

Contrary to what Mr. Gerhart believes, Dr. Kitto did NOT say that “…most granite will raise a homes level under 1 pCi/L but it is possible to raise the Radon levels over 4 pCi/L.� Rather, Dr. Kitto’s paper concluded that: “It is estimated that in most cases, the contribution of decorative stone to the indoor radon concentration will be less than 1 pCi/l, but may exceed 4 pCi/l in rare cases.�

What this means is precisely what the author states: It is unlikely that the radon contributed into an home by decorative stone will be significant. That’s all. Considering that there is not a single study yet performed to date, that has demonstrated that this kind of contribution (even if it is above 4 pCi/l) results in any known demonstrable risk, it is a moot point.

It is clear that Mr. Gerhart is incapable of reading, let alone understanding what is written by other people. Even on this forum, Mr. Gerhart entirely ignores or otherwise completely misunderstands or deliberately misconstrues or deliberately mischaracterizes what other people say. There is a very real phenomenon known as “pathological science� and a specific psychological profile is particularly susceptible to the advancement of ideas developed under poor science and an understanding of scientific processes.

At the heart of the advancement is the repetition of references, and statements to the exclusion of any kind of consideration of what is being said, and the denial of contradictory objective fact. The reality is that it doesn’t matter how many times you answer Mr. Gerhart, or provide him with examples of studies or legitimate references, because he won’t read them, can’t understand them, and will simply continue to deny they exist and continue to ask “Why won’t you back up what you say?�

It is sad, but it is true.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[Billy Stephens]

Caoimhin Here's your Patch. :D

Al Here's your Degree. :eek: ( Thanks For Stopping By.) :rolleyes:
.

[Al Gerhart]

Good morning Cao,

Geez, now I feel bad. I had no idea of your condition. You are so brave to try to keep going with this burden, but I suppose you have your good days and bad days. Perhaps your attendent will drop by while you are writing one of these posts, might see it as a cry for help, perhaps a medication change is in order here.

I see that you have regressed to projection, blaming others for you own failings, along with some sort of fixation on repeating the same arguments ad nauseum. I bet it saves a lot of typing though.
Let's blame all this on "Bob", yeah, that might work. Cao isn't the bad person, it is all "Bob's" fault. Perhaps some progress could happpen.

Okay, I wrote "shows that most granite will raise a homes level under 1 pCi/L but it is possible to raise the Radon levels over 4 pCi/L."

Dr. Kitto wrote "It is estimated that in most cases, the contribution of decorative stone to the indoor radon concentration will be less than 1 pCi/l, but may exceed 4 pCi/l in rare cases."

Hmmm, "Bob" seems to have an issue with these two passages, so let's look closely at both. The first portion of both passages say that most stones will raise the Radon level less than 1 pCi/L. The second half of both passages say that Radon levels may exceed 4 pCi/L. Hmmm, this is difficult, it seems both say the same thing. Perhaps "Bob's" problem centers on the difference between "rare" and "possible". Dear me, we must consult a Dictionary, one moment please..... Here we go, cut and past for "Bob".

1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
2. Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom.
3. Capable of favorable development; potential: a possible site for the new capital.
4. Of uncertain likelihood.

Hmm, "Bob's" issues are still unclear. It seems that "possible" is understood to mean some what uncertain or capable of happening, potential even. I suppose "rare" would likely have the same connotation. Excuse me again for a moment..... Here we go. Just for "Bob".

Hmm, "Rare" has many meanings, but "marked by an uncommon quality" is a good match. Darn, that is pretty close to "Of uncertain likelihood" which is the definition of "possible". I do see the problem though, "Bob" likes the word "unlikely", but unfortunetly Dr. Kitto didn't use "Bob's" word, he used "rare" instead.

Geez, "Bob", it looks like you are going to get your feelings hurt again. I do hope it doesn't add to your issues.

Now, what "Bob" doesn't address is Dr. Kitto's additonal info in the presentation, which a quick call to AARST or one of the many CRCPD members present would prove, in where Dr. Kitto provided examples of 24 pCi/L from decorative stone without ventilation figured in, half that (that would be 12, "Bob") with air exchange (ventilation, "Bob").

Well, hopefully "Bob" will get better and this grevious use of the word "rare" instead of "unlikely" will not add to "Bob's" current circumstances.

Seriously, Cao, is this how you opperate in court? You demean your opponent or refuse to address the questions from the opposing counsel? How is that working for you? I would think in your imaginary world there would be an imaginary judge providing some rules for ya to follow.....

Now, I hope we are finished playing around and you will provide two "legitimate" studies that back this claim of Radon being good for you. Once again, I will point out the main EPA web page on this issue

Radon | Indoor Air Quality | Air | US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/radon/)

And "Bob", I did a quick search for "Radon hormesis" on the EPA site and found nothing. Perhaps it is too "deep within their literature" for a mere computer to root out.

Perhaps I should mimic "Bob" and add a disclaimer to my post.

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal ravings and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer (good lord, the boss man would fire me in an instant if he saw me acting like this), agency, peers, other patient/inmates, or professional affiliates nor does it reflect a need to change my medications again. I love my Thorazine, please don't take me off my Thorazine. The above post is for misleading the public only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others. Please don't confront me in a court of law with this drivel, it is written purely for entertainment. Gotta go, the director of the Asylum is coming back soom and I haven't finished cleaning his office. "Bob")

[Bruce Thomas]

I haven't read this post, I just don't have time. Here is an article that I wrote on the subject, hope it helps.



Is My Granite Counter Top Dangerous?

Recently a trade association for the solid surface counter top manufacturers formed and funded a not for profit association to test and disseminate information about granite as used in homes. They produced videos and press releases stating that granite used in counter tops and floors is radioactive and a radon emitter. As you can imagine it got the attention of thousands of home owners and now they don't know what to do.

At this point there are no accepted protocols to test and interpret the data. There are several groups and Universities work to prove test methods. The data that I have seen indicates that most of the species of stone contribute very little radon to the indoor and are of no concern. The key word is "most".

If I just spent thousands of dollars on granite counter top and floors in my home I would want to know for sure if it was dangerous. So what do we as home inspectors do?

The main concern is radon, so testing may be conducted using a minimum of 3 tests. One in the lowest area of the home, one at least 20 inches above the stone product and one in a completely different room on the same level as the stone product. The test placement and house conditions should follow normal protocols for the device used. As I mentioned above there is no consensus for a method to test so the client must be informed of that fact.

Interpretation of gathered data is the key to determining the risk. Since there is no consensus, it is essential that a qualified radiation professional interpret the test results. Most states have such individuals in the radiation protection section of the health department or environmental protection department. They should be consulted and quoted in any report to the consumer.



Bruce Thomas
9/12/08
;)

[Al Gerhart]

I haven't read this post, I just don't have time. Here is an article that I wrote on the subject, hope it helps.




Is My Granite Counter Top Dangerous?



Recently a trade association for the solid surface counter top manufacturers formed and funded a not for profit association to test and disseminate information about granite as used in homes. They produced videos and press releases stating that granite used in counter tops and floors is radioactive and a radon emitter. As you can imagine it got the attention of thousands of home owners and now they don't know what to do.

At this point there are no accepted protocols to test and interpret the data. There are several groups and Universities work to prove test methods. The data that I have seen indicates that most of the species of stone contribute very little radon to the indoor and are of no concern. The key word is "most".

If I just spent thousands of dollars on granite counter top and floors in my home I would want to know for sure if it was dangerous. So what do we as home inspectors do?

The main concern is radon, so testing may be conducted using a minimum of 3 tests. One in the lowest area of the home, one at least 20 inches above the stone product and one in a completely different room on the same level as the stone product. The test placement and house conditions should follow normal protocols for the device used. As I mentioned above there is no consensus for a method to test so the client must be informed of that fact.

Interpretation of gathered data is the key to determining the risk. Since there is no consensus, it is essential that a qualified radiation professional interpret the test results. Most states have such individuals in the radiation protection section of the health department or environmental protection department. They should be consulted and quoted in any report to the consumer.



Bruce Thomas
9/12/08
;)

Bruce,

if we aren't completely factual, the opposition will have openings that they will use to discredit the effort to find the truth. As it is, they make up enough, no sense in providing legitmate chinks in the arguments.

Specifically,

"Recently a trade association for the solid surface counter top manufacturers formed and funded a not for profit association to test and disseminate information....."

This is incorrect. Sensa, a company that sells natural stone through Lowes, provided the start up funding for the non profit, Build Clean.

Cambria, a quartz countertop manufacter joined in months later. Sensa is owned by C & C North America, which also owns Silestone, another Quartz manufacturer.

But this effort has not recieved a single dime, nor nickle, from any solid surface manufacturers, d*mn their sorry souls. :-)

It would also be more correct if you would add "quartz materials" to the products tested in addition to granite. In fact, Lowes demanded the Sensa and Silestone lines be tested as part of a rollout of the products in about 1,500 stores. Dr. Kitto's study mentioned this fact, I believe it was 13 quartz samples in the study, all of which were extremely low or no Radon or radiation present.

Also, Build Clean has not produced any videos, Channel 4 did that, with THEIR expert present and doing 90% of the talking. That would be Dr. Llope of Rice university, a particle physicist who deals with radiation as part of his work for the DOE and Rice University.

Build Clean did produce an audio "pod cast" with a Radon lab owner that found several hot granite countertops that produced large amounts of Radon in kitchens.

Those are the only two objections. I love the rest of it and agree 100%.

[Richard Moore]

Wine ingredient protects against radiation: report (issued today)

Study: Red Wine Antioxidant May Protect Against Radiation | Occupational Health & Safety (http://www.ohsonline.com/articles/67869/)

Well, hell! Along the lines of "don't worry, be happy", I now get to recommend my clients drink more wine(?). :)

[Bruce Thomas]

Richard,

That's what we need, more drunk mice.

These folks at Pitt are brilliant and if there is a radiation antidote, they will find it.

Bruce

[Jerry Peck]

So ... we can spill red wine all over the granite countertop and it will protect everyone in the room, right? :D

(For us non-wine drinkers, you know.) :p

Can I get a $10 million grant to determine 'how long' the red wine must be let stand there before it does any good? :cool:

[Curtis Marburger]

Wine on Countertop"s ?
Will that help with the Sky is Falling ?

[Billy Stephens]

.
Will that help with the Sky is Falling ?
.
For You & The Pet. :D
.