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

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!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene

(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

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.

edit.

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

__________________
Ted Menelly
Castle Home Inspection Services
www.inspectmycastle.com

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!".

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

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.

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...

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

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.

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?

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

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 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/R...ural_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?

What Mr. Connell Said

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene

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

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.

Mr. Connell,

Thank you very much for the info. This give me a good place to start.

edit.

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.

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?

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

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?

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.

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)

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

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) 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!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene

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

Are inspection referrals from past clients important to you?
If so, click here to get even more referrals!

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.

__________________
Ted Menelly
Castle Home Inspection Services
www.inspectmycastle.com

OH MY GAWD!!! Mr. Gerhart is right!!

THE SKY REALLY IS FALLING!!!!!!


Caoimhín

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.

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?

__________________
"Baseball is like church. Many attend but few understand." Leo Durocher
Bruce Breedlove
www.avaloninspection.com

edit.

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!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene

(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

So Mr. Gerhart has been a Radon Measurement Provider for over 6 years?

__________________
"Baseball is like church. Many attend but few understand." Leo Durocher
Bruce Breedlove
www.avaloninspection.com

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.

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?

edit.

Picked up my radon / granite tester today.

Ready to make those extra bucks.


Rick

Attached Images

	CIMG5226.jpg (19.8 KB, 20 views)
	CIMG5228.jpg (16.5 KB, 18 views)

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?

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.

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.

I'll ask around, someone at one of the labs or maybe Dr. Steck has a copy he will share.

edit.

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?

edit.

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.

edit.

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?

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.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

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.

__________________
Ted Menelly
Castle Home Inspection Services
www.inspectmycastle.com

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.

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

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.

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".

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

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

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.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

.
And bees, " Killer BEES ! "
.
Life as we Knew it is Over.
.

Attached Images

	bee.jpg (13.7 KB, 0 views)
	Arggg.gif (71.0 KB, 121 views)

__________________
It Might have Choked Artie But it ain't gone'a choke Stymie!
Billy J. Stephens HI Service
Memphis TN.

edit.

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?

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?

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

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.

.
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.

Attached Images

Ax to Grind.jpg (78.5 KB, 4 views)

__________________
It Might have Choked Artie But it ain't gone'a choke Stymie!
Billy J. Stephens HI Service
Memphis TN.

.
Really?
.
.
Ya Think?
.
.
So What's Your Story Steam Boat ?
.

Attached Images

Mush mouth.gif (42.5 KB, 108 views)

__________________
It Might have Choked Artie But it ain't gone'a choke Stymie!
Billy J. Stephens HI Service
Memphis TN.

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

edit.

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?

Maybe we should ban stairs, or encapsulate them in foam padding to reduce injuries?

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

.
Why are you here ?

What is your ( In$urance or other ) Ax to Grind on this issue ?
.

__________________
It Might have Choked Artie But it ain't gone'a choke Stymie!
Billy J. Stephens HI Service
Memphis TN.

edit.

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!
Caoimhín P. Connell

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.

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

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.

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 ...

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

.
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.
.

Attached Images

Annoying-Office-Paperclip.jpg (3.5 KB, 70 views)

__________________
It Might have Choked Artie But it ain't gone'a choke Stymie!
Billy J. Stephens HI Service
Memphis TN.

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?

Al,

Likewise, why do you insist on coming back yelling "The sky is falling. The sky is falling."?

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

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?

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 Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

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.

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.

Now I get it ... you want meaningless number you can manipulate ... Dang, and I thought you were actually trying to find out something.

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.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

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!

.
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.

__________________
It Might have Choked Artie But it ain't gone'a choke Stymie!
Billy J. Stephens HI Service
Memphis TN.

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.

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:


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.

.
Al has TESTING EQUIPMENT that is under utilized ( needs help paying for. )
.
Information on Countertop Selection
.

__________________
It Might have Choked Artie But it ain't gone'a choke Stymie!
Billy J. Stephens HI Service
Memphis TN.

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.

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.

.
See Attached ( My A Has Been Covered. )
.

Attached Images

TN Insp. Rules.pdf (139.0 KB, 10 views)

__________________
It Might have Choked Artie But it ain't gone'a choke Stymie!
Billy J. Stephens HI Service
Memphis TN.

Excellent, now add radiation to that list and indeed you have CYA.

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!

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

.
Don't Have to already included ( Similar Environmental Hazards.)
.

Attached Images

Dog P Computer.jpg (33.5 KB, 7 views)

__________________
It Might have Choked Artie But it ain't gone'a choke Stymie!
Billy J. Stephens HI Service
Memphis TN.

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"

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?

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

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.

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!

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."

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.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com