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

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

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

Jeff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Matt Bezanson, NEHA RMP101003RT, NRSB RMS # SS75

Good morning, Gents –

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

Two things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is fact, and the conclusions are apparent.

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

Cheers!
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If everybody believed that shag carpeting gave you acne, it wouldn't be remotely true, but you'd still be better off not putting shag carpeting in a house you wanted to sell.

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

Scott,

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

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

Good morning, Mr. Gerhart:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And how can you refute BEIR VII on health risks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html

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



Cheers!
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

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

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al,

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

(hint, I will underline them for you)




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

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

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

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

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

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

HUH??

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

HUH??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a possibility, YES.

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

Just my opinion.

Al,

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

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

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

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

It appears some of the previous posts have disappeared.

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

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

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

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

Sorry for the confusion.

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

Good morning, Mr. Gerhart:

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

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

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

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

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

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

School is in session Mr. Connell.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Basis of the EPA recommendation

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

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


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

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

B.S. Mr. Connell,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



False logic
Why not defend your statements?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Probably not in your circles, no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

No.

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

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

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

Al,

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

Keeping it in "context", of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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