Stone Countertops & Radon - Page 3 - InspectionNews

Caoimhín P. Connell · #**201** (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 12:30 PM

Good morning, all –

I was recently contacted off-list and advised that some participants of this list may suffer from legitimate mental and/or emotional issues and made it clear earlier that I had no intention of increasing the personal burden on anyone. Having said that, I think it is equally important to address specific objective issues, without my usual tongue-in-cheek jabs (however harmless I may mean them to be).

So, without identifying any person in particular, where, for example, a participant like, Mr. Gerhart, makes a statement or tautology that is objectively incorrect, it benefits all to point out those errors.

As I have mentioned in the past, it is truly incomprehensible how profoundly incorrect Mr. Gerharts assertions are, and how profoundly incompetent his technical grasp of the subject matter. It is similarly difficult to understand how when one answers Mr. Gerhart, he doesn’t seem to realize that someone has actually provided him with the information he requested, and he seems to carry one with his arguments as if no-one is actually responding. Mr. Gerhart banters around a lot of words and phrases of which he clearly has absolutely no concept of what they mean, how they are used, their limitations, or the concept which underlie they terms and words. Instead, he seems to just keep repeating links, and references to work he has never read, and clearly is incapable of understanding.

As an example – in an earlier post, Mr. Gerhart stated:

Dr. Kitto's info was not published because the MIA is trying to get their hands on it before it is finished. His original study is posted in its place, and shows that most granite will raise a homes level under 1 pCi/L but it is possible to raise the Radon levels over 4 pCi/L.

This is a good example of how Mr. Gerhart exhibits not only a complete lack of understanding of what a researcher is saying, but even an apparent obsession to take what is being said, and pervert the statement into something that is not being said, but that seems to support his otherwise unsupported argument. So, Let’s see what Dr. Kitto actually said…

Contrary to what Mr. Gerhart believes, Dr. Kitto did NOT say that “…most granite will raise a homes level under 1 pCi/L but it is possible to raise the Radon levels over 4 pCi/L.” Rather, Dr. Kitto’s paper concluded that: “It is estimated that in most cases, the contribution of decorative stone to the indoor radon concentration will be less than 1 pCi/l, but may exceed 4 pCi/l in rare cases.”

What this means is precisely what the author states: It is unlikely that the radon contributed into an home by decorative stone will be significant. That’s all. Considering that there is not a single study yet performed to date, that has demonstrated that this kind of contribution (even if it is above 4 pCi/l) results in any known demonstrable risk, it is a moot point.

It is clear that Mr. Gerhart is incapable of reading, let alone understanding what is written by other people. Even on this forum, Mr. Gerhart entirely ignores or otherwise completely misunderstands or deliberately misconstrues or deliberately mischaracterizes what other people say. There is a very real phenomenon known as “pathological science” and a specific psychological profile is particularly susceptible to the advancement of ideas developed under poor science and an understanding of scientific processes.

At the heart of the advancement is the repetition of references, and statements to the exclusion of any kind of consideration of what is being said, and the denial of contradictory objective fact. The reality is that it doesn’t matter how many times you answer Mr. Gerhart, or provide him with examples of studies or legitimate references, because he won’t read them, can’t understand them, and will simply continue to deny they exist and continue to ask “Why won’t you back up what you say?”

It is sad, but it is true.

Cheers!
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

Billy Stephens · #**202** (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 01:29 PM

Caoimhin Here's your Patch.

Al Here's your Degree.

( Thanks For Stopping By.)

.

Al Gerhart · #**203** (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 05:33 PM

Good morning Cao,

Geez, now I feel bad. I had no idea of your condition. You are so brave to try to keep going with this burden, but I suppose you have your good days and bad days. Perhaps your attendent will drop by while you are writing one of these posts, might see it as a cry for help, perhaps a medication change is in order here.

I see that you have regressed to projection, blaming others for you own failings, along with some sort of fixation on repeating the same arguments ad nauseum. I bet it saves a lot of typing though.
Let's blame all this on "Bob", yeah, that might work. Cao isn't the bad person, it is all "Bob's" fault. Perhaps some progress could happpen.

Okay, I wrote "shows that most granite will raise a homes level under 1 pCi/L but it is possible to raise the Radon levels over 4 pCi/L."

Dr. Kitto wrote "It is estimated that in most cases, the contribution of decorative stone to the indoor radon concentration will be less than 1 pCi/l, but may exceed 4 pCi/l in rare cases."

Hmmm, "Bob" seems to have an issue with these two passages, so let's look closely at both. The first portion of both passages say that most stones will raise the Radon level less than 1 pCi/L. The second half of both passages say that Radon levels may exceed 4 pCi/L. Hmmm, this is difficult, it seems both say the same thing. Perhaps "Bob's" problem centers on the difference between "rare" and "possible". Dear me, we must consult a Dictionary, one moment please..... Here we go, cut and past for "Bob".

1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
2. Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom.
3. Capable of favorable development; potential: a possible site for the new capital.
4. Of uncertain likelihood.

Hmm, "Bob's" issues are still unclear. It seems that "possible" is understood to mean some what uncertain or capable of happening, potential even. I suppose "rare" would likely have the same connotation. Excuse me again for a moment..... Here we go. Just for "Bob".

Hmm, "Rare" has many meanings, but "marked by an uncommon quality" is a good match. Darn, that is pretty close to "Of uncertain likelihood" which is the definition of "possible". I do see the problem though, "Bob" likes the word "unlikely", but unfortunetly Dr. Kitto didn't use "Bob's" word, he used "rare" instead.

Geez, "Bob", it looks like you are going to get your feelings hurt again. I do hope it doesn't add to your issues.

Now, what "Bob" doesn't address is Dr. Kitto's additonal info in the presentation, which a quick call to AARST or one of the many CRCPD members present would prove, in where Dr. Kitto provided examples of 24 pCi/L from decorative stone without ventilation figured in, half that (that would be 12, "Bob") with air exchange (ventilation, "Bob").

Well, hopefully "Bob" will get better and this grevious use of the word "rare" instead of "unlikely" will not add to "Bob's" current circumstances.

Seriously, Cao, is this how you opperate in court? You demean your opponent or refuse to address the questions from the opposing counsel? How is that working for you? I would think in your imaginary world there would be an imaginary judge providing some rules for ya to follow.....

Now, I hope we are finished playing around and you will provide two "legitimate" studies that back this claim of Radon being good for you. Once again, I will point out the main EPA web page on this issue

Radon | Indoor Air Quality | Air | US EPA

And "Bob", I did a quick search for "Radon hormesis" on the EPA site and found nothing. Perhaps it is too "deep within their literature" for a mere computer to root out.

Perhaps I should mimic "Bob" and add a disclaimer to my post.

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal ravings and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer (good lord, the boss man would fire me in an instant if he saw me acting like this), agency, peers, other patient/inmates, or professional affiliates nor does it reflect a need to change my medications again. I love my Thorazine, please don't take me off my Thorazine. The above post is for misleading the public only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others. Please don't confront me in a court of law with this drivel, it is written purely for entertainment. Gotta go, the director of the Asylum is coming back soom and I haven't finished cleaning his office. "Bob")

Bruce Thomas · #**204** (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 05:46 PM

I haven't read this post, I just don't have time. Here is an article that I wrote on the subject, hope it helps.

Is My Granite Counter Top Dangerous?

Recently a trade association for the solid surface counter top manufacturers formed and funded a not for profit association to test and disseminate information about granite as used in homes. They produced videos and press releases stating that granite used in counter tops and floors is radioactive and a radon emitter. As you can imagine it got the attention of thousands of home owners and now they don't know what to do.

At this point there are no accepted protocols to test and interpret the data. There are several groups and Universities work to prove test methods. The data that I have seen indicates that most of the species of stone contribute very little radon to the indoor and are of no concern. The key word is "most".

If I just spent thousands of dollars on granite counter top and floors in my home I would want to know for sure if it was dangerous. So what do we as home inspectors do?

The main concern is radon, so testing may be conducted using a minimum of 3 tests. One in the lowest area of the home, one at least 20 inches above the stone product and one in a completely different room on the same level as the stone product. The test placement and house conditions should follow normal protocols for the device used. As I mentioned above there is no consensus for a method to test so the client must be informed of that fact.

Interpretation of gathered data is the key to determining the risk. Since there is no consensus, it is essential that a qualified radiation professional interpret the test results. Most states have such individuals in the radiation protection section of the health department or environmental protection department. They should be consulted and quoted in any report to the consumer.

Bruce Thomas
9/12/08

Al Gerhart · #**205** (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Thomas

I haven't read this post, I just don't have time. Here is an article that I wrote on the subject, hope it helps.

Is My Granite Counter Top Dangerous?

Recently a trade association for the solid surface counter top manufacturers formed and funded a not for profit association to test and disseminate information about granite as used in homes. They produced videos and press releases stating that granite used in counter tops and floors is radioactive and a radon emitter. As you can imagine it got the attention of thousands of home owners and now they don't know what to do.

At this point there are no accepted protocols to test and interpret the data. There are several groups and Universities work to prove test methods. The data that I have seen indicates that most of the species of stone contribute very little radon to the indoor and are of no concern. The key word is "most".

If I just spent thousands of dollars on granite counter top and floors in my home I would want to know for sure if it was dangerous. So what do we as home inspectors do?

The main concern is radon, so testing may be conducted using a minimum of 3 tests. One in the lowest area of the home, one at least 20 inches above the stone product and one in a completely different room on the same level as the stone product. The test placement and house conditions should follow normal protocols for the device used. As I mentioned above there is no consensus for a method to test so the client must be informed of that fact.

Interpretation of gathered data is the key to determining the risk. Since there is no consensus, it is essential that a qualified radiation professional interpret the test results. Most states have such individuals in the radiation protection section of the health department or environmental protection department. They should be consulted and quoted in any report to the consumer.

Bruce Thomas
9/12/08

Bruce,

if we aren't completely factual, the opposition will have openings that they will use to discredit the effort to find the truth. As it is, they make up enough, no sense in providing legitmate chinks in the arguments.

Specifically,

"Recently a trade association for the solid surface counter top manufacturers formed and funded a not for profit association to test and disseminate information....."

This is incorrect. Sensa, a company that sells natural stone through Lowes, provided the start up funding for the non profit, Build Clean.

Cambria, a quartz countertop manufacter joined in months later. Sensa is owned by C & C North America, which also owns Silestone, another Quartz manufacturer.

But this effort has not recieved a single dime, nor nickle, from any solid surface manufacturers, d*mn their sorry souls. :-)

It would also be more correct if you would add "quartz materials" to the products tested in addition to granite. In fact, Lowes demanded the Sensa and Silestone lines be tested as part of a rollout of the products in about 1,500 stores. Dr. Kitto's study mentioned this fact, I believe it was 13 quartz samples in the study, all of which were extremely low or no Radon or radiation present.

Also, Build Clean has not produced any videos, Channel 4 did that, with THEIR expert present and doing 90% of the talking. That would be Dr. Llope of Rice university, a particle physicist who deals with radiation as part of his work for the DOE and Rice University.

Build Clean did produce an audio "pod cast" with a Radon lab owner that found several hot granite countertops that produced large amounts of Radon in kitchens.

Those are the only two objections. I love the rest of it and agree 100%.

Richard Moore · #**206** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008, 11:29 AM

Wine ingredient protects against radiation: report (issued today)

Study: Red Wine Antioxidant May Protect Against Radiation | Occupational Health & Safety

Well, hell! Along the lines of "don't worry, be happy", I now get to recommend my clients drink more wine(?).