On May 8, 2008 radio station KHOU Channel 11 in Houston, Texas released a video that presented a one-sided account of radiation levels in granite and associated radon levels in homes that contain natural granite kitchentops. To support their account they engaged a particle physicist from Rice University to undertake radiation analyses of a number of kitchentops using a portable Na(I) gamma-ray spectrometer.

I have listened and watched the recent debate with some interest and absorbed the passionate, the informed and the uninformed responses that have been presented.

In all these responses there was one very conspicuous void – that of a qualified geoscientist who has the scientific and technical background and who has been intimately involved in the stone industry for many years.

The issue of radiation in granite and the emission of radon from the granite kitchen countertops has been raised a number of times over the last 15 years and there seems little doubt that the issue this time was also prompted by the quartz surfaces and plastic industry who are continually attempting to undermine the qualities/virtues of natural stone by misinformation crusades.

By publicly suggesting that kitchen countertops might be radioactive invariably elicits a degree of concern and panic among uninformed consumers. Consumers have neither the means to determine the radiation levels in their homes nor any avenue by which they can extract such information from the fabricators or wholesalers of stone. However, they can purchase relatively cheap radon meters and undertake a crude investigation of the radon gas levels in various parts of their homes.

Before addressing some of the individual issues let me emphasize that the accurate determinations of radioactivity in a stone, the radiation flux and the concentration of radon in the air are not straight-forward and are prone to large errors and subsequent misinterpretations. The values can also be manipulated and grossly overstated.

One of the most significant misinformed statements that can be made in this debate is to tar all granites with the same brush. There are about 2700 "granites" on the world market coming from dozens of countries. In the international stone trade the term "granite" is used very loosely. It is essentially a mercantile term embracing all those stones that have an igneous mode of formation, a high degree of crystallinity, and interlocking textures which resulted from an elevated thermal history that has approached or exceeded the melting point of the rock. The term includes "black granites", true granites, the "general" granites, pearl granites, pegmatites, anorthosites, charnockites, gneisses, migmatites and a number of exotic varieties.
For example, the term "black granite" often causes some consternation among purists, academics and those not intimately associated with the stone industry. The two terms, in the strict sense, are contradictory. Granites in the broad sense are dominated mineralogically by subequal amounts of quartz, alkali feldspar, and plagioclase feldspar, which commonly collectively comprise around 90% of the rock and give them a light colour. Relatively small amounts of dark-coloured biotite and/or amphibole provide additional descriptors (e.g. biotite granite). Black granites usually contain little or no quartz, rare alkali feldspar, and typically much more-calcic plagioclase feldspar. Biotite and amphibole are usually present in only small to trace quantities; instead, calcic pyroxene and, less-commonly, Ca-poor pyroxene dominate the ferromagnesian mineral assemblage. Apart from these fundamental mineralogical differences there are many other gross differences between "true" granites and "black" granites, and indeed between any of the broad categories named above.

Basically every occurrence of granite (used from here in the broad sense of the word) is unique. The uniqueness stems back to its mode of formation including the history of the original source material, the chemistry of the magma, the oxidation state, temperature, and both the intrusive and post-intrusive histories of the magma. Once intruded and emplaced numerous geological and chemical processes can subsequently modify the original composition, mineralogy and texture of every granite. Much of the modification is a function of temperature and fluid activity, both of which have naturally occurring gradients. These variations lead to a range of different stones even over the scale of tens of meters. Geologically, young granites tend to be fairly simple mineralogically and texturally compared to many granites that are an order of magnitude older. It is worth noting that most unusual or "different" granitic rock types available on the world market (in terms of colour and texture) are at least Proterozoic or older (generally older than 1.5 billion years).

The idea of conducting tests on a single piece of granite countertop that might have been quarried several years ago from an area in the quarry or other location long abandoned is naοve at best. A value obtained from a test done on one slab does not necessarily become a characteristic of that granite. If a testing regime for radiation on a particular granite type is to ever be conceived it must be done with a rigorous geoscientific control of the granite pluton, its mineralogy and chemistry, and its setting. Without this fundamental geological information the value of any testing is next to meaningless. Even then, any testing that is done might still only be valid for that small section of the quarry.

Another elementary omission from the debate has been any discussion of the mineralogy of the different granites and how this has a bearing on the radiation issues. Reference was made to uranium ore being the cause of elevated readings of radioactivity. Although there was no intention to mislead the suggestion that there is uranium "ore" in a commercially available granite kitchentop is nonsense. If the granite body contained uranium ore it would not be a commercial dimension stone operation. Elevated concentrations of uranium in granite sufficient to be termed "ore" result in very unusual colours and textures (such as those at Roxby Downs, South Australia) in which the radiation has resulted in feldspar that has become almost black.

High localized readings of radioactivity in granite are the result of several possible geological processes. One is from the presence of sparsely scattered accessory minerals such as zircon, allanite, sphene and monazite that are intrinsic to granites. These minerals incorporate small to trace amounts of lanthanide and actinide elements into their lattices. Gradually, the uranium and thorium in these typically sparse minerals decay by various mechanisms and release tiny amounts of radon and thoron. Minerals that constitute uranium ore (mainly pitchblende, uraninite, torbernite) are exceedingly rare in commercial granites.

A second but similar source of radioactivity in granites is in the form of tiny inclusions within common ferromagnesian minerals such as biotite and amphibole. In the former, a range of accessory minerals such as apatite, zircon, thorite and thorianite accommodate most of the actinide minerals whereas the most common inclusion in amphibole appears to be apatite (a calcium phosphate mineral). The concentration of uranium and thorium in these accessory minerals is sometimes expressed by a pleochroic halo that is formed when the host mineral has suffered long-term damage from alpha-particle emissions.

In both these geological situations there is always the possibility for some localized concentration of the accessory minerals. In particular, the way some granites are formed involves the natural concentration of restite (residual) minerals. Where this occurs there could be localized elevated readings of radioactivity. Contamination from and/or partial assimilation of argillaceous country rock (such as mudstone and shale) by the intrusive granite as it forces its way to higher crustal levels can also lead to localized higher readings.

Uranium minerals can also form as a result of fluid activity within or associated with a granite body. It can happen during the formation of the granite, during emplacement of the granite or post-emplacement from external sources. High-level felsic granites may generate fluid activity that is able to scavenge uranium and thorium from the breakdown of some of the actinide-bearing accessory minerals and/or their hosts. Under certain conditions these fluids can permeate through the granite (mainly along grain boundaries) causing alteration of the feldspar to mostly kaolinitic clay and sericitic mica. The uranium and thorium can be adsorbed onto the clays and mica. As emphasized above, where such a geological process can be readily identified, the resulting granite type has become structurally weakened and is no longer a viable commodity for construction or use in the countertop industry.

High levels of fluid can also result in some localized geological "oddities" such as pegmatite. The huge grainsize and spectacular textures are in high demand because of their rarity. Their formation can involve the concentration of rare elements which either become incorporated into the structures of other minerals or, where sufficient, can form large and exotic minerals. If the fluids have scavenged some lanthanide and actinide elements there is a likelihood of creating sparsely occurring minerals containing elevated concentrations that lead to spikes in the level of radioactivity.

The possibility for the introduction of uranium into a granite from an external source must also be entertained. However, where this might have occurred there is clearly a sequence of events that has taken place and it only requires a modest amount of geoscientific research to establish this sequence. The fact that there is a localized high concentration of uranium sufficient to mine in proximity to a granite does not mean that the granite must also be high in uranium. For example, the granite might be 2 billion years old and the uranium deposit only 200 million years old with a geological fault that separates them. Each situation such as this must be evaluated geoscientifically on an individual basis.

At the other end of the "granite" spectrum, namely the black granites such as Indian Jet Black, Black Galaxy, and African Nero Assoluto), the amounts of potassium (40K), thorium (232Th), radium (222Ra), and uranium (238U) are typically much lower than quartz-bearing granite and both the level of radioactivity and consequently, level of radon emission, are very low. If you are concerned at all about radioactivity and radon in your home coming from your kitchen countertop think BLACK. This partly answers a question posed to the Rice University researcher regarding the presence of a broad relationship between the colour of granite and radiation levels. At the quartz-rich (felsic) end of the granite spectrum there is also a crude relationship between granite colour and levels of radioactivity. Because the majority of radiation emitted from felsic granites is from potassium (40K) and not from the uranium (238U) series as suggested by the physics researcher (commonly by a factor of 10) it follows that granites with an abundance of alkali feldspar are generally more radioactive and greater radon emitters than granites poor in this mineral. Most alkali feldspar in felsic granites is pinkish and accordingly many predominantly pink granites (often approaching "true" granites) emit higher levels of radiation than "normal" granites. Weathering and hydrothermal alteration of felsic granites also provide a fairly good correlation between radioactivity and colour because the resulting granite colour is often beige, yellowish or brownish due to the presence of clays and secondary micas (as noted above). Furthermore, because of their mode of origin the felsic granites also tend to concentrate some of the rare elements.

The issue of radon in general and radon in homes has been almost flogged to death. But just to summarize, radon is a daughter product of uranium. It has a half-life of just under 4 days, is inert, is tasteless and odourless, and has a density around 7.5 times that of air. Whereas radon is a daughter product of uranium there is an analogous daughter product (thoron) that is derived from the radioactive breakdown of thorium. Both gases are potentially harmful to humans in high concentrations and over long periods of time. Both are alpha particle emitters which when inhaled or ingested (as gas or dust) can expose sensitive body tissues at both cellular and molecular levels to the particles.

It must be emphasized that in most radon measurements the 220thoron contribution is generally neglected because it is more difficult to measure accurately with common instrumentation, because there is a difficulty in obtaining representative mean values due to as yet poorly understood short and long-term concentration fluctuations, and because of its shorter half-life (about 55 seconds). However, what has been established is that thoron is ubiquitous in our environment and typically contributes to about 25% of the total signal. In some places it may be present in much higher concentrations than radon. Because its presence affects the radon measurement it also affects the dose evaluation.

The conventional wisdom to date concludes that the presence and concentrations of radon and thoron in houses are due to three principal factors, namely (a) lack of ventilation, (b) radon leaking from soil, and (c) radon emanating from building materials. However, there are a number of other very significant factors that directly affect the accurate and/or consistent measurement of radon and thoron. These include:

1. Being gas (and heavy) they are highly mobile because they flow and mix easily with air
2. The concentration and distribution in soil beneath and around a dwelling is often highly variable
3. The concentrations are related to variations in the composition of the underlying rock strata and rock fragments within the soil
4. Differences in the porosity and density of the soil (and even soil type)
5. Variations in the short- and long-term groundwater movement
6. Location and altitude of the dwelling, e.g. near substantial water sources
7. Height within a building and height above the ground level
8. Meteorological fluctuations, and even
9. Diurnal variations

Seismicity may also be a contributing factor to the radon gas flux in some areas.

Given these imposing collective factors how much reliance can be placed on the accuracy of domestic "radon" readings carried out by untrained people with $5-$10 radon meters whose activated films require mailing to a laboratory within a short time? The frenzy to purchase radon meters in Houston and other parts of the US as a result of the initial radio announcement is similar in a way to a clever and successful media stunt in Australia to ban the often deadly chemical dihydrogen monoxide. Dihydrogen monoxide can be highly dangerous in its natural form and is a common component of many dangerous toxins. It is responsible for thousands of deaths each year.

To put this radiation debate into some sort of perspective it is relevant to provide some general information on our radioactive environment (from the National Radiological Protection Board):

• 200 million gamma rays pass through the average human every hour
• 15 million potassium-40 and 7000 natural uranium atoms disintegrate inside the average human every hour
• 30,000 atoms disintegrate every hour in our lungs from the air we breathe giving off mainly α and β particles
• 100,000 cosmic ray neutrons and 400,000 secondary cosmic rays penetrate the average human every hour
• Every plane flight contributes a significant ‘hit’ of cosmic radiation to the body (check out the activity of a Geiger counter on a plane)

Also of relevance to this debate of naturally occurring radiation is the fact that radiological/epidemiological effects that can be directly attributable to continuous low level radiation are poorly understood because of the infinite other possible interactions in our complex environment and the intrinsic chemical and physical properties of the numerous relative daughter products of the 238U, 235U, and 232Th decay chains.

It may be of interest to potential consumers of stone that certain varieties of engineered stone (quartz surfaces) consist of a framework of crushed granite particles. Boasting around 93% (by weight) of framework particles, petrographic analyses revealed the presence of the usual radioactive accessories, such as zircon, allanite, sphene and apatite, as well secondary clays and micas. If any studies are to be undertaken they should also include the altered and weathered brownish, granite-based synthetic products which would be expected to yield similar results to most common granites. Any testing authority must be aware that it is important to avoid being presented with only the relatively "clean" quartz pebble based engineered stone because of the inherently low level of radioactivity in quartz.

The synthetic surfaces industry has had a history of advertising misinformation verbally and in their written presentations regarding their own products and their natural stone competitors. An article written in 2005 entitled "Some aspects of engineered stone that are not usually advertised" could not get published in its long version by stone magazines because of the ostensibly potential litigious effects but, more honestly, the potential damage to the hip pocket in terms of advertising. The link below might be of interest. Some aspects might now be out of date because of new (Asian) producers and the inability to obtain samples from other suppliers – especially from the US. A condensed version of the article was released by the MIA as a newsletter. Although it faithfully portrayed the gist of the paper most of the details were omitted.

Another aspect that might be of interest is the movement in about 1985 in Australia to undertake studies of radiation levels and associated radon/thoron gas emissions from both domestic and imported stone. This follows the reported monitoring of stone for these products in Sweden and Canada. The movement fell through because of funding difficulties, because it was deemed unimportant in terms of health issues, and because there was a perception that it might adversely affect a small and fragile, domestic granite industry.

A final note is necessary on the rather ludicrous notion that regular maintenance of granite kitchen countertops (including sealing the surface annually) will in some way influence the radiation flux and radon emissions from that surface.

As for the ill-conceived and impractical idea on the testing of every slab, tile and block of stone that enters into the US and is produced in the US clearly the Rice University particle physicist has little knowledge of the diverse stone industry. All slate would require testing, all sandstone products (because of the possibility of thin beds of natural heavy mineral concentrations), all sand used for construction, the gypsum used to make plaster for walls and ceilings, and every aggregate source that uses its product to make concrete. In almost all dwellings these other construction products far exceed the amount of granite that is used.

A commonly encountered and quite serious problem these days is the function of the testing laboratory and laboratory personnel not only in the testing but also in the interpretation of the data. Laboratories (and that includes many university departments where instrumental testing is carried out) employ technicians who are trained in most aspects of instrumentation and in the conduction of certain tests. They are generally not trained in the understanding of the materials they are testing nor in the interpretation or significance of the results. Instrumentation specialists should limit themselves to the understanding of the instruments that they are using for testing and engage a suitably qualified scientist to assess and interpret the results, even when the testing appears to be straight-forward.

Dr. H. D. Hensel
(HENSEL GEOSCIENCES)
4th June, 2008

I suspect that there will be some when and if reliable testing is done.
Sweden and Canada had sufficient concerns 20 odd years ago

Had one friend call asking me if he should get some "hot" granite and do away with the microwave, and another who asked me if he put a steak on it the night before would it be cooked enough for his dinner

Oh geez..... there goes the geiger counter production people's Christmas bonus!

It seems to me that the relevant question for a community like this one is "If I'm concerned about it, how do I find out about my particular granite (that I already have, or am considering) is one of the "some"?

What would be your answer to that?

Could you please translate that in say about one or two sentences

Use whatever stone you like. There are so many other sources of stronger radiation that we come into contact with on a daily basis that it would astound you.

Very interesting observations... I have beleived all along
that this entire issue was not brought up in the interest
of public safety, but rather for the enhancement of profits
for products other than Natural Stone.

Many of your comments support my belief on this "issue" which
in my opinion is more of a "non-issue"...

This "issue" is clearly a scare tactic being used by people that
either can't - or won't - work with Natural Stone, so they
decide to twist data to fit their agenda... it's pretty
easy for me to see this...

I'd love to read your comments on what you think a safe stone is -
arguably, there probably is radiation comming from everything....
pretty much - right?

I am not a science guy like you,
I am just a Fabricator of Natural & Engineered Stone, so IF
there is a risk - I'd like to know about it - but from a credible
source....

Can you summarize on your OP statement above???

Best Regards

kevin

Kevin M. Padden
Fabricator, Trainer & Consultant to the Natural Stone Industry
www.azschoolofrock.com
www.naturalstone101.com

ALMOST all granite is safe enough to be used, in my opinion. That "ALMOST" bothers me. I wish that people who compete with granite would make more realistic and responsible claims about it, and I wish the people who sell granite would do the same. A small fraction, but a large absolute number (very large if it includes my friend or family) of granite owners may have a real risk they don't know about, and hardly anybody seems genuinely interested in actually dealing with that.

Bravo on your lengthy geology lesson. It should put many aspects of the debate into perspective.

One reservation I have is your implication that the Rice "particle physicist" should not be measuring radioactivity of "granite" counters (or at least not be publishing the measurement results). I found his information helpful, even if some draw improper conclusions from the sparse data. If one always avoided actions from which improper conclusions could be drawn, science would grind to a stop.

kas

here lies clax66
he/she said blanco romano we said nix
so now the poor fool lies
six feet under, radioactive food for flies

in memory, your tombstone will be made of blanco romano (and don't expect me to visit your grave ya radioactive fool!) :oP heh heh

I understand that the Fair Trading laws of the US now require that each stone variety that is sold by a certain name be properly identified. If this is indeed being carried out scientifically it would identify certain types of stone that would need to be looked at in greater detail. This gets over the problem of having to test every slab of every stone which is a totally impractical solution.

It is not a difficult task to determine whether a stone variety belongs to the huge "benign" group that does not require any further testing or belongs to the small group that is "sus" and requires further examination. It simply requires a macroscopic and binocular microscope examination of a polished tile together with a petrographic analysis of a thin-section of that stone (a sliver ground to exactly 30 microns thickness) by a stone specialist or stone scientist with a high level of expertise in petrography, petrology and building stone.

Once a "sus" stone variety has been identified it should be put on a national register and a more detailed investigation should be mandatory before it can be sold to the general public. The wholesaler/importer of the "sus" variety (keeping in mind that these constitute a very small number of stones) would need to present a certificate to a consumer stating that both a geological and a radiometric analysis has been carried out on the stone in general by an appropriately qualified specialist in this field. Where a fabricator by-passes the wholesaler or importer and imports directly from overseas or purchases the stone from local processors he/she would be similarly responsible. If the potential consumer remains intent on purchasing and installing slabs of the "sus" stone and remains concerned it should then be up to the consumer to fund and organize a more detailed radiometric analysis of those slabs to determine the general level of radioactivity and the identification and distribution of any hot spots.

Do I hear cries of who is going to fund this? If the American public is seriously concerned about this issue and want some form of regulation start lobbying your senators or apply for some of the enormous amounts of grant money that is available for research in the US for worthwhile projects.

Kevin M. Padden, do you also "share every homeowners concern that there is a possibility that some stones could have levels of radioactivity (and therefore possible radon emission) greater than the acceptable levels set by your EPA"? Are you on board with a testing and labeling program as described?

IF there is radiation coming from Natural Stone that will be harmful..
of course I am all for testing to make sure that we
(Fabricators and suppliers) are not shipping product
that could be harmful to consumers.

I am also "already there" with supplying MSDS forms
for every product that gets used in the Fabrication process...
already doin that...

HOWEVER

Like I said, I'm not a science guy -
I am just a Fabricator...
I would like to use data from a "credible" source -
NOT a biased source...
that's all I am saying...
I think that this Dr Hans has some good stuff
(although I'd like to see more condensed statements,
but that's just me... HA!)

HERE'S MY BOTTOM LINE ON THIS:

IF the levels of radiation in Natural Stone
are such that it could pose a risk to consumers,
then I am totally in favor of testing,
BUT....., Until a CREDIBLE & OBJECTIVE organization -
NOT aligned with ANY trade organization -
can PROVE that there REALLY is a risk -
I'll consider this a "non-issue"...

I am NOT going to give this any credibilty
just because some guy that would rather do
solid surface everyday of the week and twice
on Sundays wants to hurt the Natural Stone industry
(I think you know who I am talking about...) any way he can
by talking about radon & radiation and taking any data
he can and spinning it to fit his agenda....no matter how
inaccurate it may be.....

It would be just as crazy if I started
banging the drum every day and was continually putting
out information (however twisted) that solid surface
& engineered stone burns and breathing the fumes will
kill you.... In reality,
I don't know if it's true or not,
and.......
just because I don't work with a particular product
does not mean I have to SLAM it.....

that's just my opinion...

Randy - you have added alot of good sense
and balance to this discussion
both here and on the other forums that we both go to....

You have my respect

kevin

Kevin M. Padden
Fabricator, Trainer & Consultant to the Natural Stone Industry
www.azschoolofrock.com
www.naturalstone101.com

EXACTLY.

I agree with Bill V et al. -studies done on behalf of stakeholders are suspect.

But life is too short, I could be hit by a bus, or a tree, or eaten by a shark, or be bored to death in a meeting, so I choose granite-What a way to go!!

Glowing happily in the dark. Sue

That sounds okay on the surface, and I do understand why there are concerns about "studies" that are funded by stakeholders. The question I'm left with is, who is this CREDIBLE & OBJECTIVE organization? Who could they be? What standard do you have for them to PROVE it?

I'm not questioning your sincerity when you say it, but it leaves me with the feeling that everything that could possibly be published will fail one of your capitalized criteria, at least in your points of view.

Meanwhile, there is a real question that deserves a real answer, whatever it may be. I tend to think it is a public health question, and maybe the right place to get started on it is some University department with some funds and some grad students who could run with it. Maybe I'm naive, but to paraphrase Mike Myers in his new movie, "This ain't rocket surgery". Somebody with the right training and the right equipment should be able to produce a serviceable answer without too much to-do.

Again Bro, I have to tell you - I am not a science dude..
I am a Fabricator that's been cutting grinding polishing and
setting tile and stone for 30 years now...

I agree with you my man... and as far as the credible source stuff
goes -
I don't have the answer...
although i'd LIKE to THINK
that my GOVERNMENT has my back,
The 15 years I spent in the US Army
can tell me otherwise (at times)... HA!!!

No, Seriously dude - GOD BLESS the US ARMY!!!
I mean that... seriously... myself as a VietNam Era Veteran

To answer your question, I'd like to see an organization
that does NOT stand to benefit one way or another FINANCIALLY -
The ONLY benefit would be telling the whole TRUTH so that
us as Fabricators can Know, and the consumers will know the
TRUTH....

If it comes out that a number of Granite species have an elevated
level of radiation coming out of them - so be it - let us know what they are, so we can avoid using them.

IF, though... it comes out that the radiation thingy is negligable (sp?).....
so be THAT too.....

you said this:
"Somebody with the right training
and the right equipment
should be able to produce
a serviceable answer without too much to-do"......

I agree with you Bro...

Your Friend

kevin

Kevin M. Padden
Fabricator, Trainer & Consultant to the Natural Stone Industry
www.azschoolofrock.com
www.naturalstone101.com

In this situation it is necessary to take in a broader picture. Testing on a small scale gets you nowhere in the end. It's akin to a pots and pans manufacturer who is making something dodgy and gets found out by some consumers. You don't go to every Walmart or other retail outlets and test the products - you need to go back to the importers and distributors, establish what the problem is and then take action. This is why your Fair Trading legislations need to be of substance.

Your post seems to assume that the question of whether or not there are "dodgy" stone countertops is a settled one. Such countertops (meaning, sufficiently radioactive/radon-emitting to be a health threat) either actually do already exist in homes and for sale as new tops today, or the likelihood is so great that we should assume it to be the case.

Like Kevin, I am not a scientist. As a consumer who tries to be informed, right now I think I'd be most reassured by some measurement and certification of my chosen granite slab, as opposed to whatever reassurance would come from the knowledge that the U.S. has some regulatory arrangements with my slab's claimed country of origin. Right now, when I walk into a granite yard, different slabs have different names and come from different places (or claim to), and I don't have any way that I know of to evaluate them as a group. So, my first (insufficiently considered) opinion is that I'd like to see something to give me confidence about MY slab.

I'm understanding you to say that we should have governmental regulation and enforceable international agreements such that we could all be confident that any slab for sale in the USA would fit some official definition of "safe". Do I have that right?

It seems to me, if somebody brings an object roughly the same size as my countertops into my house, and the object is wrapped in opaque paper so that I can't tell what it is, and that object generally measures 137 uR/hr on a meter that tests gamma radiation, then I don't want that object to stay in my house forever. What difference does it make what's under the paper? Shouldn't I just be concerned about the radiation?

If I may, I'd like to go through your post paragraph by paragraph so that others can mark the place in the debate. Your arguments contain many instances of Argumentum ad ignorantiam, Converse accident, Amphiboly, Non sequitur, and Tu quoque arguments. An experienced debtor will easily poke holes in your positions. The rest of you, look em up....
First off you wrote:
"In all these responses there was one very conspicuous void – that of a qualified geoscientist who has the scientific and technical background and who has been intimately involved in the stone industry for many years. "

In light of that, how does your stone expertise allow you to measure the health risks of a very hot granite countertop? Would not someone who has been "intimately involved" in the stone industry bring along a strong bias for those who have paid his salary for many years? Would not a Nuclear Physicts like Dr. Llope, who is relying upon his yearly radiation safety training to determine the health risks of the hot granite countertops, be more unbiased? Not attacking your reputation, just asking you to step back and look at this from the eyes of a consumer. Does your "intimate" relationship with the stone industry barr you from claiming lack of bias or standing to gain personally from knocking down this discussion?

Then you wrote:

"The issue of radiation in granite and the emission of radon from the granite kitchen countertops has been raised a number of times over the last 15 years and there seems little doubt that the issue this time was also prompted by the quartz surfaces and plastic industry who are continually attempting to undermine the qualities/virtues of natural stone by misinformation crusades. "

Could a consumer also look at your participation here as another "misinformation crusade"?

Then you wrote:

"By publicly suggesting that kitchen countertops might be radioactive invariably elicits a degree of concern and panic among uninformed consumers. Consumers have neither the means to determine the radiation levels in their homes nor any avenue by which they can extract such information from the fabricators or wholesalers of stone. However, they can purchase relatively cheap radon meters and undertake a crude investigation of the radon gas levels in various parts of their homes."

Are you saying by the first sentence that should a hot granite countertop be discovered (in this case, one of the previous homeowners developed a brain tumor), that this information should be withheld from consumers? Do they not have the right to know of any potential risks? Should we rely upon the stone industry to take care of these problems?

Your second sentence, how refreshing to read that the fabricators and wholesalers of natural stone are not able to inform consumers of the radiation levels in their products. From one with an "intimate" relationship with the stone industry, can you tell me why this is the case? Why are stones not tested for safety prior to bringing them to market? One would think that this would be a nice business opportunity for your company?

Next you wrote:

"Before addressing some of the individual issues let me emphasize that the accurate determinations of radioactivity in a stone, the radiation flux and the concentration of radon in the air are not straight-forward and are prone to large errors and subsequent misinterpretations. The values can also be manipulated and grossly overstated."

I agree with you completely. However, would you also address the issue of whether or not the values can also be grossly understated? Is not the MIA position of only 5 to 10 uR/hr radiation from granite grossly understated?

Next you wrote:

"One of the most significant misinformed statements that can be made in this debate is to tar all granites with the same brush. There are about 2700 "granites" on the world market coming from dozens of countries. In the international stone trade the term "granite" is used very loosely. It is essentially a mercantile term embracing all those stones that have an igneous mode of formation, a high degree of crystallinity, and interlocking textures which resulted from an elevated thermal history that has approached or exceeded the melting point of the rock. The term includes "black granites", true granites, the "general" granites, pearl granites, pegmatites, anorthosites, charnockites, gneisses, migmatites and a number of exotic varieties.

For example, the term "black granite" often causes some consternation among purists, academics and those not intimately associated with the stone industry. The two terms, in the strict sense, are contradictory. Granites in the broad sense are dominated mineralogically by subequal amounts of quartz, alkali feldspar, and plagioclase feldspar, which commonly collectively comprise around 90% of the rock and give them a light colour. Relatively small amounts of dark-coloured biotite and/or amphibole provide additional descriptors (e.g. biotite granite). Black granites usually contain little or no quartz, rare alkali feldspar, and typically much more-calcic plagioclase feldspar. Biotite and amphibole are usually present in only small to trace quantities; instead, calcic pyroxene and, less-commonly, Ca-poor pyroxene dominate the ferromagnesian mineral assemblage. Apart from these fundamental mineralogical differences there are many other gross differences between "true" granites and "black" granites, and indeed between any of the broad categories named above."

Excellent information, but perhaps you wrote this for the Regency Web site on granite some time back, it seems to be copied and pasted directly from that page, with the exceptionof the first few lines. Excellent example for the green movement, save those 1 and 0's. Digital waste is growing....

But I digress.

Now, your first line claims that all granites are being tarred with the same brush. Yet Dr. Llope was on record specifically not revealing the name of the stone in the story, to prevent the stone from getting a bad reputation. Nor has anyone to my knowledge ever said that all granite were bad, indeed the consensus from the Chinese scientific community seems to be that only 20% of the stones tested fail the Class A standard. That is hardly "tarring" all granite, is it? Others like myself hold the position that less than 20% are of concern.

Would you care to defend that claim, that all stones are being "tarred with the same brush"?

Perhaps the passion to defend your product lead to over exuberance on that one sentence?

Next you wrote:

"Basically every occurrence of granite (used from here in the broad sense of the word) is unique. The uniqueness stems back to its mode of formation including the history of the original source material, the chemistry of the magma, the oxidation state, temperature, and both the intrusive and post-intrusive histories of the magma. Once intruded and emplaced numerous geological and chemical processes can subsequently modify the original composition, mineralogy and texture of every granite. Much of the modification is a function of temperature and fluid activity, both of which have naturally occurring gradients. These variations lead to a range of different stones even over the scale of tens of meters. Geologically, young granites tend to be fairly simple mineralogically and texturally compared to many granites that are an order of magnitude older. It is worth noting that most unusual or "different" granitic rock types available on the world market (in terms of colour and texture) are at least Proterozoic or older (generally older than 1.5 billion years)."

Excellent, the first sentence shows the need to test ALL slabs of granite. I agree that a few meters will lead to a different variation. I have seen sister slabs in bundles vary remarkably from other slabs, despite being less than 2" away when sawn from the stone block. I appreciate the info on the young granite, perhaps that is why we are finding that stones like Uba Tuba are more consistent in radioactive content. I would like to mark your statement that says the most unusual or "different" granites are indeed of the older variety.

Will you concede that due to the variation, all slabs would need testing?

Next :

"The idea of conducting tests on a single piece of granite countertop that might have been quarried several years ago from an area in the quarry or other location long abandoned is naοve at best. A value obtained from a test done on one slab does not necessarily become a characteristic of that granite. If a testing regime for radiation on a particular granite type is to ever be conceived it must be done with a rigorous geoscientific control of the granite pluton, its mineralogy and chemistry, and its setting. Without this fundamental geological information the value of any testing is next to meaningless. Even then, any testing that is done might still only be valid for that small section of the quarry."

Again you make the case for testing each and every single slab, or each block at the minimum. However, you must admit that testing the slab about to go into a new granite countertop would eliminate any hot spots or hot granites from being used, must you not? And, as in this Houston case, a homeowner may well have developed a brain tumor partially because of the radiation from this unusually hot granite countertop, would not a homeowner benefit from knowing the level of radiation from THEIR granite countertop? I do agree that that doesn't mean that the neighbors granite of the same type is guaranteed to be unsafe, but would you say that it means that that neighbor's granite countertop should be tested?

The rest of that paragraph has me thinking that your opinion is that unless rigorous geoscientific control of the testing of the granite slabs is done, no granite can be proven safe for use. If so, I applaud you for your honesty.

Next:

"Another elementary omission from the debate has been any discussion of the mineralogy of the different granites and how this has a bearing on the radiation issues. Reference was made to uranium ore being the cause of elevated readings of radioactivity. Although there was no intention to mislead the suggestion that there is uranium "ore" in a commercially available granite kitchentop is nonsense. If the granite body contained uranium ore it would not be a commercial dimension stone operation. Elevated concentrations of uranium in granite sufficient to be termed "ore" result in very unusual colours and textures (such as those at Roxby Downs, South Australia) in which the radiation has resulted in feldspar that has become almost black."
Dr Llope posted a Gamma spectrometry graph of one of his granite samples, it showed Uranium, Thorium, and Potassium as being the sources of radioactivity of the stone. Are you saying that none of these elements are present in Uranium ore? I've seen the license maps of both granite quarries and Uranium mines, they overlap in many cases.... From reading Uranium mine reports, they are mining as low as 80 ppm Uranium ores these days, stating that 25 x background levels are particularly lucrative for mining. They mention 80 to 100 uR/hr granite being a cash cow, although they don't specifically say what type of radiation, they mention Gamma Spectrometry which leads me to believe they are talking about Gamma only. Please correct me if I am wrong.

http://youtube.com/user/TCSRock78

If one is to believe their eyes, some of these granite slabs waiting to be sold for granite countertops, are way over that 80 to 100 uR/hr floor for economically Uranium mining. Would it not follow that these slabs contain "Uranium ore" in at least small quanities? Were you to see a slab that emitted over 100 uR/hr consistently throughout the majority of the slab, would you say that that slab contained Uranium ore?

Your last sentence, about the radiation resulting in very unusual colors and textures, and that the feldspar has become almost black. Is not the goal of new mines to bring to market those very same "very unusual colors and textures"? You mention of the black color being indicative of high levels of Uranium is exactly what we are finding in granite slabs in slab yards in our area. More on this issue a bit later.

Next:

"High localized readings of radioactivity in granite are the result of several possible geological processes. One is from the presence of sparsely scattered accessory minerals such as zircon, allanite, sphene and monazite that are intrinsic to granites. These minerals incorporate small to trace amounts of lanthanide and actinide elements into their lattices. Gradually, the uranium and thorium in these typically sparse minerals decay by various mechanisms and release tiny amounts of radon and thoron. Minerals that constitute uranium ore (mainly pitchblende, uraninite, torbernite) are exceedingly rare in commercial granites"

This site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monazite

says that monazite contains Uranium as well as Lanthanide, but also Thorium and Cerium which also has many radioactive isotopes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerium

Allanite has been reported to have Thorium content and other radioactive elements present, indeed the a halo of radiation damage in the minerals immediately adjacent has been reported as you brought up on other minerals.

It seems that you might be parsing words here, saying that zircon, allanite, sphene and monazite contain only trace amounts of lanthanide and actinide, then bringing up their Uranium and Thorium content as an afterthought. Perhaps it is not coyness, but the scientist in you being specific, yet I find it less than reassuring. Could you not just say that they all contained Uranuim and Thorium and be done with it? And if they are currently mining granite at 80 ppm of Uranium, would it not be safe to say that some granites contain Uranium ore or that some Uranium ores are found in granite?

Next:

"In both these geological situations there is always the possibility for some localized concentration of the accessory minerals. In particular, the way some granites are formed involves the natural concentration of restite (residual) minerals. Where this occurs there could be localized elevated readings of radioactivity. Contamination from and/or partial assimilation of argillaceous country rock (such as mudstone and shale) by the intrusive granite as it forces its way to higher crustal levels can also lead to localized higher readings."

Why not just agree with us that there are indeed hot spots in granite? I could care less how they got there, I just want them cut out.

Next:

"Uranium minerals can also form as a result of fluid activity within or associated with a granite body. It can happen during the formation of the granite, during emplacement of the granite or post-emplacement from external sources. High-level felsic granites may generate fluid activity that is able to scavenge uranium and thorium from the breakdown of some of the actinide-bearing accessory minerals and/or their hosts. Under certain conditions these fluids can permeate through the granite (mainly along grain boundaries) causing alteration of the feldspar to mostly kaolinitic clay and sericitic mica. The uranium and thorium can be adsorbed onto the clays and mica. As emphasized above, where such a geological process can be readily identified, the resulting granite type has become structurally weakened and is no longer a viable commodity for construction or use in the countertop industry. "

I agree that the radioactivity can run in veins and we have found that the hottest spots are very weak, many have been repaired at the slab processing plant, resined so that the slab can be sold. One would not know these spots were epoxied in, they look just like the other black spots. One of the dangers of these hot spots is their fragility that you mentioned. Some consumers have remarked on "grainy" residue on new tops and even old tops that a thick sealing can stop, could well be that these tiny particles are indeed the weakened minerals you mentioned.

On that note, the practice of resining and mesh backing many stones that are otherwise too weak to process and transport. Certainly these processes that add plenty to the costs of production are used to bring to market stones that you say are " structurally weakened and is no longer a viable commodity for construction or use in the countertop industry ". And add your comments on the unusual colors and textures, and BANG, Bob's your uncle. Premium slabs for sale...

Would you not concede that resining and mesh backed stones would be indicative of a "structurally weakened" granite and that after resining and mesh backing, that stone can be brought to market profitably for the granite countertop industry?

Next you write:

"High levels of fluid can also result in some localized geological "oddities" such as pegmatite. The huge grainsize and spectacular textures are in high demand because of their rarity. Their formation can involve the concentration of rare elements which either become incorporated into the structures of other minerals or, where sufficient, can form large and exotic minerals. If the fluids have scavenged some lanthanide and actinide elements there is a likelihood of creating sparsely occurring minerals containing elevated concentrations that lead to spikes in the level of radioactivity. "

Dr Hans, respectfully, you make our case that the higher cost granites are the most risky. And can we stop with the "lanthanide and actinide" and just use Uranium and Thorium? Incidently, how can you be so sure they are "sparse"? Are not most Uranium deposits leached from granite, as your mention of "high levels of fluid" seem to indicate? And again, the Pegmatites are in great demand for their uniqueness, thus the high prices.

Next:

"The fact that there is a localized high concentration of uranium sufficient to mine in proximity to a granite does not mean that the granite must also be high in uranium."

Would you not agree that the proximity of a Uranium mine to a granite quarry does not mean that the granite does not have high levels of Uranium as well? We both know that they core drill the sites to map out the concentrations. Is it not feasible that a dyke of these same pegmatites that you said were in such high demand might well surface in the granite quarry?

Then:

"If you are concerned at all about radioactivity and radon in your home coming from your kitchen countertop think BLACK."

I agree 100%, most of the black types of "granite" are low level.

Next:

"Because the majority of radiation emitted from felsic granites is from potassium (40K) and not from the uranium (238U) series as suggested by the physics researcher (commonly by a factor of 10) it follows that granites with an abundance of alkali feldspar are generally more radioactive and greater radon emitters than granites poor in this mineral. "

I agree again that much of the radiation is coming from the Potassium (40K), but according to this site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium#Isotopes

Potassium 40K decays by Beta decay, Positron emission, and electron capture, no where do I see any mention of Gamma being produced. So, if a scintillator is used to measure the radiation, and by design that scintillator can only measure Gamma not Beta, any Beta radiation is not counted any way. All the radiation is Gamma, is it not? How is it relevant that Potassium accounts for most of the radiation when we aren't counting that type of radiation? This seems to be a red herring thrown in to confuse the readers, perhaps it is not....

Next:

"It must be emphasized that in most radon measurements the 220thoron contribution is generally neglected because it is more difficult to measure accurately with common instrumentation, because there is a difficulty in obtaining representative mean values due to as yet poorly understood short and long-term concentration fluctuations, and because of its shorter half-life (about 55 seconds). However, what has been established is that thoron is ubiquitous in our environment and typically contributes to about 25% of the total signal. In some places it may be present in much higher concentrations than radon. Because its presence affects the radon measurement it also affects the dose evaluation.

I agree that Thoron can interfere with Radon measurements, but due to it's short 55 second half life, would you not agree that there is a very strong likely hood of breathing quantities of Thoron and having it decay inside your lungs while using a granite countertop? The half life doesn't mean it is all gone at 55 seconds, only have of it is gone. At 110 seconds, 25% is still undecayed, at 165 seconds, 12.5 % is still undecayed, at 220 seconds 6.25% is still undecayed, and so on. I argue that the greatest risk of a granite countertop is using it, not the effect it has on the rest of the homes Radon levels. The Houston report validated this, the rest of the home was al low levels, but the kitchen had over 14 pCi/L of Radon present!

And since the Thoron and Radon is continually produced, there is a never ending supply of these gases for the occupants of the home to breath....

Would you not agree that standing over a countertop, or a child doing homework or coloring a color book is at more risk from breathing the Radon or Thoron than Dad in his easy chair in the living room? Just your personal opinion, as you are not a health physicist.

Next:

"Given these imposing collective factors how much reliance can be placed on the accuracy of domestic "radon" readings carried out by untrained people with $5-$10 radon meters whose activated films require mailing to a laboratory within a short time? The frenzy to purchase radon meters in Houston and other parts of the US as a result of the initial radio announcement is similar in a way to a clever and successful media stunt in Australia to ban the often deadly chemical dihydrogen monoxide. Dihydrogen monoxide can be highly dangerous in its natural form and is a common component of many dangerous toxins. It is responsible for thousands of deaths each year. "

So, if the public can not depend on their fabricators, the wholesalers or the MIA to test their granite, are you suggesting that they just not test their tops? Those cheap Radon meters are usually sponsored by the state Radon office, so someone must have some faith in their accuracy, indeed those tests must meet EPA standards for accuracy. It sounds more like you are afraid of what the $5.00 meters might find.

Save the Dihydrogen monoxide, BS. Other stoners have used that one. Water.....

Then:

"• 30,000 atoms disintegrate every hour in our lungs from the air we breathe giving off mainly α and β particles"

You are referring to the usual Radon in the air we breath. Are you advocating we add more? I understand that a quart of air at 1 pCi/L will have 12,000 atom decays per hour. Your figure is much higher. Would you mind if I use that figure and quote you on it? Since you are not a health physicist, you might not be up to date on the latest info, but would you comment on the bystander effect of a single Alpha or Beta particle on lung tissue?

"Also of relevance to this debate of naturally occurring radiation is the fact that radiological/epidemiological effects that can be directly attributable to continuous low level radiation are poorly understood because of the infinite other possible interactions in our complex environment and the intrinsic chemical and physical properties of the numerous relative daughter products of the 238U, 235U, and 232Th decay chains. "

Are you saying that the ALARA doctrine, As Low As Reasonably Achievable, is to be dismissed as sound advice? Did not BEIR and the ICRP endorse this doctrine? Since we can't be 100% certain, can you explain why we would err on the side of danger, not safety? Would it not be better to purchase a lower level stone than a higher level stone? Doesn't that require testing of every slab?

Next:

"It may be of interest to potential consumers of stone that certain varieties of engineered stone (quartz surfaces) consist of a framework of crushed granite particles. Boasting around 93% (by weight) of framework particles, petrographic analysis revealed the presence of the usual radioactive accessories, such as zircon, allanite, sphene and apatite, as well secondary clays and micas. If any studies are to be undertaken they should also include the altered and weathered brownish, granite-based synthetic products which would be expected to yield similar results to most common granites. Any testing authority must be aware that it is important to avoid being presented with only the relatively "clean" quartz pebble based engineered stone because of the inherently low level of radioactivity in quartz. "

I agree 100% that quartz should be tested as well. In fact, I sent both Staron and Hanstone quartz samples, brand new expensive sample boxes, to Dr. Llope for that purpose. I can tell you that it is a fools errand but to head off those like yourself that will cast suspicions on Quartz materials to take the heat off your product. I have measured quarz, entire lines of three companies so far. At background levels or slightly above, maybe 1 to 2 uR/hr, so after you subtract the background radiation from the test result, zero to 1 or 2 uR/hr radiation. A factor of 4 times less radiation than the quietest granite we have found to date. I tested an entire warehouse of Hanstone. Not a single beep, not a single instance of radiation over background. In fact, there was less radiation present than in the Importers offices.

Attempting to cast suspicion on quartz is desperate behavior, completely out of tune with the rest of your post. I would ask that you retract that attack unless you have proof to back your suspicions. If though, you have proof of engineered stones that do contain radioactivity, I would also ask to be given their names so I can procure samples and send them for testing.

All the bad products must be taken off the market no matter who sells them.....

Oh, and this one....:

"The synthetic surfaces industry has had a history of advertising misinformation verbally and in their written presentations regarding their own products and their natural stone competitors. An article written in 2005 entitled "Some aspects of engineered stone that are not usually advertised" could not get published in its long version by stone magazines because of the ostensibly potential litigious effects but, more honestly, the potential damage to the hip pocket in terms of advertising. The link below might be of interest. Some aspects might now be out of date because of new (Asian) producers and the inability to obtain samples from other suppliers – especially from the US. A condensed version of the article was released by the MIA as a newsletter. Although it faithfully portrayed the gist of the paper most of the details were omitted."

Pray tell, Dr. Hans, who wrote that White Paper?

In that article, which you say faithfully portrayed the gist, there are several problems. For starters, you mix engineered stone with Quartz, while not pointing out that a quartz based product has only quartz as the filler, not the marble that you rightly claim degrades the marble based engineered stones performance. Will you admit that lumping the two while knowing that quartz specifically does not have marble content is misleading? Seems quite a slip for such a smart guy. Then again, if Marble is so bad, why did you help The Marble Institute with that white paper?

Next you claim in that paper that "engineered stone" has radioactivity. Again, please separate Quartz from marble based engineered stone and provide proof that the marble based products contain radioactivity. Were you to do so, expect the level you show to be the new level at which granite should be rejected as being too high.

Your next claim in that white paper is that quartz claims 1610 degrees heat resistance. Clever, or maybe not. It is obvious that you are referring to the quartz content, not the resin content.

Here is the Silestone MSDS sheet with no mention of the info you are claiming.

http://www.sterling-mfg.com/pdf/SilestoneMSDS.pdf

All quartz products are sold as not heat proof, but heat resistant. All carry warnings not to place hot pots directly on the surface. Granite on the other hand, claims heat resistance without saying that thermal expansion can crack the granite, if it doesn't crack from the cabinets settling. Completely unacceptable to bring up these red herrings while hiding your own products issues.

Notice the only hazardous substance listed? Quartz dust for its silica content. You saying that granite has none?

And it just gets better, don't it?

"Another aspect that might be of interest is the movement in about 1985 in Australia to undertake studies of radiation levels and associated radon/thoron gas emissions from both domestic and imported stone. This follows the reported monitoring of stone for these products in Sweden and Canada. The movement fell through because of funding difficulties, because it was deemed unimportant in terms of health issues, and because there was a perception that it might adversely affect a small and fragile, domestic granite industry. "

So, it seems that the funds couldn't be raised and there was a perception that testing might adversely affect the granite industry... Now we are getting somewhere.

Tell me this, Dr. Hans, are we to sacrifice safety for the financial interests of the stone industry? Since twenty years have passed, has not the industry had time to test products and bring only safe products to the market? Since we now know that high level radioactive granite is being sold, doesn't that knock the third leg off that 1985 argument?

And:

"A final note is necessary on the rather ludicrous notion that regular maintenance of granite kitchen countertops (including sealing the surface annually) will in some way influence the radiation flux and radon emissions from that surface."

Are you going to address that issue? One sealer company has approached us for help in testing just that, does sealing lock in the Alpha if nothing else. You position please?

And then:

"As for the ill-conceived and impractical idea on the testing of every slab, tile and block of stone that enters into the US and is produced in the US clearly the Rice University particle physicist has little knowledge of the diverse stone industry. All slate would require testing, all sandstone products (because of the possibility of thin beds of natural heavy mineral concentrations), all sand used for construction, the gypsum used to make plaster for walls and ceilings, and every aggregate source that uses its product to make concrete. In almost all dwellings these other construction products far exceed the amount of granite that is used."

Is your argument that because other products might be a problem, that your product shouldn't be tested? How many slate countertops are used? Sandstone? Is sand normally present inside homes? Is the Gypsum drywall normally coated with heavy paper and then coats of paint? Will these not block Alpha and most Beta? Aggregate in concrete, well that makes sense for a concrete countertop, but is the floor not covered in some manner with material that will block Alpha and most Beta? Even stained concrete floors have a coating....

In all dwellings, these other construction products aren't used in the raw form, sitting two feet away from your nose while being used, nor is the mass of a slate backsplash near the mass of a granite countertop.

And finally:

"A commonly encountered and quite serious problem these days is the function of the testing laboratory and laboratory personnel not only in the testing but also in the interpretation of the data. Laboratories (and that includes many university departments where instrumental testing is carried out) employ technicians who are trained in most aspects of instrumentation and in the conduction of certain tests. They are generally not trained in the understanding of the materials they are testing nor in the interpretation or significance of the results. Instrumentation specialists should limit themselves to the understanding of the instruments that they are using for testing and engage a suitably qualified scientist to assess and interpret the results, even when the testing appears to be straight-forward."

Using your own arguments above, would you not also admit that you personally do not have the qualifications to judge the health risks of the radiation in high level granites? Would it not be better to rely on EPA standards, ICRP standards, than your own guesses? Should not Geo chemists also be limited to their fields of expertise?

I appreciate your joining the fray. I would also think it would be a good idea to tell the readers of any paid work you have done for the MIA in the past, any white papers you might have written, and whether or not you are currently working on projects for the natural stone industry.

Oh, and about that white paper that got rejected by Surface Fabrication, who did you say wrote that article?

Respectfully,
Al Gerhart

Very interesting,
thanks,

Sue

Al, your bias is showing. Seems like it wasn't enough you got booted off here once already. I see you still try to bludgeon people with quantity over substance.

Al, does GW know you've finagled the membership system?

I hope that everybody here can avoid acting like a bunch of 2 year olds in a sandbox, the way all of us did a year ago.

Seriously.

Dr. Hans,
Are you not going to address the questions I raised?
I was hoping I had found someone as gregarious as I am.

Ahhh, Sue. How are you doing?

Excellent questions by the way. I wish others would learn from your example. However, I don't think I ever linked Radon to brain tumors, Alzheimer’s, Parkinsons's, lung cancer, and heart disease have been linked to Radon though. And it is the same Radon, just gets in your home easier, heck it is in your home already.

I don't think they can predict the latent period. I could be wrong.

But, anyway, I wasn't talking about Radon.

"And, as in this Houston case, a homeowner may well have developed a brain tumor partially because of the radiation from this unusually hot granite countertop, would not a homeowner benefit from knowing the level of radiation from THEIR granite countertop?"

As you can see, I said "may well have developed". I have never said that the cause was guaranteed to be the high level granite countertop. However, would you not agree that if radiation can cause cancer, would it not follow that one can not eliminate this brain tumor from being caused by this radiation from the granite countertop?

Let's play numbers, say there is a 10% chance that high radiation levels from a granite countertop can contribute to a brain tumor, are you as willing to allow this to go unstudied? One percent?

At what level should we say, "No testing, let the world prove our product is unsafe before we take precautions"?

Besides the Houston case, a stone importer's family member came down with the same type tumor and a granite salesman as well. Three cases, all had granite present, although we only know that two of the cases had high level granite present. Lots of cancer cases hitting granite fabricators if you look for them. One young lady, mother of three, came down with a very rare stomache cancer. Her husband is a installer. Right, no water used onsite for touch up or trimming to size, cooktops, you know the drill... A lot of dust in the guys car no doubt, plenty taken home in his clothing. Not saying it absolutely caused the cancer, but ingestion is warned about on the MSDS sheets that have been written for granite.

Three main risks, radiation, toxic, and of course, siliconosis from the dust. The first two cover the ingestion risks.

We are working on getting a dosimeter program going, so called "Tag and Release" program. Who says those Epidemiologists don't have senses of humor? That would put an end to the debate on whether or not granite countertops cause fabricators or homeowners undue health risks.

You know, the EPA changed their position last week on this issue, don't you? They are now recommending granite countertop owners test for Radon. There is a link on the SSA blog site.

Two things caused them to change their previous position of "Don't worry.", the Houston report, which they have available on their website, and someone sent them videos of scintillators recording very high levels of Gamma radiation from granite slabs being sold for kitchen countertops.

Who could that have been?

No, I am not advocating the testing of all building materials, although it would be a good idea. For instance, we won't use China Birch, darned stuff makes my eyes burn, can't be good for you. Stuff warps too.

What I am advocating is doing what the Chinese, the European Union, Canada, and dozens of other countries are doing, testing NORM, Normally Occuring Radioactive Materials. That would include the marble based engineered quartz that Dr Hans claims to be radioactive.

If he provides some proof, I'll bust their chops as hard as I would an unsafe granite. You guys know I can do it....

Yes, the removal of the Juparana Bordeaux (most call it just Bordeaux) removed the elevated Radon content of the home. And it was replaced with another granite.

As I have always said, it is just some granites, not all. But till we know which ones are bad, all must be tested.

You know, we have six meters out already, testing stone from Brazil to China, California to Florida. Some of my radiation forum buddies are helping as well, one found the Savanah slab in Washington state, 1030 uR/hr Gamma, the hottest slab found to date. It had a homeowners name on it, is most likely in her home by now.....

Incidently, we have a link to a radiation dose/risk calculator on one of the blog pages. Plug in the amount of the reading off the Scintillator, the number of hours you spend in the kitchen, and you have a health risk expressed in excess cancers per person exposed. That 1030 uR/hr slab had a 1 in 35 lifetime risk of developing cancer.

1030 ΅rem per hour at 780 hours per year for 70 years at public's risk factor of 0.05 per Sv:

Dose rate = 10.30 ΅Sv/h (1.030 mrem/h)
Annual dose rate = 8.034 mSv/a (803.4 mrem/a)
Cumulative dose = 562.4 mSv (56.24 rem)

Excess lifetime cancer risk = 2.812% (1 : 35.56)

The link below will take you to the calculator if interested.

http://solidsurfacealliance.org/blog/category/granite-radiation/

VrJames,
Thank you for the cordial welcome. Can we start over fresh?

Ah, the others, well it was to be expected. Jesus loves them anyway. By the way, I just registered as me and they approved it.

By the way, I did't get such a cold reception when I posted on stoneadvice.com a few weeks ago, told a consumer that their choice of stone seemed to be a good one for Radiation issues. They were really nice for a change...

On that note, we are able to help consumers who are looking to buy granite and want their choice tested. If we have a member with a meter in their area, a sample can be brought to that member to test for free, or the consumer can work out something for travel and time. We stay out of the details, just get the two together.

One importer in Abilene is testing everything if you live within five or six hours you might find one of their fabricators to buy tested stone from.

"If there is not a problem with radiation and granite, why not support the testing?"

Al

When you just make things up - to push your own pathetic cause - like me working for the MIA (it will be CIA next), me claiming that marble based engineered quartz (oxymoron) is radioactive, that I had something to do with some article rejected by Surface Fabrication (never heard of them), and that the 1030 uR/hr slab had a 1 in 35 lifetime risk of developing cancer I suggest that you might need to look at your own health.

Any reports about Biano Romano being a problem stone related to radiation or radon?

The radiation/radon issue doesn't scare me away from purchasing granite for my countertops but I think the industry itself would be able to deal with the issue by simply testing every slab that comes through their facility. Surely owners of warehouses and fabrication facilities don't want to create an environment where their employees are in danger. It seems like such a simple issue to solve.

Absolutely. Unnecessary studies are what jacks prices up in everything we touch these days. You can't go out in the sun. You shouldn't stay inside. Hell, maybe we should all just stop breathing-- we'll live longer!

Maybe it would be feasible for the originators (quarriers)to have some qualified testing going on ~ I don't know, as I'm not sure some of the claims made here have any merit. Like I've said in the past, some people are going to continually throw mud at a product and pray some of it sticks.

I think in order to have a worthwhile discussion on this matter, we'd need to separate those with vested interests & agendas from the knowledgable experts.

Al, if you haven't already, contact OSHA. I would imagine if there was any issue with stone/radiation, they would get involved - no?

kas

First, we can give full disclosure of our financial or other interests. (I'm in the insurance business, no connection to kitchens or countertops at all, remodeled my own kitchen last year, have Corian counters and stone floors, and really have no good reason for being involved in this discussion at all beyond the fact that my curiousity got piqued)

Second, we can all agree that some statements are objective and verifiable, so the identity of the person making them is really irrelevant. Interpretation or drawing conclusions from data is open to claims of bias, but some things are just facts. I know that some philosophers of science can talk about that for days, but for our informal purposes here, I hope we could agree on that. There is no need to point out the conflicts of interest on the part of somebody, if they say something that is objectively true and accurate.

bill_vincent-
"It all depends whether there are ulterior motives behind the questions asked."

My ulterior motive is ensuring the long-term health of my family. I try not to be too paranoid about this kind of stuff, but I do read a lot and keep abreast of the latest health topics for the sake of my kids.

paulines-
"I think in order to have a worthwhile discussion on this matter, we'd need to separate those with vested interests & agendas from the knowledgable experts."

How? Practically everyone that has contributed some kind of "specialized knowledge" has been questioned about their agendas. I understand there is a history (before my time here) with Al and his contributions are apparently suspect. However, I will say his screen name does not hide his bias whatsoever. At least you know where he stands.

drhans-
While I appreciate your expertise in this area and your contribution to this thread, your OP was way over my head. Could you just briefly summarize whether you think there is sufficient concern to test. I'm sorry if this is redundant.

"Sweden and Canada had sufficient concerns 20 odd years ago"
Why is it that Sweden is always way ahead of the US in these kinds of things?

"It's true what they say - a little knowledge pushing a wheelbarrow is a dangerous combination."
Never heard that one before.

From a cynical point of view, you know where my financial interests lay. However, think about this-- if I were just saying this for financial reasons, explain the REST of the time I spend in here, the bathrooms forum, and 7 or 8 other DIY forums. It doesn't put a dime in my pocket, and it's time that I COULD be spending on a financially productive endeavor.... like setting tile, instead of telling others HOW to do it. I've been around stone all my life, and I mean LITERALLY, all my life. My father and grandfather were both contractors, as well, and even as a kid I was on jobsites. As I say on my site, I set my first tile in 1967 when I was 10 years old, and my father was building our new house. Full time, I've been in the trade 28 years. Up until 1 1/2 years ago, I smoked menthol cigarettes since I was 17 years old. My mother died of lung cancer. If ANYONE would've come down with cancer as a result of being around granite, marble, slate, limestone, and so on and so forth, I'd be a prime candidate, and (knock on wood) nothing so far. This is why I have a hard time listening to this kind of crap, because to me, that's all it is. It's the most vile kind of propaganda, as far as I'm concerned.

There. Full disclosure. Anyone else have the balls? Al? luvmyguys?

You are very well known here, and for many excellent reasons you are very well liked and respected. I installed the stone (slate) floor in my house myself, and used info that you had posted in threads here to do it. I appreciate that, sincerely.

There is no need, I hope, to get into the unfortunate history of the granite controversies that have occurred in this forum. Your aggravation about a lot of it comes through in your posts, and I can't say that I blame you for it.

I can only assure you, for whatever that is worth, that I have no interest whatsoever in helping anybody forward any sort of effort designed to unfairly impugn a product or the craftsmen who work with it. I am convinced that, at a very miminum, an overwhelming majority of the natural stone being used is safe. I'm open to the possibility that all of it is. I hope it is, if for no other reason than that seems to be the best outcome for the greatest number of people.

However, I am persuaded by the evidence that I have seen that there is at least a legitimate possibility that some small amount of some natural stone does present a potential health risk that should be understood. I think lots of people, including stone advocates on this thread, have acknowledged that much.

It seems to me that it would serve you and your interests well if some definitive conclusion could be reached here. If that conclusion is an "all clear" for all stone, so much the better. If it is found that some stone is suspect, and that is identified and removed from the market, then you and your customers will have benefited from that as well.

You may not agree with the perspective that I've laid out, but I hope that you can see that there are well-intentioned people here who just want to find an answer to a question that we think is reasonable. If you think it isn't reasonable and can demonstrate why, I'm fully prepared to listen. All of us benefit if we can just share what we know and what we think, without rancor.

Regarding radon...I agree that the big radon risk for most folks is from the radon that seeps into their homes through the foundations. I live in an area of Alabama where radon can be a problem, while other areas don't have an issue. In regards to the Houston case referenced in this thread, it is my understanding that this house was in an area where radon isn't typically present.

I do NOT know the particulars of that case. I can't say what the radon measurements were, etc., etc. It does seem to me that IF the radon measurements were elevated, and the only variable that changed was that a piece of stone was removed, and the radon measurements went down significantly, then it does seem likely that the stone caused the radon. IF all that can be demonstrated, it will be highly suggestive, if not definitive. I don't have all of that, as I've said, but I don't think I can agree as a general principle that "there's no way it can be isolated just to the stone".

On the radiation issue, I agree that an enormous majority of stones are safe. I just don't know the best way to deal with the existence of that tiny minority.

Secondly, I seem to have offended you by misquoting you on whether or not marble based engineered stone has radiation content. Hmmm, I don't have to look that one up. If I may, allow me to quote you from "The Cutting Edge", a MIA for members only newsletter. The link is below, please scroll down to page three, right side of the page, paragraphs two and three from the bottom of the page.
http://www.marble-institute.com/membership/newsletters/mar2005nwsltr.pdf
"However, there are marble based engineered stones which is significantly weaker than the quartz based product, scratches fairly easily, and is certainly not resistant to reaction with any common food substances such as champagne, white wine, red wine, salad dressing, tomato sauce, and natural citric fruit juices."
"A common sales pitch is, because the engineered product is man made, it unlike natural stone, does not contain any radioactivity. This has been shown to be a deliberately misleading representation."
(I had to copy that word by word, can't copy and paste off a PDF. I did correct the grammar and punctuation).
Perhaps the editor of the MIA newsletter misquoted you, but after you said in your first post that it was "faithfully represented", I took that to mean you had seen the article and thus vouched for its veracity. As can be plainly seen, you mention marble based engineered stone in the first paragraph, then immediately refer to "the engineered product", then tell us that the product is being sold while "deliberately misleading representation". A less educated reader, such as myself, could well have decided that you are claiming that "the engineered product" and the "marble based engineered stone" are one and the same, close proximity alone would lead a reasonable person to think that.
I do see that you did tiptoe around the issue though,
"It may be of interest to potential consumers of stone that certain varieties of engineered stone (quartz surfaces) consist of a framework of crushed granite particles. Boasting around 93% (by weight) of framework particles, petrographic analysis revealed the presence of the usual radioactive accessories, such as zircon, allanite, sphene and apatite, as well secondary clays and micas. If any studies are to be undertaken they should also include the altered and weathered brownish, granite-based synthetic products which would be expected to yield similar results to most common granites. Any testing authority must be aware that it is important to avoid being presented with only the relatively "clean" quartz pebble based engineered stone because of the inherently low level of radioactivity in quartz."
Re reading that from your OP, I see you stated "radioactive accessories" instead of using "radioactive particles" or the sort. Yet you mention the "pebble based" and in my ignorance, I assumed of only two that you had mentioned, marble based and pebble based. See why a person would become confused? You do insinuate that perhaps the tester might get slipped some "clean" samples instead of the, what, dirty ones? One could assume those to be the other type, marble based?
I looked back again, approaching 50, ones mind is not as clear as it once was, regrettably. Here is what you wrote in your OP:
"The synthetic surfaces industry has had a history of advertising misinformation verbally and in their written presentations regarding their own products and their natural stone competitors. An article written in 2005 entitled "Some aspects of engineered stone that are not usually advertised" could not get published in its long version by stone magazines because of the ostensibly potential litigious effects but, more honestly, the potential damage to the hip pocket in terms of advertising. The link below might be of interest. Some aspects might now be out of date because of new (Asian) producers and the inability to obtain samples from other suppliers – especially from the US. A condensed version of the article was released by the MIA as a newsletter. Although it faithfully portrayed the gist of the paper most of the details were omitted."
As you can see the article, "Some aspects of engineered stone that are not usually advertised", that you said was released by the MIA as a newsletter, and the "Some aspects of engineered stone that are not usually advertised" refer ed to in the March 2005 MIA newsletter seem to be eerily similar. Indeed, the author was one "Dr. Hans-Dieter-Hensel of Hensel Geoscience, which I confused with you, Dr. Hans D. Hensel of Hensel Geoscience. No doubt having the same middle initial is of no consequence, perhaps your middle name is Dave, Dudley, Don, or such.
So, based upon your views in 2005, and your complaints today, I see a dichotomy presented. Would this be a good time to address it?

Now, your third complaint sees to be that I am confusing which magazines rejected your article entitled "Some aspects of engineered stone that are not usually advertised" . I hate to say this, but the editor of Surface Fabrication, Kevin Cole, and I spoke about your article at the Surfaces convention a couple of years back. I remember him saying that even the stone trade journals wouldn't print it, as indeed you verified in your OP. Assuming that your middle name is Deiter, would it be safe for us to assume that the two articles are one and the same?

And finally, your last complaint seems to be that the radiation risk/dose calculator at
http://www.wise-uranium.org/rdcri.html
is defective in some manner, yet you didn't elaborate. Could I ask for more information so I could ask them to address your concerns?

Thanking you in advance,
Al Gerhart

The Chinese do that, except they require independent, certified third party labs to do the testing. It would be too easy to pressure an employee tester to fudge the numbers.

But, be that as it may, it would be better than nothing. The Abilene importer had one of our meters hand carried to Brazil (you can carry in about anything, but ya don't want to mess with customs by shipping stuff). The plan is for his buyer to test before purchase, then his recieving dept tests again, then again when loading outgoing shipments.

Sure independent testing would be better, but this guy stuck his neck out when other vendors of mine refused to start testing. Guess who is getting all my business from now on?

Biano Romano, don't have any data on it. If you will send me a good size sample, I'll do a data log on it, then send it to one of our scienctists. Might take a few weeks to get any results back. Private messange me for my address.

Bill,
if we did what JB1176 suggested, what would be the labor cost for testing a slab? I can tell you that the meters run a bit under $400, batteries, well they last for months, all that is left is the time for an employee to run a meter over the slab. Maybe, one or two minutes, if he keeps the meter on his belt. It is small, like an old style pager.

Really, maybe twenty, thirty cents to test a slab? Anyway, the chinese, and the EU already do this. Wanna bet that the suppliers that sell to that market already know how to test and do it every day? Or do they ship a container of stone and hope it makes it through customs?

Paulines,
if the other countries, several dozen, including Syria, do test their stone, is there a reason you still think there is not an issue with radioactivity, Radon,and granite countertops?

If I can get North Korea, Dear Leader himself to start testing, will that convice you? No promises though.....

By the way, a high end metal shop does lots of inhouse testing. Checking the steel used must be done, used to be by using a grinder and looking at the sparks. Some of the old timers can tell you exactly what alloy it is. No doubt they have to check all sorts of stuff, thickness, alloy, temper, to put out a good product. Many have some pretty high tech equipment for quality controll, some computer driven stuff in the bigger shops.

OSHA? They are all over the dust issues and slab handling issues. We did get an email from the EPA today, from a Geologist that works there, very knowledgable. His email is posted on our new blog.

http://solidsurfacealliance.org/blog/category/granite-radiation/

JB1176, the issue is known. A health Physicst with Washington state gave me a run down. Pretty much three main dangers, the chemical toxins in the granite dust, the radiation levels of dust, and the silica content of the dst. Like I said, we are workig on getting a dosimeter program going for shops like ours and homeowners too. It will take a while to move the govt though.

Kas,
I'll come clean. Last week we installed two slabs, Santa Cecilia and Black Pearl. Did some solid surface too. No quartz though, maybe next week a job will be ready to go.

I love solid surface though. No potential death rate at all! How refreshing..

I would like you to think of me as a balance to the stone industry on this site. Just having me around makes them think twice about what they post. I would like to point out that Revans1 was completely against me last year, yet now he is taking this seriously. Look past what you think my motives are, and see if my arguments hold together, if the data from third parties is reasonable, then look at the otherside of the debate.

And think about this, if I said some tomatoes were dangerous last month, would you have believed me?

Luvmyguys,
as you can see, you yourself have been questioned on this thread for supporting the discussion. I can assure you that last year that is all it took for me to be targeted. My mistake was to allow myself to be baited into responding in kind, something that will not happen again if people like yourself support civil debate on the subject.

Revans1 refered to some "clippings" that he had on the subject. Take the time to review those and make your own decision on whether or not I was treated fairly. I do agree that regardless of the messenger, the message is the important thing.

The screen name was picked for that exact reason, to head off complaints of bias. Notice I picked Hot granite kills, not granite kills. Big difference....

Sorry Bill, I had to work today. By the time I answer email, put the days news on the SSA blog, it is late. I belive though that I disclosed already, but incase you missed it, I sell granite, quartz, soapstone, laminate, and solid surface. Oh, cabinets too.

Now, I have spent several years now researching these issues. Have you? If not, what are you basing your opinions on?

Other materials? For the last 14 years, the MIA has been saying that concrete and drywall emitted more Radon. Well, that is not the case according to the scientists. However, were you to provide a link that backs your opinion, I would certainly read it.

By the way, Bill. I think luvmyguys is of the female persuasion. Not sure she has any... Neve mind....

Be sure to check out the EPA warning to fabricators, recommends hiring health Physicsts to do a shop review and recommend ways of protecting workers from harm from the type of slabs we are running into.

Make some money, but don't sell your soul in the process is my motto.

AL Gerhart (Yes, Miles, that Al)

Thanks,
Al

I do sell granite as well as other types of countertops as part of my business. but i worry about specific well-defined stones, as well as the general lack of openness from the industry in discussing the potential issues.

Short too, take it and run with it.
Al

There are way many more factors to consider than just brand names, yet you zoom in with dogged tenacity on a single one only.

The single case of brain tumor in Houston that you use as a banner - what other factors in that person's life -bar the fact that there were granite in the house - did you consider as a cause for the tumor? Did she work near power lines? (another cancer bugaboo) Did she have a bad cellphone? Did she or anybody in the family or anybody in the work place smoke? Did she eat foods with excessive amounts of preservatives? Was her immune system suppressed? There could be very many causes for cancer and I find it quite disingenuous that you single out the stone tops without taking any other factor into account.

If granite is such a bad thing, why are the people who live on, close to or around the mountains not all terminally ill? There has to be tremendous amounts of radiation coming from the Appalachians, the Grand Tetons or even the Rockies. Skiing in Colorado should come with a health warning certificate since you will be surrounded by stone, if you are to be believed.

What about other building materials such as concrete or asphalt? Do those have to come with radiation warnings when they too, are known sources of radiation?

My stance on this is - that until any definitive and BELIEVABLE tests are done by instances with no vested interest in the results, I will consider the shouting and screaming by both sides of this conundrum as a non-issue.

Do also not try and pawn yourself off as being a balanced voice in the industry, seeing that you sell stone and plastics. You sell stone under great duress and have come out and said so before. You only sell it because your clients "forced" you to. And you do so grudgingly.

I will continue to educate people on stone and try to counteract the misinformation you spread so gleefully.

So let me get this straight-- you think for one second, that a lab will only charge you by the minute, only what it costs them for the employee's time? Next and most shocking, you think that testing one piece of stone, one time is all it'll take to either rule stone either in or out as hazardous material?

Mister, you've got alot to learn. I'd be willing to bet that by the time all is said and done, the cost will be well into the millions of dollars, will take years of testing, and we won't know any more than we do right now, other than maybe some misguided suppositions such as those you put forth, due to lack of peripheral data.

As for giving a stone shop employee a radon meter and geiger counter and setting them loose, These are people who have no training in using the equipment. Nor do they have sufficient experience to look at the raw data. Nevermind the fact that there are no controls to isolate any positive readings he or she might get. It would HAVE to be a lab that does the testing, and it would HAVE to be every stone that comes out of every quarry, before any kind of accurate data could be put together, and any kind of real conclusion reached.

Go ahead-- I'll let YOU finance this one. I'll get it the next time around.

You really need to do some basic research on this topic, the issue with granite is ionizing radiation, not electromagnetic radiation. Ionizing radiation rips atoms, molecules and cells apart, killing the cell or resulting in an improper repair by the DNA repair system, leading to mutation, even genetic damage.

Electromagnetic radiation makes atoms and cells vibrate, like a microwave. I have yet to see any definitive proof that electromagnetic radiation causes real damage. Were you to find any, start a new thread on the issue cause it is not being discussed in this thread.

You know, smoking will multiply the effects of Radon by four to six times. I will ask if the homeowner that got the brain tumor was a smoker.

Actually, there are some studies that say people from such mountianous areas do have less cancer. My understanding is that generations of the residents become acclimated in some way to the higher local levels, but you know what? Few of the levels in those studies approach a mid level granite, say 30 uR/hr. And the mountainous areas you mention are all higher on Radon maps as well as having higher published background radiation levels. People can look up their own area's radiation level on the internet. Can you do the same for granite countertops? If you guys have your way, a consumer will never be allowed to chose a safer stone.

Uranium miners do have higher cancer rates and other health problems. There is a new study out, look for it on the SSA blog.

Are some concretes and asphapts slightly radioactive. Yes they are, and they are regulated by some states. Below is a link to a construction standard that has a maximum of 5 pCi/g for the concrete, with the highest level ingredient at 10 pCi/g. 1 pCi/g gives off .95 uR/hr, so the standard is 4.75 uR/hr maxi um radiation em mission from concrete, with a maximum radiation content of any single material at 9.5 uR/hr.
Think about that, the lowest level granite we have been able to find, Absolute Black, is at the maximum radiation level for concrete! Then consider this, your scrap granite of Uba Tuba, New Venetian gold, and similar types are most likely too hot to be used in concrete for states following these standards.....

http://www.p2pays.org/ref%5C07/06324.pdf

I'm not shouting, is your side?

Okay, fair enough, but will anyone take you as balanced either? I posted here to correct some misinformation your side spread. No one has answered the questions I raised except for four statements by Dr. Hans, which I answered. Till these questions are addressed, consumers will wonder.

Please address the questions and leave the personal attacks out of it.

Better than nothing isn't it? It might keep the granite industry in business till the full scale testing kicks in.

And yes, a simple reading with a hand held Geiger counter with a pancake probe for reading Alpha, Beta, Gamma, will eliminate 99% of the problem slabs. They call them meters for a reason, it reads and shows the radiation levels present. Or a Scintillator can be used, you just turn them on, they self test, compute background, then if you are exposed to over certain levels of radiation, the buzzer goes off. Really, really simple to use.

Has anyone seen a light meter being used by a photographer?

A thermometer, old mercury style or a modern digital style?

A digital oven thermometer?

How about driving a car, you have to turn it on, it has a battery, and you need to watch several meters as you drive?

You know, people aren't stupid. They can look at govt standards of 5, 10, or 20 uR/hr and do the math. If the meter reads 20 uR/hr, they can choose which standard they feel is safe. If the meter reads 50 uR/hr, they can do the math there as well....

I do agree that once a hot slab has been found, the slab yard could have it professionally tested to see if it might slip under the limit and salvage the slab.

Bill, your argument seems to be that it is too expensive to test, and we can't trust the slab yards to test, and that we will never know if one slab of granite is hotter than the other. Look up those videos we have and see how simple it really is to test a slab. Just slowly move the meter across the slab and listen to the clicks or watch the meter.

Sorry guys, you need to come up with a better reason for informal tests to be used till standards are in place and quarries are testing under supervision. You know what? I'll still test my customers choice of slabs before they are bought.

Ummmm...no, actually I don't have any - LOL (OK, a very feeble attempt at humor to lighten this thing up). But, gosh, I'm surprised to be singled out, because I am just a homeowner/ mom asking questions. I think I'm on record as having said that this discussion has NOT dissuaded me from purchasing granite, and that I believe that probably only a few granites are hot. I would just strongly prefer not to have one of those hot slabs in my home. Given a choice, I would pick a quiet one even if I didn't like it as well. But right now, there is no choice, so I may have to take my chances. That's probably what I'll do.

Perhaps I came across as "pro-Al." As I said, I don't know the full history so I don't feel the animosity that others here feel. I try to read everyone's posts with an open mind. But I do use my brain to evaluate the information I read- I don't accept everything as the absolute truth.

The poster that has come across as very knowledgeable, unbiased, courteous, and patient is Dr. Llope. I hope he checks in again.

I'm fairly new to the site. I stumbled across it while researching the topic of granite countertops and radon as we're just beginning a kitchen remodel.

I had a question for Dr. Hans please, but anyone please feel free to chip in. I'd appreciate the input as I am pretty much totally befuddled.

I understand that not all granite emits high levels of radon, but if I am understanding Dr. Hans correctly there is no way for a consumer like myself to know which granite is safe?

"Consumers have neither the means to determine the radiation levels in their homes nor any avenue by which they can extract such information from the fabricators or wholesalers of stone. However, they can purchase relatively cheap radon meters and undertake a crude investigation of the radon gas levels in various parts of their homes."

Therefore I am leaning away from granite (big sigh, as I love that beautiful stone) and reluctantly moving toward quartz. What I don't understand is why quartz doesn't emit radon too if it is derived mostly from granite? Or does it (paragraph below seems to suggest it might)? Or not?

"It may be of interest to potential consumers of stone that certain varieties of engineered stone (quartz surfaces) consist of a framework of crushed granite particles. Boasting around 93% (by weight) of framework particles, petrographic analysis revealed the presence of the usual radioactive accessories, such as zircon, allanite, sphene and apatite, as well secondary clays and micas. If any studies are to be undertaken they should also include the altered and weathered brownish, granite-based synthetic products which would be expected to yield similar results to most common granites. Any testing authority must be aware that it is important to avoid being presented with only the relatively "clean" quartz pebble based engineered stone because of the inherently low level of radioactivity in quartz."

How do I find a "clean" quartz?

I have two very young children. If it were just me and DH in the house I'd go for a common granite without a second thought but I cannot be cavalier with their health for the sake of a pretty kitchen. Please help me understand the situation better.

Thanks in advance
Angela

Most granites are going to be okay, too. "Most" as in "likely an enormously overwhelming majority". Having said that, I would also want to know about the measurement of radioactivity of the slab that I picked out. I'd be convinced by low readings on a meter, even a simple one. Have you shopped for stone, and asked the fabricator and/or stone yard about it?

Al, I'm ex-military. I know how to use a geiger counter. I also know how easy it is to get a false positive when checking a specific material. Unless you have an area that's completely sanitized, and a concerted effort is made to keep it that way, it's way to easy to get a false positive. Secondly, unless you're in a lead lined room, you can STILL get a false positive. You can test an AREA accurately, but without controls, you can NOT test a surface accurately. Now, tell me that's only going to cost pennies, when every stone shop is required to invest in one, along with the equipment, as well as having to set their people down, and show them how to use the equipment.

Sorry, but I still say the only way would be lab testing, and then it would drive stone right out of the market. But of course, that's your ultimate goal. Or atleast it seems to be.

I would just strongly prefer not to have one of those hot slabs in my home. Given a choice, I would pick a quiet one even if I didn't like it as well. But right now, there is no choice, so I may have to take my chances. That's probably what I'll do.

luvmyguys-- No one would want a hot slab, and I can't guarantee that there's not a single hot slab up for sale, for the reasons I explained above. But as for taking your chances, as I said above, you have a better chance of hitting Powerball. This issue is being blown WAY out of proportion for the sake of the almighty dollar. Please don't buy into it.

Angela, same with the Radon issue. There are very few materials used in building in your home that there's no chance of radon immissions, including the land it's built on! Once again, it's being pushed by the synthetic solid surface industry (and those who support it). As for your questions about quartz. Good question. I think you know the answer. (common sense dictates it)

You people have to understand something. Those of you who've been in here a couple of years will remember how hard I went after Home Depot and Roanoke Industries over the Tile Perfect Stand N Seal thing (for those of you who are new, do a search on Stand N Seal, in here or on the net-- you'll see what I mean). To the point that they were interrogating the victims at their depositions about what they knew about me!! I'd like to think that I was instrumental in helping CBS and the victims get it pulled from the shelves nationwide. If I thought for a SECOND that there was anything worth persuing with respect to Radon contamination or radioactivity, I'd be standing right along side Al arguing with the rest of you about it. But in this case, it just isn't so.

I would say that my insurance company would be relieved that I was doing something to lower any potential problems. To not test, knowing that credible concerns have been made (EPA), would lead an insurer to lose sleep at night.

Cushty,

A geologist on one of the radiation forums I read explained it this way to me. The radiation is mostly found in the Mica, as well as the feldspar. I believe Dr. Hans said pretty much the same, and I believe the guy knows his geology.

Quartz as a material was created by a guy with lots of unusable granite, too weak to cut into slabs. He created the Brenton process and patented it. Most engineered stones are made using that patent. The addition of between 28% and 35% resin (by volume, not weight) allowed a pretty tough slab to be made. It flexes before it will break, stopping a lot of problems that happens to granite countertops.

I am not confident that Dr. Hans will be an unbiased source for quartz information, from what his friends say about him. Look down to post #7 from the top, Maurizio Bertoli, a well know stone expert, second paragraph, 10-19-2003, 12:45 am. Read the first post, third paragraph, to see where Maurizio says Dr. Hans is a friend of his.

This is presented in the spirit of full disclosure, as asked by other posters.

"As a little background, the truth in the matter is that Hans has been encouraged to "dirt up" engineered stone by the Australian association of natural stone producers! "

http://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=6929

Low blow or just copy and pasting what others say his motives are? I know, Dr. Hans, pathetic..... but not made up.

Bill,
could you provide some info on the false positives from your military training?

In our use, you do have to use some common sense when you get a hot reading. First thing is to check what is on the other side of the A frame. A hot slab on the other side will indeed read through the A frame, the slab being measured, and into the meter. Bundles of hot material will read hotter as well. The extremely hot slabs we have reported on were isolated, so that didn't affect our readings. It is best to check slab by slab though.

Bordeaux, though, and other very hot types, will contaminate an area, as much as ten, even twenty feet away. Not contaminate as in permanant contamination, but the distance Gamma radiation will travel makes it difficult to measure in that area. Still, it just makes it hotter. When we would find a hot slab. the owner used his overhead crane to pull it into a clear area for further testing. We tested an entire bundle this way to see what effect a particlular vein had.

One of the party tricks I used when training the people at the slab yard was to have them lean with their back against a hot slab, place the meter on their chest where they can read the meter. Not many stayed in place once they saw the reading was barely reduced. Watching a meter reading 150 uR/hr AFTER passing a foot through your body is a wake up call.

I'm beginning to like ya Bill, that bit about the sealer said alot about you. But consider your logic here, I am suggesting cheap, reliable, handheld meters to double check the quarries testing (same method but with lab back up when indicated). You are advocating expensive lab testing or nothing.

Which of us is advocating something that in your own words will "drive stone right out of the market".

Now, I give you this. To be 100% safe, no unknown risk at all, your way is better. But the Chinese, Canadians, European Union countries, and dozens of other countries don't require ultra expensive testing. If you look up Chinese granite on the internet by googling "Class A Chinese granite" you will find that ALL of their granite is tested by independent labs. Dig around and you might find stories about containers of Brazillian granite being turned away from Chinese ports because of high level radiation.

To those that still want to talk about bias, ask yourself this. If you believed what I believed, would you not consider granite to be a really bad choice of material for a counter top? Now, add the social issues that come with it, the need to seal, all the many, many, threads here, on findstone.com, on stone advice, and HGTV.com about people with granite problems. You will find a 100 times more complaints than the nearest competitor product.

Now, wouldn't you say it could be called bias but also could be called sound judgement? Not all granite, but much of it.

It is still the prettiest material, just not the best material.

For several reasons. First, as I stated above, if ANYONE would be a good candidate to come down with some kind of cancer as a result of exposure, I would, between family history, bad habits, and prolonged (DECADES long) exposure to all kinds of granite.. Not just being around it, but breathing the dust from cutting, as well as polishing it, as well. I'll even take that a step farther. If this were a real threat, then why isn't there a higher incidence of cancer amongst stone workers, and predominently, stone SHOP workers? It just doesn't make any sense.

Secondly, if this were a real issue (and I mean that in a very literal sense), as someone pointed out above, OSHA would've been all over this, not for the protection of the end user, but for the protection of the people working with it.

Now for Al's response.

Bill,
could you provide some info on the false positives from your military training?

There are so many places you could get a false reading. You could get one from the ground itself. Any electrical equipment will give off a small amount of radiation. Heck, just from the sun!! If done outside, you've got all three-- alpha, beta, and gamma particles showering us on a constant basis. if inside, you won't get as many alpha and beta particles, but a building won't stop gamma particles. Not to mention, lets say for the sake of argument that this is a real threat. All it would take is DUST from a hot stone to set it off. That means that the testing area would have to be a completely dust free environment, and it would have to be completely cleaned after every stone goes in for testing. Otherwise, you could get a false positive from a previous stone.

But consider your logic here, I am suggesting cheap, reliable, handheld meters to double check the quarries testing (same method but with lab back up when indicated).

I'll go halfway with you. It's cheap. If it were reliable, and easy to use (as in just pull a meter out and get a reading) I'd say okay-- no harm, no foul. But in order to get an accurate reading, you're not going to convince me you can do it at a stone shop.

Which of us is advocating something that in your own words will "drive stone right out of the market".

Anyone who demands that all stone must be tested.

You will find a 100 times more complaints than the nearest competitor product.

That's because it's USED that much more. Now THAT'S playing with the numbers, AKA propaganda. You just blew any credibility.

I'm new enough here to have missed whatever happened last summer. I've been reading the last two threads on this subject from a fairly disinterested consumer's point of view. However, in my spare time I'm a lawyer deposing expert witnesses, and I've got a fairly good expert-bs detector.

And I'm not trading my azul macaubas granite for anything. If radiation from it kills me, you can make me up an azul macaubas headstone.

Stone workers do have higher rates of cancer, as well as uranium workers mining low level (80 ppm uranium, 75 to 100 uR/hr). Smoking did affect the data on the stone workers, but they corrected for that past what smoking alone produced. I would bet the rates for installers would be the highest.

And Osha is all over the stone industry right now on dust.

The reasons you gave for false positives all fall under background radiation, except for the dust. Background is subtracted from every thing we record, we use a spreadsheet program to do it automatically.

Were dust a problem, and it isn't in your average stone yard, the added radiation would either be low or if it were hot enough to affect levels significantly, it would prove my point that the fabricator is at most risk.

Some of the scientists we are working with are grinding their samples to better measure the radiation or to mirror other tests to see if their results can be repeated. One guy said that the finer the granite was ground, the higher the level, but it was small, maybe 15% higher.

Most slab yards are just that, no dust to speak of except normal everyday dust that is very low. Lower than the dust off a TV set.

And another factor on the dust, measuring a 2cm slab will result in a much lower reading than a 3 cm slab. Mass matters, so very, very, high level dust would be a problem, but if it is one in a million that you believe to be the case........

I agree that testing in a dusty stone shop is not a good way to go about it. We test at the slab yards, or in the front of our shop, hundreds of feet away from the stone area in the back.

No way that stone is used 100 times more than other materials. In fact, the last survey in the kitchen industry showed laminate still in first place, solid surface, then Quartz, then granite. Quartz beat granite by only a half point, but it did beat it for the first time. Both granie and quartz are slowly gaining on solid surface and laminate.

There was a granite shop on every corner a few years ago. Many have folded the last year, housing down slightly in our area, but mainly too much supply and too few buyers. Still, granite is not used 100 times as much as any other product. It just has lots of customer complaints, over sold in most of the cases, consumers not understanding what they are buying, hack work done cheap in others, and the rest is just stone being stone. I tell my customers it isn't if it will eventually crack, it is when. Same thing on sealing and stains, it happens.

I like the European idea of stone, use it and watch it get old. Age gracefully.

I love soap stone. It isn't oversold, scratches, chips, and defects are part of its charms.

Bill, you are very strident in your posts. What is the real reason you are so adamant on this issue? If it is the debate last year, consider that recent events have proven me right. Even the MIA admitted a 14 year old lie, that radon and radiation couldn't be measured from granite. Now the EPA says to radon test all homes with granite countertops. Did I get to them as well? Or did they listen to new data that showed their previous position was wrong?

An perfect example of how the truth is twisted is above. Al states the EPA recommends testing all homes with granite counters. The real deal is that he and/or his DW write to the EPA stating they have discovered elevated radiation levels in stone they tested. The EPAs response? Contact a radiation professional for testing.

And as Bluekit alluded to past history here and I think it pertinent as clearly there are some members here (members, not readers, Al) that are concerning themselves with something that may be a definate non issue, realize this;

Last year Al came to GW claiming to be a stone expert. It turned out he had done 1, maybe 2 jobs, his 1st being a month or so prior. He then advised us, based on this multitude of experience, that stone counters were subject to failure. If I am recalling correctly, his point was based on a condo complex (whereas the builder clearly & obviously did a slapshod and improper installation) to prove his point.

He then advised us that stone counters weren't hygenic, basing his point on some chart that again, was so out of context - I don't even care to remember the particulars.

These, and other scare tactics, went on for several weeks until a member here discovered (Al frequents another forum) that the truth of the matter is Al doesn't like to do stone jobs. He is a ss fabricator that, by his own admittance, was forced to sub out stone fab. as he was losing tons of business. Clearly there was more profit to be made with ss.

Al's words were (to the effect), I'm pretty good at discouraging my customers from granite. Health concerns were not at issue at the time and I got the impression that Al was having a good laugh at all us 'dumb consumers' expense!

I am a freelance KD. I love to cook and entertain, myself and believe that the kitchen is the heart of a home. There's emotion tied to remodeling a kitchen. I don't like it when folks take unfair advantage to further their pockets - be honest, be forthright and upstanding and respect your client.

Because I feel it's a sincere attempt at misinformation for financial gain. In other words, BS. It's the whole reason I'm here-- to debunk people like you who attack the industry to further your own gains.

you can't have a tile shower floor that won't leak.

you can't tile over a woodframe floor without it cracking.

you can't have a granite countertop without being at considerable risk for radiation and radon.

The same old record, just with a different song.

"I love your site. I think it has helped me crystallize my direction. I'm looking for a stone acceptable for kitchen counter, specifically a food prep area that has properties similar to soapstone or slate, BUT is light, creamy, peachy or beige in color. I found something called Durango Travertine which was exactly what I wanted until I poured lemon juice on it. I am satisfied with the soapstone and slate properties for kitchen use, but I would really like a light color. Could you recommend something? Thank you! Debbi."

Among several answers, one in particular caught my attention, both for its content and the man is coming from, namely Dr. Hans-Dieter Hensel, from Australia, a professional geologist with whom I entertained some correspondence in the past and that I'm proud to consider a (far away) friend. Here it is:

"Dear Debbie, You are clearly not alone in this dilemma - you want a "soft" stone (in different ways) but you do not want it to etch or stain. You obviously know that a marble or limestone in the kitchen is a no-no if you want it to remain in the same condition as when it was installed. These calcareous rock types cannot be effectively protected with sealers against acidic fluids no matter what the salespeople out there try to tell you (sorry, sell you). You appear to have three choices:
(a) choose a dense European limestone and adopt a European mentality (as opposed to American or Australian), use the stone, enjoy the stone, and accept what happens to it in time (which realistically isn't very much unless abused);
(b) choose a beige-coloured granite, e.g. Brisbane Beige, and either seal it or have it resined (better for negligible maintenance). The suggestion for having it sealed or resined is based on its porosity. All beige-coloured granites of the world are beige because they are partly altered (geologically speaking). And they are partly altered because they are more porous (>0.3 wt. %). Because they are more-porous they readily accept sealers and resins which penetrate the microfractures and micropores and so help to protect the surface. The science of sealing porous granite works - unlike the science of salesmanship which tries to seal everything to make a buck today, next year and every other year in the future; and,
(c) if you still can't be pleased with a good quality limestone or an effectively sealed beige-coloured granite you might have to resort to one of those engineered stones that promises 93-95% of quartz and 5-7% of resin, and specks that suggest bullet-proof properties. The reality is that none of them contain that amount of quartz, all of them contain other minerals that are softer than quartz (can be scratched) and some can be chemically susceptible to attack by acidic fluids (e.g. wine, champagne, orange juice, tomato sauce, salad dressing, etc.). Some of these quartz-based products contain as little as 20% quartz (don't believe the blurb). Others contain calcareous shells that are highly reactive to acidic fluids (so read the fine print). Also rarely revealed is the fact that they have a coefficient of expansion of as much as 4 times that of stone. This means that the localized application of heat can lead to thermal shock with the potential for the development of a nice fracture across the kitchen-top (especially if installed over a dishwasher with exposed hotwater piping). They also don't tell you that if your top is exposed to sunlight it is very susceptible to fading (more so for darker colours) as well as cyclic expansion and contraction from day to day. With time, the expansion and contraction will result in delamination from the adhesive and you get the slab bowing up at the ends. Also to be considered is the potential health hazard from the fumes of the resin in units that are often closed up for long periods. This is more serious in units containing large benches that are exposed daily to sunlight, but thankfully only a small proportion of the population is sensitive to these fumes. Now, what are you going to choose? (Dr. Hans)"

About the subject of engineered stone I consider myself ignorant enough not to make any comment -- whether in agreement or disagreement -- with Dr. Hans' follow up. I just felt like reporting it. One thing I can assure you, though: the man is no Mickey Mouse!

Maurizio Bertoli
www.mbstone.com

MB Stone - Education before any sale!

Let me also state loud and clear for all the contributors that I have nothing against the artificial surfaces. I accept them as another product - just as I accept laminate, stainless steel, wood, etc.

What I object to is the need for the artificial surface producers and salesmen to (a) call their product STONE, (b) compare their products with natural stone and present only the negatives of the latter often using the weaker end of the granite spectrum, (c) provide misleading and untruthful specifications, and (d) spend considerable amounts of money on advertising to attempt to discredit natural stone with misleading information campaigns such as the one that resulted in my initial response to this forum.
bluekitobsessed
I'm glad that you have an expert b-s detector. You should be able to easily discriminate and it should be going off quite frequently when reading certain posts.
As for Azul Macaubas - it is a dumortierite quartzite. If you are having a headstone made make a spare for me (a beautiful stone).

Now, many of the posts appear to have missed my comments that it is not difficult for an experienced stone scientist to establish whether a stone is likely to have elevated uranium and thorium contents, and therefore emitting elevated levels of radiation and having the potential to produce the radon and thoron daughter products. Some petrological research, which incorporates a petrographic analysis (examining a polished tile and a 30 micron-thick thin-section under a petrological microscope)is enough to establish (to a high level of confidence) whether that stone, especially granite, is likely to have formed from source material and by geological processes to have concentrated minerals that could give elevated readings. Because of the scale of its natural formation and the relatively small sizes of dimension stone quarries (as opposed to aggregate quarries) a representative sample of that stone is usually sufficient to provide that information. If it is concluded that it is "benign" there is no longer a need to test the slabs. However, as I previously said, there are natural geological circumstances that produce small pockets of "weird" or "unusual" rock types that can concentrate certain minerals that can give elevated readings (usually very localized) of emitted radiation. These rock types need to be identified and scrutinized along the lines that I previously suggested.

As for "in-house" radiometric testing - don't even think about it. It is difficult enough for experts to get it right under ideal conditions. There are far too many parts to this complex equation for most people.

THANK YOU.

Too damn many people think if you hear a bunch of clicks all of the sudden, you're getting a good reading. It's just not quite that simple.

FUD = Fear Uncertainty Doubt

I am not going to begin your debate over here as this is not the place but I will be glad to start posting some of your now deleted crap from the Fabricator Network. I do have backups before Andy decided to ban me when things got HOT!

Who pays you Al? After tracking you the last 18 months I have failed to determine that you can possiably be earning a living claiming what you do... not much time for work huh Al? You fund all this "testing" yourself, you live on the web bad mouthing something you are studying, and still earn a living?

Give us all a break and go back over to your web site - What do you call it again? Solid Surface Alliance is that yours Al?

Pretty sad day that the air quality is so poor that athletes from all over the world will be setting out this one due to damage to their lungs and bronchial system. The embarrasing part was that the China government used cloud seeding to "rinse the air" everytime a committee or athlete gathering happened and now it is going public.

Watch it on HDNet and see for yourself.

This BS Al keeps referring to how safe China is just about makes me puke all over the place... Al was born in Arkansas and lives in Oklahoma and it is quite clear he has never left this country.

As to me "twisting" the EPA recomendations, read the last question answered by the EPA on this link

Here it is, copied and pasted:

Does the EPA believe that radon is in granite counters?

There is some evidence that some granites used in countertops may contain varying concentrations of uranium which produces radon.

Are the levels dangerous to humans or animals?

THERE IS TOO LITTLE INFORMATION AND TOO MANY VARIABLES TO GENERALIZE ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OR ACTUAL RISK.

Has the EPA done studies on radon in granite counters?

No

Does the EPA have plans to conduct a study on radon in granite countertops?

Not at this point in time.

What advice does the EPA offer consumers who have granite counters?

Test the air in your home first and mitigate if the result is 4 pCi/L or more. Learn more about radon at www.epa.gov/radon

What this tells me is that it's been brought in front of the governmental agency responsible for overseeing this kind of thing, and THEY think it's alot of to do about nothing, too.

Why should anyone now believe your version of events last year?

I had studied granite for about four years before getting into it, and since the focus was on competing with it, I had to learn all about it. You have to admit that I know more than our Dr. Hans on the Radiation/Radon issue. Prior to fabricating it ourselves, we subcontracted, so I had several years of experience dealing with the issues there as well.

And I am pretty good at informing my customers of ALL the factors of all the materials. Giving the truth about granite does sway many into quartz or solid surface, why wouldn't it?

You recomend "be honest, be forthright and upstanding and respect your client". How can you be honest if you continue to deny the issues? Were you honest on the new EPA recomendations, or not?

Enough of the personal attacks, if you can find something to use in rebuttal, I would welcome your comments, but you seem to restrict your comments to telling people how bad I am.

I would ask readers to consider that last year you did the same, this year I was proven right on the issue. Who is repsonsible for allowing another year to go by with hot granite countertops continuing to be sold?

Bill,
Look at it this way. Paulines is a KD, no doubt advised plenty of consumers to buy granite. Now her advice is turning out to have consequences. Would there be any finaincial gain for her to attempt to derail this discusssion? How about Dr. Hans multiple crude attempts to claim that Quartz or engineered stone has radiation hazards? I'd say his friend Mauzio or what ever his name is, set the record straight on that Tile Forum.

By the way, two of the three examples of "debunking" were tile related. Would you say that you participate here to further your own business? If people stopped tiling over subfloors or shower bases, surely your business would be less? How are you any different from me or Dr. Hans?

Besides, surely you can easily prove the facts by speaking to them. Why not restrict your posts to that goal instead of personal attacks?

You claim "half-truths, red herrings, self-beliefs, and downright utter fabrications". Name one for each classification. That would be four.....

The Debbie reply was off that very link where Maurizio Bertoli said you were "encouraged to "dirt up" the engineered stone trade by the Austrailain Stone Council". Why did you not address that issue? Maurizio was credible enough for you to quote, so why not address his version of what you are doing?

I share your concern on competing products lying about their product, the very reason I am doing what I can to "debunk" the lies. In fact, I could take your concerns, replace "engineered stone" with "natural stone" and call it my own.

In your excuse not to test all stones, you contradict yourself by saying that it is okay to test one section of a small quarry, but then say some slabs will have pockets of hot material, requiring that slab product to be continually checked. Bill gets it, granite is too unique to say testing one slab will do, even you argued this at several points in this very thread if I remember correctly.

Really, Geiger counters and Scintillators are used thousands of times a day. Medical research is a good example, rad labs in that field keep a very close eye on things using these meters that you claim are difficult to use.

You turn it on, hold it on the stone, and read what it says. If you can read a clock, you can read a scintillator. If you can read a gas guage, you can read a Geiger counter, or if you are blind, just listen to either meters alarms going off! Look at those videos that Christina posted in the other thread and say with a straight face that they are hard to understand!

Kevin,
I know you won't debate. The facts are against you so why bother? Go ahead and dredge up what you will, in the past it usually proved me right and you wrong... But, please add the link so others can look up the entire post to put it in content. Yeah, you have to be a member, but I am and I can look up the post and post the rest of the story.

And Kevin, you know I have a cabinet shop that also does granite, quartz, solid surface and laminate. There is proof all over the internet to that affect. I do the research at night, usually five or six hours per day, and some on the weekends.

Now why would you slam two states, Oklahoma and Arkansas? No doubt Garden Web has lots of readers from both states.

And China is way, way, ahead of us on this issue. They require ALL granite to be tested by an independent lab prior to sale, a sticker is placed on the slab or product, not to be removed but by the end consumer, like a matteress tag.

Class A can be used in homes, rest homes, day cares, hospitals and businesses.

Class B can be used in lobbies, train stations, anywhere people are just passing through or building exteriors. Yeah, what about the workers in those places.

Class C can be used only on outsides of buildings.

Below Class C can be used in sea walls, foundations, anywhere human contact will be very unlikely.

That is a simple version, but you can look it up yourself. How can you say they aren't looking out for consumers better than the US is on this subject?

So, is this it? No one cares to discuss the issues? No proof posted to prove my position wrong on the issues?

Well, thanks for all the imput.

http://solidsurfacealliance.org/blog/category/granite-radiation/

Here are some highlights

"While most granites used for building stone may not be considered harmful from a radiological viewpoint, some granitic deposits in the U.S., Canada, and elsewhere in the world, as you pointed out, host economically recoverable concentrations of uranium ore."

The Table he refers to shows granite as having 1.3 pCi/gram radium content, ARS said the Houston granite countertop that was torn out had as much as 986.95 pCi/G, 312.82 pCi/gram, and 156.6 pCi/gram. As much as 759 times average and you guys still say there is no issue here?

The table does say that that is the average, that some are higher. Still, their testing didn't show much higher or that average wouldn't have been that low.

(you can find a link to the EPA rules and this table on the Blogsite, look for Dr. Llope's comments and where I sent him to find the table)

The Geologist goes on to say this

"The numbers below would not cause concern in a well-ventilated kitchen."

So, if 1.3 pCi/g of Radium is okay, is 759 times more of concern?

"Assuming that the readings were accurate, a measurement of 7 microRoentgens (microR) per hour would be considered a background reading from average soil and rock samples as naturally occurring radionuclides are found in most everything. The much higher readings you cite from the Brazilian sample and Tacoma slab, if accurate, could, under certain circumstances, pose a problem however for some people. The exposures would have to be continuous (e.g., hours per day) and prolonged (e.g., years) in order for there to be a significant increase in risk. The higher the exposure, the less time would be needed to create a higher risk. "

We replied on the meters and their calibration, not an issue. The hours per day and the prolonged exposure was addressed in the post about the Dose/Risk calculator. Anyone can go to that link and plug in the numbers that they spend in their kitchen and the expected number of years they intend to stay in the home and come up with their own results. In all, the preceding paragraph from the EPA says it all, some consumers may be harmed by some granites in long exposures, but these are everyday exposures. We used 2 hours per day, Gamma only. Very conservative.

Dr. Llope is testing stones from slab yards, he plans on publishing the study after peer review in a major scientific journal. Show me one, one, study used by the MIA that was published.

Soon there will be enough data for the EPA to make risk assesments, but you know, they already have for radiation from Radon, concrete, uranium mine tailings, and they have laws for all three. We are just going to help them to add granite to those known radiation emitters.

And Bill, they changed their position as of June 6th, said this, "What advice does the EPA offer consumers who have granite counters?

Test the air in your home first and mitigate if the result is 4 pCi/L or more. Learn more about radon at www.epa.gov/radon."

Got it? Pretty simple, if you have granite countertops, you should have your home tested for Radon. If there were nothing to it, why would they recomend granite countertop owners go to the expense of testing?

Respectfully,
Al

By the way, two of the three examples of "debunking" were tile related. Would you say that you participate here to further your own business? If people stopped tiling over subfloors or shower bases, surely your business would be less? How are you any different from me or Dr. Hans?

Because it's not going to make me any money, if I level the playing field for people with respect to making an informed decision. Also I wouldn't put you and Drhans in the same category. You USE the product, albeit reluctantly. He studies it.

DR. Hans,
you say you refuse to debate, so I guess you can't find any flaws in my arguments.

Don't you wish that were true? People can read for themselves above all the holes that have been poked in your arguments.

Really, Geiger counters and Scintillators are used thousands of times a day. Medical research is a good example, rad labs in that field keep a very close eye on things using these meters that you claim are difficult to use.

Again, in controlled environments, and again, by people trained to work with radiation. You simply can't have that at a stone shop. Not for pennies, as you seem to think. I don't care WHAT you come up with.

And China is way, way, ahead of us on this issue. They require ALL granite to be tested by an independent lab prior to sale, a sticker is placed on the slab or product, not to be removed but by the end consumer, like a matteress tag.

This (China) being the source of some of the most inferior stone in the world. Obviously they know it. I've seen alot of stone from China, and I've yet to see any stickers.

Last night, where your argument went bad was after saying that rose thorns could prick your fingers. From there, you took a huge leap assuming that one would get blood posioning and die. Next sentence you brought up the subject of bees, saying that stings coud kill. Logic would state that all roses, indeed, all flowers, might share the same risk. At that point, a logical mind would have backed up and started a paragraph on bee stings killing people.

Are you really a lawyer? Honestly, I doubt it. If a simple, little educated carpenter can poke holes in your arguements, what chance would you have in front of a jury.

Okay, so far no one has raised a single supported point in opposition to my side of the debate. I think it is time to let the consumers on this site say if they want to hear more on the issue. At this point, only personal attacks and my response to them are being posted.

What do the unbiased say?

I'm not going to convince you, but you are using selective logic.

Paulines has a professional reputation to defend, so she gets riled. If this was about the money, why wouldn't I just sell stone with a smile on my face? Because it isn't about the money, we lost a $10,000 job last month, from a previous customer because we refused to subject our employees to a 100 uR/hr Gamma slab, like 1.7 mR/hr from all radiation on those slabs.

You know what? Some one will tell them what they want to hear and get that job. Isn't that what you are fighting against?

Bill, I see you as being a good person, one that has some wrong info. Again, Revans1 turned around after being a lot tougher on me than you ever were. Something happened, he got educated on the subject and decided I was not what he though I was. Now he pleads for a civil discussion on the facts, something you guys will not address at all.

As to Dr. Hans, if his friends say he is not above "dirting up" the competition, if he will not answer simple questions about his positions (Dr. Llope did despite the abuse heaped on his head), and if he is wrong about so much that I posted about (proven by third party info that is above reproach), how can you say he studied the issues?

Really, Dr. Hans got sacked on this thread. Not many can take the guy as being unbiased any more. And if he doesn't respond to questions, well, he is admitting he can't answer the questions without losing the debate.

Post links to studies proving the postition, pretty simple.

"I don't care WHAT you come up with."

Bill, that says it all, you will refuse to look at things as they are, no matter what. As you said last night, blows the credibility.

China doesn't require export stone to be tested, but if you google some traders in chinese stone, you will find that most of them speak of Class A granite for sale. It most likely isn't though.

The Chinese have some great looking stones, but not in the china blank price range. What you are seeing is the B grade and below, another granite industry lie, that there are no grades of granite, all are the same. Utter bunk, one visit to a good importer will show you the difference.

Fabricators of stone continue this B.S. so they can say "that is just how granite is" when some spots are present, or a bunch of pitts or cracks. Truth is there is A grade and B grade and you can get even lower grades for dirt cheap. China blanks are made out of these low levels, and the labor is sqeezed out as well cause it is a low end price range. It is all about price.

Or maybe I should start a rumor that the resin used in engineered stone is associated with hair loss, hernias, heart attacks, and hangnails. It would make about as much sense as trying to scare people away from granite, ie none.

To clarify my prior post for any little educated people and/or who might still be reading and not completely disgusted by the personal attacks: "There may be a tiny risk involved in owning a beautiful and natural product. Many people choose to purchase the natural product anyway. Many other people choose alternatives to the natural product, for equally good reasons. However, most of those other people do not exaggerate the miniscule risks involved in the natural product for their own purposes, but instead respect choices."

I'm not going to read this thread any more, mostly because I don't have any agenda or other reason to care, so flame me all you want.

And yes, I am a lawyer. I depose geologists and geotechnical experts as part of my work. I also litigated cases arising out of the mold scare of the early 2000s, in which a handful of so-called experts claimed that one spore of stachybotrys could kill. That background is why my expert-bs detector has gone off on some posts in this thread.

As advisor to all levels of the legal profession and expert witness (related to the geosciences) if you ever require assistance in defending or mounting your case, give me a tingle

Because solid surface is alot more lucrative.

Bill, that says it all, you will refuse to look at things as they are, no matter what. As you said last night, blows the credibility.

You can choose to see it that way. I choose to show it as there's too much that tells me you have ulterior motives, and that there's nothing worth looking into. But either way, I'm done here. I've said my piece. People have eyes, and can read what's been said both from you AND from credible sources, not to mention references that you yourself have linked here in this thread, and make their own decisions. My head's hurtin from knocking it against this proverbial brick wall.

Al, I've visited your co. website briefly and from what I've seen there, your carpentry work is good... very good. It seems to be a product that I'd recommend and/or utilize in a heartbeat. In fact, you have a vignette that I envision with a honed Ceasarstone perimeter and marble island that would be just perfect for a potential client...sigh (you may just get a phone call from me one of these days!)

It's sad to me that you are undermining your potential business, by coming across as unstable, although I realize us creative types can be a bit crazy ;)

You're not a scientist or a geologist, why not stick to what you're knowledgable about and utilize material you feel comfortable using?

"Test the air in your home first and mitigate if the result is 4 pCi/L or more. Learn more about radon at www.epa.gov/radon."

Got it? Pretty simple, if you have granite countertops, you should have your home tested for Radon. If there were nothing to it, why would they recomend granite countertop owners go to the expense of testing?

Respectfully,
Al "

is ummmm, well, disingenuous is the kindest thing I can say. That is the EPA's recommendation for any home, regardless of materials. As a matter of fact, I went to the site referenced, and nowhere on the entire site is a reference to granite. The closest I could find is this:

"Any home may have a radon problem.

Radon is a radioactive gas. It comes from the natural decay of uranium that is found in nearly all soils. It typically moves up through the ground to the air above and into your home through cracks and other holes in the foundation. Your home traps radon inside, where it can build up. Any home may have a radon problem. This means new and old homes, well-sealed and drafty homes, and homes with or without basements.

Radon from soil gas is the main cause of radon problems. Sometimes radon enters the home through well water (see "Radon in Water" below). In a small number of homes, the building materials can give off radon, too. However, building materials rarely cause radon problems by themselves."

This in in the FAQ regarding how radon enters your house. In the alphabetized A-Z guide, under "G", there is no granite listing. So, in the parlance of my business, looks like to me you're just trying to blow smoke up my *ss:)

In conclusion, like the television commercials that I find so odious that I refuse to buy their product, this little discussion has definitely changed my mind about one thing. I was going to do granite in the kitchen, and engineered stone in the three bathrooms. After reading this, I've decided to go all granite in all the rooms. But what do I know, I'm just a poor little uneducated engineer.

This is in response to your question, "what do the unbiased say?"

Something happened, he got educated on the subject and decided I was not what he though I was. Now he pleads for a civil discussion on the facts, something you guys will not address at all

Actually, I think I've gone out of my WAY to be civil. Trust me-- anyone who's seen me debate in the Hot Topics forum knows I can be downright nasty when it's called for (if I'm attacked). You've been civil to this point. Ignorant of the facts, but civil, so I've responded in kind. If I've got to pay the price anyway, though(being accused), I can most certainly play the game.

This has degenerated to a point where it's probably useless to continue. I'll sum up where I am, just to mark this spot in the "debate" (Lincoln and Douglas roll over in their graves at our use of that term, I'm sure.)

The Revans1 take on things:

There exists a question: Do any granites used as countertops present a health risk due to radiation and/or radon?

If the answer is "no", we have the end of this issue. If the answer is "yes", then:

There exists a question: What percentage of slabs are dangerous?

If the answer is "an infinitesimally small percentage", then we have the end of this issue as a practical matter. If the answer is "a small percentage, but one that may represent the exposure of many thousands of homeowners and workers", then:

There exists a question: Do they share some common, readily identifiable characteristics, or is the danger randomly distributed among all slabs?

If the answer is "they have common characteristics that are easy to see", then any slab with those characteristics needs to be tested. If the answer is "they're random", then all slabs need to be tested and labeled.

That's how I see it. I think that the anti-granite people here see things in a very skewed way, and make claims and "logical" connections far beyond what a reasonable review of the data will support. I think that the granite people do exactly the same thing when they claim that getting actual, reasonable answers to the questions listed above would be so incredibly expensive and difficult that it would wreck their industry.

As I've said all along, I don't have a granite countertop and I'm not in the market for one. My countertop is less than a year old, so I hope I don't need any sort of material for years and years. Maybe by the time I do, this will be figured out. But I'm not holding my breath.

The position ICRP, EPA, and BEIR IV is ALARA, As Low As Reasonably Achieveable, for public safety.

Concrete in some states is limited to 5 uR/hr, 10 uR/hr max individual ingredient content.

Some granite may be at that level, but most is not, much is higher, some is way, way, higher.

20 uR/hr will cause remidiation for industry sites.

But, you advocate putting higher levels than that inside homes....

I agree that starting such a rumor would be a bad thing cause you can't back up a single claim you listed, however, every claim I ever listed was backed by multiple published scientific studies. How can you compare published scientific reports to your idea on spreading rumors? Doesn't make any sense.

"However, most of those other people do not exaggerate the miniscule risks involved in the natural product for their own purposes, but instead respect choices."

Sure they do Bluekit, Dr. Hans said some engineered stones contain radioactive substances, yet when called for brand names, he refuses to give them. Dr. Hans didn't limit his attack on quartz to that either, proclaimed breakage over dishwasher without saying it happens to granite as well. He even admitted that even the stone industry journals wouldn' print it!

I politely asked some questions. The personal attacks started afterward and not by me.

Bill,

First off, what was your response to VRJames when he welcomed me back? Was that civil, but more importantly, did I ignore the remark? I gave you the benefit of the doubt anyway and responded to your questions, being as you were one of the few that actually had any.

You did explain why you are so skeptical, and I believe we were both civil at that point.

You were right that I refered to "you guys" when responding directly to you. I should have excepted you. My apologies for that lack of exception. But admit this, despite linking to proof, no matter what the experts say, you won't believe it simply because I posted it. How is that conducive to a civil debate? One of the rules of debating is to not to disagree with obvious truths, and to attack the idea not the person.

You really think solid surface is more lucrative? Here are two recent jobs we did.

Two slab granite job, one slab $600, one slab $750, total $1,350. Some fiberglass rodd, one tube of Integra rodding compound, maybe $50.00. Total so far $1,400.00

Labor, one man, one week, low skill fabricator, pushing a saw, grinding and polishing edges, $12 per hour, $480.00. Install labor, two extra laborers, four hours including the drive time, eight hours plus the fabricator, 12 hours, $128.00.

Insurance and taxes on the labor, $304.

Grand total direct cost on the granite job, $2,312.00, sold for a tiny bit under $8,000.00.

Gross profit before overhead, $5,6888.00
Over head portion of stone shop is near nil, pads and tooling will last 15 to 20 jobs. About $10,000 invested in tooling, tools, lifting equip special to the trade.

Now, a solid surface job, about the same size.

3.5 sheets of Living Stone solid surface, around $1,300 with the adhesive needed. 3.5 days labor needed for fabrication, $392.00. One very large L top delivered in one piece, so two laborers plus the fabricator needed for two hours including drive time, 6 hours of labor $72.00.

Taxes and comp on the labor, $232.00

Total expenses, $1,996.

Sold for $3,990.00, leaving Gross profit of $1,994.00.

So, not counting sinks sold on either job(about the same cost), the Solid Surface job paid $1,994.00, the granite job paid $5,688.00 .

It is not about the money, far, far, from it. It is about having satisfied customers giving references in the coming years. But the money in granite is phenomenal, and I won't turn it away if the material is safe to work with, after warning the customer about the weak points and health risks of granite.

You see why the stone industry is fighting this so hard? Granite is a cash cow. High end granite shops will start around $59 or so for a well done job, but the low ballers can sell the same product for $29.00 , you think the low ballers are producing that much cheaper? Chances are they do get a buck or two per square foot off the cost of the slab. The good granite shops will spend maybe 20% labor, either better skilled workers, or just more time.

My point is no one is selling the same home for half price, no one is selling the same car for half price, so why is granite selling for half price in many markets?

Because it is so lucrative that even at half price a living can be made fabricating it.

Paulines,
thank you for the compliment on our work. We really do bust our tail getting customers vaulue for their hard earned dollars. We aren't the cheapest cabinet shop by far, but in the high end of the Oklahoma market, we are close to the cheapest shop. I sweat the details, won't hesitate to run off a worker if they don't show up and do as perfect work as is possible with a natural product like wood. I sent one worker home today for running a screw through a laminate countertop. I personally handed the guy some short screws for the L brackets, told him why, then he got careless and used some longer screws laying on his bench.

What really, really, hacked me off is that the guy backed out the screw, and loaded the cabinet on the truck and sent it out. He had plenty of time to replace the top, had plenty of extra material, but he chose to send crap to a customer and got two days off work for doing so.

But Pauline, I am no fan of quartz, you know that. I am not defending it here, but the two industries have a common enemy, those who misrepresent their product, granite. No, not all shops, but the vast majority.

Now, Pauline, that is a bald personal attack, calling me unstable. How about the guy that was screaming at Dr. Llope, calling him a liar? That is unstable.

And I am not a scientist or a geologist, but the studies I use in this debate were written by such. A geologist set the new EPA opinion, communicated his concerns about our workers fabricating it. Are you saying that we laypersons aren't capable of reading their conclusions? Why write a study if no one is going to use the info?

In the entire debate last year, you guys couldn't drege up a single study that proved your point, this time the best the MIA could do is drag out Dr. Hans, who himself admitted wasn't able to get published by the stone industry jounals! That is why, as in your post above, personal attacks were used. It was all that was available...

Twobengals,

You left out the question to the answer you quoted

"What advice does the EPA offer consumers who have granite counters? "

Until around mid May, the EPA was saying that there was no concern to granite countertops. Now they say to Radon test if you have one. Stone, cold, simple.

Now you are well aware of the need to test drilling equipment for radiation, and the need to test sludge and scale for radiation. You know that the oil and gas industry has issues with recycling old equipment and piping due to the radiation. So, there is absolutely no doubt that you know that granite has radiation, that the EPA makes you guys clean up drilling sites if over the limits, and you know that some of these levels we have found are way, way, over the limits.

Now, I just used that link you mentioned, it works and takes you to the correct page. It is a FAQ type format and the subject is

"What about Radon in Granite Countertops?"

It says some granite does have Uranium and emits Radon.

They don't know if it is dangerous yet, too many variables they say.

They say they haven't studied it yet, nor do they plan to "at this point in time."

They end by saying if you have a granite countertop in your home, test for Radon and mitigate if over 4 pCi/L

So, twobengals, how can you say that that link didn't mention granite when it plainly did? You said you went to the site, but did you go to that page? Is it not on the site? In the languange of any business, you are clearly misstating the facts, assuming that readers won't follow the link and read the EPA's warning for themselves. And you call me "disingenuous"? I would say that few would consider you "unbiased".

Let's look at the names thrown at me in the last few days

Stonegirl
"Al, your bias is showing. Seems like it wasn't enough you got booted off here once already. I see you still try to bludgeon people with quantity over substance."
"I will continue to educate people on stone and try to counteract the misinformation you spread so gleefully"

Dr. Hans
"It's true what they say - a little knowledge pushing a wheelbarrow is a dangerous combination."
"When you just make things up - to push your own pathetic cause"
"I suggest that you might need to look at your own health."
"Hopefully most readers can see through your verbal diarrhoea and I certainly don't intend to engage you in debate."

Paulines,
"his point was based on a condo complex (whereas the builder clearly & obviously did a slapshod and improper installation) to prove his point"
(Pauline says this while knowing full well that all 400 units sink rails failed and that I posted that to rebut a stoner saying it rarely happened. No evidence was in that post that said the intallation was of poor quality. The post was removed by the stone site because it showed stone in a bad light.)
Paulines, as she did before, does her best to attack not the ideas I put forward, but instead attacks my credibility, not calling me a liar by word, but by insinuation over, and over again. Here is an example
"An perfect example of how the truth is twisted is above. Al states the EPA recommends testing all homes with granite counters. "
Of course, the EPA site does recomend all granite countertop owners test their homes for Radon.
"It's sad to me that you are undermining your potential business, by coming across as unstable, although I realize us creative types can be a bit crazy ;)"

Kevin weighs in

"Who pays you Al?
"This BS Al keeps referring to how safe China is just about makes me puke all over the place... Al was born in Arkansas and lives in Oklahoma and it is quite clear he has never left this country."
And then twobengals
"is ummmm, well, disingenuous is the kindest thing I can say."

Bill,
See why I slipped and said "you guys". You yourself used "You people" in one of your posts, the one where you told of your fight against the tile sealer(?) company. The point is, your side has not addressed the questions I asked Dr. Hans, instead your side has relied upon personal attacks. This is why Dr. Llope quit the forum, a posionous culture instead of a civil, fact based debate on the issues.

I just linked to them. The facts of this matter are very, very, clear.

You're right-- they ARE very clear. Go read your own EPA link-- they don't give a RIP.

So, not counting sinks sold on either job(about the same cost), the Solid Surface job paid $1,994.00, the granite job paid $5,688.00 .

Based on your say so that these are the norm for both types of countertops. That's also 1994.00 for 3.5 days plus install, and 5688.00 for a week plus install. Still more for the granite, but not quite the bargain you make it out to be, and again, based on YOUR say so as the norm.

Then let me ask you-- what IS your reason for doing this, if it's not the money, and don't give me that crap that granite is so everlovin dangerous because I'm not buying it, nor are most people reading this.

And then twobengals
"is ummmm, well, disingenuous is the kindest thing I can say."

In the context that was said, I have to agree!! You post a link expecting that no one's going to check it out, and then point to people who DO check it out and claim "They're picking on me!" Your credibility's very quickly going right out the window, and I don't have to do a thing!! You're doing it all yourself!

One last comment. I've known Pauline for about 4 years now. I would trust her word LONG before I'd trust alot of other people.

Look, Al-- you don't like stone. Fine. So don't install stone!! I won't lose a bit of sleep over it! But don't try to put stone down just because you don't like to work with it, and it's too much competition for you NOT to.

Since your wife threw the gauntlet down in the last thread , I can no longer comment on this thread.

But I must comment that what you are doing is akin to shouting FIRE in a crowded movie theater when you have found a cigarette butt smoldering.

AND I must say that revans last post sums up an exactly appropriate end to this "debate".

Al writes;
"Labor, one man, one week, *low skill fabricator*, pushing a saw, grinding and polishing edges, $12 per hour, $480.00. Install labor, two extra laborers, four hours including the drive time, eight hours plus the fabricator, 12 hours, $128.00."

Who does your stone fab Al, the highly or low skilled guy?
Ahhh, never mind...you can't keep your own stories straight.

Do the math, solid surface paid $1994 divided by 3.5 days fab time = $569.71 per day.

Granite paid $5688 divided by 5 days = $1137.60 per day, dang near twice the profit per day! When you consider our overhead, before payroll, is about $500 per day, granite is the clear moneymaker.

But, I can sell the solid surface and sleep better, and that is just one guy contributing to the overhead so it is still a money maker, just not as profitable as granite.

Bill, my point it that granite is twice as profitable, proving that you need to drop that point in your argument.

"Then let me ask you-- what IS your reason for doing this, if it's not the money, and don't give me that crap that granite is so everlovin dangerous because I'm not buying it, nor are most people reading this. "

Bill, there again is the problem. You won't accept anyone elses opinion as valid but your own. The simple fact is that some granite is that dangerous and with the granite industry out there trying to suppress the discussion, someone needs to point out the huge gaping holes in their claims.

Besides, using Dr. Hans own friends comments, Maurzio I believe it was, I showed that Dr. Hans is known for what you accuse me of doing. Where is your outrage on that? Doesn't it prove that you will hear and see only what buttresses your opinion?

VrJames,
Last time you had the same postition, that I had no proof. Now you can't say that, Dr. Llope laid it out for all to see. Yet you still have the same opinion.

Paulines,
again you dig for some shred of proof to discredit instead of accepting that granite is very, very, profitable. The guy that was pushing that saw and polishing the edges was a new trainee, actually an somewhat experienced fabricator from another shop that wasn't good enough to turn loose on his own. The more experienced fabricator marked it out, and supervised the young man doing the work. We were finishing up a job at the FAA, coved backsplash, thermoformed vanity top 13 feet long. Ultra hard to do, not possible to do in granite.

Want to hear a good one? The homeowner had switched cooktops at the last minute, called in the measurements on that granite top. We get there and the cooktop just falls in, hole is too big. Seems the homeowner and the salesman were looking at the entire cooktop size instead of the required cuttout. What was weird was that they gave a range, 35 5/8 to 36 and 19 1/4 to 20 1/4 leading us to trust the info, they usually give a range from minimum to maximum size. No model number so we could check it ourselves, just the measurements.

We had to go back and epoxy in stone to hold the top in place, luckily it was Santa Cecilia which is easy to patch and make it disappear. Looked great, a small seam visible at the back if you looked close, but the homeowners were estatic that we fixed their mistake quickly and at no cost.

The homeowner switched the oven as well, took it upon himself to buy a 3"taller one, not knowing that there needed to be one inch below and 1 1/2" above for clearance. That was tough, but we reworked some doors and made it look like it belonged. They were great customers though, not a problem going way beyond what was normal.

You guys are still doing the personal attack instead of addressing the issues.

Really, it is simple. Dr. Hans started the thread and made some statements, well, many statements.

He answered some questions.

I asked some questions that he refuses to answer.

Then the personal attacks begin.

Why?

Let's review the questions that Dr. Hans won't answer.

Would not someone who has been "intimately involved" in the stone industry bring along a strong bias for those who have paid his salary for many years?

Would not a Nuclear Physicts like Dr. Llope, who is relying upon his yearly radiation safety training to determine the health risks of the hot granite countertops, be more unbiased?

Does your "intimate" relationship with the stone industry barr you from claiming lack of bias or standing to gain personally from knocking down this discussion?

Are you saying by the first sentence that should a hot granite countertop be discovered (in this case, one of the previous homeowners developed a brain tumor), that this information should be withheld from consumers? Do they not have the right to know of any potential risks?

Why are stones not tested for safety prior to bringing them to market?

However, would you also address the issue of whether or not the values can also be grossly understated?

Is not the MIA position of only 5 to 10 uR/hr radiation from granite grossly understated?

Would you care to defend that claim, that all stones are being "tarred with the same brush"?

Will you concede that due to the variation, all slabs would need testing?

Dr Llope posted a Gamma spectrometry graph of one of his granite samples, it showed Uranium, Thorium, and Potassium as being the sources of radioactivity of the stone. Are you saying that none of these elements are present in Uranium ore?

Would you not concede that resining and mesh backed stones would be indicative of a "structurally weakened" granite and that after resining and mesh backing, that stone can be brought to market profitably for the granite countertop industry?

You say that most of the radiation is coming from Potassium 40, but if Potassium 40K decays by Beta decay, Positron emission, and electron capture, no where do I see any mention of Gamma being produced. So, if a scintillator is used to measure the radiation, and by design that scintillator can only measure Gamma not Beta, any Beta radiation is not counted any way. All the radiation is Gamma, is it not?

How is it relevant that Potassium accounts for most of the radiation when we aren't counting that type of radiation?

Would you not agree that standing over a countertop, or a child doing homework or coloring a color book is at more risk from breathing the Radon or Thoron than Dad in his easy chair in the living room? Just your personal opinion, as you are not a health physicist.

So, if the public can not depend on their fabricators, the wholesalers or the MIA to test their granite, are you suggesting that they just not test their tops?

You are referring to the usual Radon in the air we breath. Are you advocating we add more? I understand that a quart of air at 1 pCi/L will have 12,000 atom decays per hour. Your figure is much higher. Would you mind if I use that figure and quote you on it?

Since you are not a health physicist, you might not be up to date on the latest info, but would you comment on the bystander effect of a single Alpha or Beta particle on lung tissue?

Are you saying that the ALARA doctrine, As Low As Reasonably Achievable, is to be dismissed as sound advice? Did not BEIR and the ICRP endorse this doctrine?

Since we can't be 100% certain, can you explain why we would err on the side of danger, not safety?

Would it not be better to purchase a lower level stone than a higher level stone? Doesn't that require testing of every slab?

If though, you have proof of engineered stones that do contain radioactivity, I would also ask to be given their names so I can procure samples and send them for testing.

Pray tell, Dr. Hans, who wrote that White Paper?

For starters, you mix engineered stone with Quartz, while not pointing out that a quartz based product has only quartz as the filler, not the marble that you rightly claim degrades the marble based engineered stones performance. Will you admit that lumping the two while knowing that quartz specifically does not have marble content is misleading?

Tell me this, Dr. Hans, are we to sacrifice safety for the financial interests of the stone industry?

Since twenty years have passed, has not the industry had time to test products and bring only safe products to the market?

Since we now know that high level radioactive granite is being sold, doesn't that knock the third leg off that 1985 argument?

Is your argument that because other products might be a problem, that your product shouldn't be tested?

Using your own arguments above, would you not also admit that you personally do not have the qualifications to judge the health risks of the radiation in high level granites? Would it not be better to rely on EPA standards, ICRP standards, than your own guesses?

Should not Geo chemists also be limited to their fields of expertise?

Oh, and about that white paper that got rejected by Surface Fabrication, who did you say wrote that article?

As you can see, there is plenty for Dr. Hans to address. Perhaps he could do one per day till most have been addressed.

Anyway - after reading thru, Al it seems thou doth protest too much.

Ok, nuff said - I guess I will just sit back and observe the rest. Please pass the popcorn :) (or maybe I can just place a bag on my new granite counter and see if it pops )

Water off a duck's back.

I'm quite sure that all of the other readers who have painfully followed this forum have realized that almost all the points you have raised in one way or another are twisted to suit your own agenda and beliefs or are outright fabrications coming from a sick mind. Some advice - stay off forums, stay out of things where you have no knowledge because you add nothing to the discussion and advancement of a serious thread. Go get help - it's quite possible that your unbelieveably bizarre verbal diarrhoea comes from a massive overdose of something - I won't make suggestions.

I am a natural stone lover. I will buy granite, although much more carefully than before, because of the beauty and stabillity of the material.

I will try to be an educated consumer and have already made plans to have radon testing done in my home in subruban Chicago. I will test before my granite countertops are installed and after the granite tops are installed. I will have tested the slabs at the warehouse before they are sent to the fabricator. But the bottom line is I will have Granite!!!

I will not have engineered stone because I don't like the look of the material. I agree that it is stable, but it lacks the depth and beauty of real granite. It does stain just like granite, it does scratch, just like granite, and chips are very noticeable and are not easily repaired in engineered stone.

So I guess if one is a stone lover he is one forever. Damm the torpedos and full speed ahead - I'm getting granite!!

I will not haveSS

This is the reason I keep coming back to this headbanger.

Bill says radioactivity in granite is possible, but a million-to-one shot. He reaches this conclusion based on the fact that he's been around stone a lot, for a long time, and doesn't (thank God) have cancer.

*He also smoked cigarettes for 32 years, but we're presumably not to reach the same conclusion about the safety of tobacco.

Al quotes the EPA as saying that anyone with a granite countertop should check for radon, and act if the reading is over 4pCi/L. He uses this as evidence of the EPA's concern about granite.

*The EPA thinks everyone, everywhere, should test their homes for radon and act at the 4pCi/L level, no matter what kind of counters they have.

drhans wants us to believe that it takes years of training and experience in a rock quarry to effectively measure the radioactivity of a piece of stone.

*Meanwhile, countless people with very little training, in a wide variety of occupations, capably deal with the safety issues related to radioactivity every day.

Come on, guys. Give us a break. You're all smarter than what you've said here, and so are the rest of us.

I believe we can all give some consideration to the message, but I feel the messenger doesn't have one iota of credibility, due to the many reasons I stated above.

I believe many of Al's posts are specifically written, not to educate, but to create unwarranted fear. Think about his approach over the last year or so.

So far, only Dr. Llopes has put forth anything worthwhile-and it's still pretty vague. I'd be willing to listen, absolutely.

You say that I'm "missing the point", and then discuss Al and his history here. You then suggest that you still have an open mind to objective, reasonably presented information. I'm having a hard time seeing where you and I disagree at all, unless you think that I'm not being sufficiently hard on Al. Maybe it is fair to say that I don't see him as "the point". I'd like to get past all this personality-related stuff, and just talk about what, if anything, there is to the health question at hand.

So, I guess my reply to you would be that if we're both willing to hear out somebody (Llope, hopefully) who is calm, objective, and well-informed, then we agree on what I think is "the point".

Am I missing something important, as you see it?

Thanks,

Randy

*He also smoked cigarettes for 32 years, but we're presumably not to reach the same conclusion about the safety of tobacco.

No, you're to reach the conclusion that with all the other risk factors involved, if ANYONE were to come down with cancer as a result of exposure to it, it'd be me. When's the last time you saw a homeowner that had a high exposure rate to the dust from fabrication? Randy, think about the conclusions you're reaching. This makes absolutely no sense that homeowners with granite countertops would be at a higher risk than someone like me.

Al quotes the EPA as saying that anyone with a granite countertop should check for radon, and act if the reading is over 4pCi/L. He uses this as evidence of the EPA's concern about granite.

*The EPA thinks everyone, everywhere, should test their homes for radon and act at the 4pCi/L level, no matter what kind of counters they have.

Exactly. So how is this evidence that granite gives off high levels of radon?

drhans wants us to believe that it takes years of training and experience in a rock quarry to effectively measure the radioactivity of a piece of stone.

*Meanwhile, countless people with very little training, in a wide variety of occupations, capably deal with the safety issues related to radioactivity every day.

Where's that? In hospitals? Where the people who AREN'T trained aren't allowed in certain areas when it's in use? You mean the people who have to wear radiometric badges that get checked once a month to make sure that they haven't had too much exposure by accident, because they can't be counted on to know themselves? THOSE countless people?

Come on, Randy. Give us a break. You're all smarter than what you've said here, and so are the rest of us.

While it's great that you're healthy, it is statistically meaningless. If, God forbid, you do eventually become unhealthy in a way consistent with radiation/radon exposure, that'll be statistically meaningless too. This isn't a question for which you can be a canary-in-the-coal-mine for us.

The EPA point is intended to show that both strident sides of this "debate" are stretching logic and reason beyond recognition.

People in medical, mining, manufacturing, power generation, research, and other fields deal with radiation. We can agree to disagree, but drhans has tried to say more than once that only a trained and experienced geoscientist can produce reliable data about this, and I just don't buy it.

You've said that this issue is settled, in your opinion. For me, it is not. It may well turn out that you're right...if it were up to me, that's how it would turn out. Right now, I have seen information that makes me think the question as I have posed it is legitimate, and I have seen nothing that looks like evidence for a definitive answer from anyone.

THAT is the difference between the two of us. We aren't on opposite sides of the question....we're on opposite sides of a debate about the meaningfulness of the question itself.

I think Dr. Hans is afraid to answer any questions, instead prefering to continue the personal attacks as shown above.

jb1176,
I agree 100% with what you wrote. Testing is all that is required, and you are right on the quartz issues in comparison to granite.

I don't know how anyone thinks I am a huge quartz fan. To me it is a second choice, unless you are thinking black tops.

But as you can see, Bill and some of the others don't want you to have the right to know about granite needing testing. That is what keeps me coming back to this "headbanger".

The right to know....

Randy,
I appreciate your attempt to bring reason to the debate, but you are missing the EPA point. Prior to mid May, EPA had several FAQs about granite and radon. They said not to worry.

Now they say, we don't know, but if you have granite countertops in your home, test your home for Radon. They may well recommend all homes be tested, but no one can argue that they did not change their position on granite counters from "don't worry" to "test your home for Radon"

And I posted the entire email from the EPA geologist, where he said the levels we found would be of concern to some people depending upon exposure.

He went on to warn us to protect our fabricators when working with that stone. No one can argue that point and retain any crediblity at all. There is nothing to interpret.

Paulines, back at ya. And when Dr Llope posted, you were one of the ones that ridiculed the man. Anyone can look it up. I believe many of your posts here are written to ridicule instead of inform, matter of fact, I don't remember any time you did add to the discussion. And I see that Revans1 put you gently in your place on this very issue, attacking the man, not the idea.

Bill,
I agree somewhat with your position that you would be more at risk than a homeowner. Different exposures though, you are at risk from the majority of the radiation, the Alpha and Beta, internally from inhalation and injestion.

I understand that you do tile for a living, right? I haven't tested many tiles, but the ones I have tested aren't that bad due to lack of mass. If I tested a pallet, I might change my mind. Gamma in granite seems to be driven by mass, separate a hot spot from a slab and it isn't as hot. For all we know, the hot spots are acting as a reflector, gaining radiation strength from surrounding areas, or more likely, a lot of Gamma is hitting the meter from the side coupled with a hot spot. As I have said before, granite workers are historically more likely to get cancer. Maybe the silica, maybe that and the radiation.

So, the Alpha and Beta in the dust will affect you more, but you aren't likely to work with hot slabs all the time if you are a granite fabricator. Maybe from 3% to 10%, who knows.

But, a homeowner with a hot granite countertop is exposed to Gamma radiation every time they come close to the thing, six to eight feet is enough. The radiation meters tell us that and no interpetation is needed. If you know your numbers, Bill, you can read a meter. If not, the higher the shriek and the more it vibrates, the higher the radiation levels detected. They self test each and everytime they start up, then it callibrates itself.

Bill, these meters are used to keep people safe when working around radiation. They are foolproof and accurate, and a six year old can read one.

Revans1,
I admire you for trying but Bill is on record saying that no amout of proof will convince him, and Dr. Hans and Pauline's goal is to discredit instead of addressing the issues.

We all remember the abuse Dr. Llope took from these posters, you can see that they heap abuse on you for taking a middle position. You've read them questioning Cushty(?), including Bill's vulgar comment.

Face it, they have no interest in participating in a civil debate on the issues.

Now, have I ever refused to answer a question? But when I do, I have "unbelieveably bizarre verbal diarrhoea comes from a massive overdose of something" or am "sick" or "twisted".

Have I once attacked the person? I did ask questions about Dr. Hans objectivity, phrased as a question not a statement, meaning the mind is still open to answers. I reported on what Dr. Hans friend said about him, again asked if this was true. But Dr. Hans won't respond civily, only uses further personal attacks.

I see this as Bill saying prove it is unsafe and I'll listen.

I say since we have evidence of abnormally high radiation (Dr. Llope said "alarming"), granite needs to be proven safe before being used, in an inexpensive and quick way.

Beryberry,
I see your point. I do hit back, but you gotta admit I don't use the name calling as my weapon of choice. I ask legitimate questions, backed by third party info like Dr. Hans's friend Maurio. And, this isn't a fair fight is it? Last year, there were many more acting like this. Keep in mind that I advocate testing for safety, they advocate no testing till damage has occured.

I went out and found a way to test cheaply and quickly. I work with scientists several times a week, obtaining samples, digging up answers to trade questions, spending about a thousand a month for travel, equipment, shipping, or buying remants for samples. Sure I benefit from having a front row seat and knowing which granites are safe, which ones need professional testing, and which ones I don't even want to consider using.

The other side? Well, they don't want you to be able to read this. People like them helped the MIA keep the lid on this for over 14 years, 20 years according to Dr. Hans, yet despite knowing that granite can emit large levels of radiation, none of them said "hey, we better look into this".

Now, I have never asked anyone to believe what I write, I just ask them to look at the links and see what natural stone sites or the scientists have to say on the issues. I find myself defending not their ideas, but instead having to defend my right to speak.

Which side is acting in the interests of society and which side is acting in their own interests?

I see this as Bill seeing way too much proof to the contrary, not to mention no proof whatsoever to back up your claim, and yes, it's got to be proven before he'll put ANY stock in it at all. You've got a long way to go.

And being that it's not in a controlled evironment, what happens if it's something else in the vicinity of the granite that sets the thing off? Oh well? That's okay-- there's always SS!

Mary, thanks for the offer, sounds delish!

I do hope you stayed your distance from your microwave while it was running... hate to see anybody get radiation burns. Have you done away with your cell phone use yet since they cause brain tumors? Don't let your family go anywhere that has wifi connectivity since the RF stuff is killing us all. And please don't let your men in the family use a laptop cause... well you know, the family jewels can be ruined with continued exposure to those laptops.

Al - Do us all a favor and report the readings from some common household items like a crt, older microwave, cell phone, etc. for some baseline readings so we can all compare them to the stone we are all surrounded with.

Just saw on the news today that NASA is getting closer with the international space program to get you off this planet with all the nasty gases like radon, methane, etc. There is hope for you Al!

Bill responded

"And being that it's not in a controlled evironment, what happens if it's something else in the vicinity of the granite that sets the thing off? Oh well? That's okay-- there's always SS!"

Bill, that is an excellent question. Let me address it cause I firmly believe that once you are exposed to the proof of this matter, you will become an advocate of testing.

The small Gamma detectors (PM 1703 scintillators) have a small screen on the front. It displays the current reading until the alarm level is reached, then it flashes a nuclear symbol, vibrates, and the audio alarm starts sounding. Of course the digital reading reflects the reading as it climbs, instant reaction to the level of Gamma hitting the crystal inside the meter.

These things were originally sold for $1,200 each, newer models coming out put these two year old models within our financial reach. They were intended for searching for radiation leaks, very sensitive meters. They are still sold on Pollimasters web site, not outdated, just newer models available. Just like my two year old laptop, dated, but still perfectly functional.

This alarm level is set by either the radiation tech after linking it to a computer, or it can be set so the wearer can set it. The factory recomends 5.3 as the alarm level, any lower and you have to listen to false alarms, backgound spike from space. Any higher and you might miss what you are looking for.

After turning the meter on, it runs a diagnostic test, remember people use these to prevent radiation damage, they have to work all the time. After the self test, it reads background for 36 seconds, then calculates the radiation measured and converts counts per minute into micro Roentgens per hour (uR/hr).

Typical backround ranges from 6 uR/hr to 8 uR/hr if a lot of concrete is around, say a parking lot or in our shop building that has concrete floors, walls and ceilings.

When we are surveying a slab yard, we wear them on our belts. A hot slab will start alarming the meter from 10 to 20 feet away. One guy from Washington state reported 50 to 60 uR/hr just walking around the slab yard, six times normal background radiation. When a slab needs checking, we just run the meter over the slab slowly, watching the meter, listening to the alarm, or feeling the vibration if we have it set on the silent mode.

After checking the slab, we write down the reading, subtacting background when we post it in the spreadsheet program automatically.

So, the background is accounted for. All that is left is the neighboring slabs. If a hot one is found, first we check the backside of the A frame, then check the neighboring A frames. If a Bordeaux, Shivakaski, or one of the Africa stones is nearby, it will affect the reading. Isolating the slab is the only way to get an accurate reading.

So yes, it is possible for other things in the area to raise the radiation levels, OTHER GRANITE SLABS. Everything else is low level, gravel parking lots will add two or three uR/hr, sometimes nothing if the gravel is quieter than the granite.

So in the worst case scenario, ANOTHER granite slab will make a reading hot. Regardless, multiple readings of the same stone type recorded will give a range. Once eight to ten are recorded, throw out the high and low, use what is left as an average.

But much of the testing we do is on small samples, 100# remanants and smaller, sometimes a six inch square or so. That is easily isolated. Only problem is that because of the loss of mass, the reading doesn't represent what a real size granite countertop will emit.

The samples that have been professionally tested so far are 1 3/8" diameter cores from faucet hole type core drills. The scientists take the samples we provide, do their own survey to find various radiation level spots, then they send the samples out to be cored. Taking a number of cores from different areas, they determine the exact isotope of the element that emitts the radiation. A spectrum is used to identify the exact element and isotope, gathered from scientists working for a 100 years with these radioisotopes. Kind of like looking at mug shots to find a criminal, find an exact match and you know the isotope.

Once the isotope is know, a correction factor is added or subtracted from the meters reading, giving an exact measurement.

What we have been told is that OUR meters are under reporting the radiation. Seems radiation over 1 MeV doesn't read on our meters, too high supposedly. That is fine, I would rather under promise and over deliver.

So there is no such thing as a FALSE reading, the meter just reads what Gamma radiation hits it.

People don't really know much about radiation, and sometimes what they know is wrong. Everyone has been to the dentist, was draped with the thin lead apron during the X ray. Just fluff to set your mind at ease. One inch of lead will stop 1/2 of the Gamma that hits it, two inches stops 3/4 of the Gamma, three inches stops .875%, four inches stops 93.75% of the Gamma.

My point is that shielding is near useless in testing or during X rays( same as Gamma rays, just from a different source). Some scientists are equipped with massive, special lead shields to minimize natural background radiation, but for our purposes, the background is just removed from the result.

The other method we have of testing, the LENi Geiger counter can be hooked to a laptop, allowing the computer to count the "hits". These files are called Data logs. We have data logged about fourty known granites so far.

Geiger counters count Alpha, Beta, and Gamma, unlike the Scintillators that just count the Gamma. As an example, Four Seasons will read 800 uR/hr in spots, or .8 mR/hr, measuring only Gamma. Reading ALL the radiation with a LENi Geiger counter will run 13.1 mR/hr, 16 times higher than the Gamma only.

Different meters will be slightly off, different kind of meters will not be comparable. But using one meter to test different granite countertop materials reveals which is high, which is low, good enough for the purpose of selecting a low level granite for a consumer.

Now that too is an excellent question, one that if not answered would settle the debate.

I read your question as asking if anyone else believes that granite can have dangerous levels of radiation. I posted some studies last year, you didn't read them, but I will post the link again. Take the name of the study, google it and find your own copy off the internet if you wish.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r4x3r84t77114141/

We have this study on the SSA site, the full study. It says that depending upon whose standards you use, between four and six Chinese granites failed to meet safe standards. The studies last sentence say that the safe use of these commercial granites should be noticed. In other words, put them in places where human exposure is limited like the outsides of buildings.

Now think about that, six of 20 failed to meet safe standards, 30% of the granites gathered from Chinese stone markets. Currently the Chinese are saying it is down to around 20% of the slabs that fails, they are getting better at reading the blocks before slicing them up.

This next study is from Saudia Arabia

http://www.solidsurfacealliance.org/files/Saudia_Arabian_granite_study.pdf

All but one sample of the 20 granites tested tested safe. Blue Bahea, or Azoles Bahea was considered unsafe. Only 5% of the granites were bad, but that was just 20 samples compared to the previous studies 80 samples tested.

They said that enviromental monitoring of marbles and granite should be done where humans are exposed to radiation.

They warned that simple mistakes in name of the granite and country of origin could have serious economical and social consequences in the stone sector. In other words, end the name game in the granite industry to prevent radioactive stone from being slipped in.

So this study also recomended testing stone used near humans.

The next study is from Egypt

http://www.solidsurfacealliance.org/files/Egyptian_Radon_study_PDF.pdf

It also calls for enviromental monitoring of granites and marbles used where humans are exposed.
In this study, all the samples met the UN standards, but look at table #3 .40, .59 and .85 were the highest levels. Anything at 1 is at the UN limit. Would you want the one that was at 85% of the safe level or would you want the one that was at 2% of the safe level?

So despite clearing all the samples, they called for more research and monitoring of granite used near humans.

This next study was done in Cyprus.

http://www.solidsurfacealliance.org/files/cyprus_study_on_granite.pdf

28 samples studied, 25 were under the exemption limit, or too low level to worry about. They used the EU standard of .3 mSv/yr to 1 mSv/yr, below .3 is exempted, above 1 mSv/yr is treated as hazardous enough to require radiation protection. Rosso Balamore and New Imperial meet the 1 mSv'yr limit requiring radiation protection and Cafe Brown clearly exceeds the upper level.

They do warn that the levels are okay only if used as superficial materials.

So yes, these studies and many more have already been concluded and they all say to test granite used near humans.

Build Clean has more studies on their site if you need further proof that this is a worldwide concern.

Something else you will find if you research. Most of these higher radiation level stone are sold only in the US because we have no laws regarding NORM material like Granite.

We are the worlds dumping ground for radioactive granite slabs...

Kevin,

Your continued use of the cell phone and micro wave radiation is called Argumentum ad nauseam (same argument, over and over again) and it also fits into the catagory of Ignoratio elenchi (Logically nothing to do with the conclusions). You are speaking of electromagnetic radiation, none of those items emit ionizing radiation. That is like asking me to compare the amount of light a stone emits, completely impossible to do a comparison.

Now you could use an older model smoke detector as an example, but not the items you mentioned.

Hmmmm.......

Other countries have regulations and standards about this, so the idea of it isn't novel.

Earlier in this thread, I asked drhans directly: "is any of the granite sold for use as a countertop sufficiently radioactive to create a legitimate health concern?" His direct answer was: "I suspect that there will be some when and if reliable testing is done. Sweden and Canada had sufficient concerns 20 odd years ago".

When and if reliable testing is done.....I'm now curious enough to say that I'd like to see the outcome of this reliable testing. That's all. All this vehemence on the part of the folks in the business is misplaced, I think. Bill essentially refers to me as "Chicken Little". It would make for a pretty boring kiddie story if Chicken Little ran around saying:

"There is some sufficiently credible preliminary evidence that a very small portion of the sky may be unstable and possibly subject to some risk of falling. It is too early to draw conclusions, but it does appear to me that a scientifically rigorous examination of this issue is warranted, so that we can measure the extent of this risk, if in fact it exists at all."

Let's look at how this thread came to be. A GW reader asked a question about the issue, again the naysayers dismissed the idea till the neighbor of the Houston homeowner showed up and verified this as fact, the countertop was dangerous enough to tear out. Then Dr. Llope ahowed up, spoke to the facts, stood his ground against the stoners that screamed at him, and camly told of his work on the issue.

Then a couple of posters started in on the riduculing, other posters asked them to stop, to go away if they found the issue lacking.

Dr. Lloppe had his fill of the abuse, people questioning his motivations, so he stopped posting. Instead he is going to publish the info.

Seein a chance to destroy a reputation, Dr. Hans starts this thread questioning Dr. Llopes info. He in turn is questioned by me and others.

But, Dr. Hans won't defend his opinions. To do so would be futile, instead he resorts to personal attacks on me, like claiming I was a drug user.

That might work because when you suggest someone is a drug user online, there is no way to prove it is false. How do you prove a negative?

Always remember that the questions I asked and continue to ask Dr. Hans are easily answered and would further the discussion. His contacts with the stone industry are also fair discussion items.

My question is how many readers will either not pick a granite because of the uncertainty left in the wake and how many will pick a hot granite that may well have to be removed later, all because a civil discussion isn't possible by the stone industry supporters?

And deee, think of it this way. You read other sites where people speak to the facts but don't have to defend them. On a thread like this, the positons are attacked and they are defended, so you can see which hold up.

Now, Dr. Hans, you are on record saying that testers need to watch that they aren't given "clean" pebble based engineered stones that would somehow skew the testing. That coupled with your warnings that engineered stones are misrepresented as having no , pretty much state that you believe that some engineered stones contain radioactivity.

If you answer only one question, it would be that one.

Which brands of engineered stones are radioactive?

Consumers have a right to know and you are the one claiming it.

I'm just hoping this thing gets to 150 posts real soon. Here's to helping it along.

Oh well.

One seemed pretty suspicious, depression. I guess if someone has post kitchen remodel depression, they can sue someone too.

You know though, none of the effects on that sealer site, linked to Bill's own website, has been proven. I looked at the ingredients and saw little of concern, Propane, Naptha, were the main ingredients. Heck VMP Naptha has been used in the finishing industry for decades, clean up, even used in oil based stain designed for spraying. Used as directed, and even that website said there were warnings on the label to use ventilation, the product shouldn't be as bad as spraying wood stain. Unless you are dumb enough to spray without a mask and ventilation.

So in essence, the sealer thing is just an excuse to sue some deep pockets over a lack of personal responsibility. I wouldn't let a child come into a place I was spraying in, nor an adult without a respirator.

So it seems we have hypocrisy present if one is taken to task for warning of a health hazard, one easily solved by testing the material prior to use. I didn't see any radioactive content to the sealer, nor were any heavy metals present in the spray. I saw no scientific studies that said Seal and Spray was linked to those symptoms.

Why the double standard on these two issues?

Bluekit,

Nice personal attack, monomaniac, no one has used that one yet. Even Revans1 has to say a two year old wouldn't know that one. You are unique though, usually add a weak argument to the personal attack.

But, your argument again falls short. You say that testing is urged by large corporations to limit liability, were that the case here, the MIA and the stone companies would be pushing the testing effort as hard as they could. Not true, they are attempting to hinder the effort, raising money for that very purpose.

Silestone and Cambria are pushing the testing effort though, voluntarily testing their own product as well, including the Sensa natural stone line. They are doing themselves a favor by finding out any hazards in their products and making other companies step up to the plate and test their products as well. In the end, the consumer wins.

I do agree with your second point, that once a consumer has been warned to test, or told of the need to test, the decision is on them.

Glad to see that you accept the EPA's recommendation to test granite countertop homes for Radon. No it doesn't prove that your countertop is dangerous, but it tells you that some granite countertops are dangerous. It does give fair warning of the issue, far better than a month ago when the EPA site did not warn to test if a home had a granite countertop.

I'd be more interested to hear (for example) Silestone's and Cambria's testing on long term exposure to resin, environmental impact of engineering an existing natural product, and the like than I would their testing of a material that they know isn't in 99.9% of their or anyone else's stones.

Can someone please add 19 more posts here quick?

Sue

Al-- If you haven't seen any proof, then you haven't really looked. i know of atleast two deaths, both under almost the exact same circumstances and from the exact same cause that were both attributed to the product, official cause of death being what boils down to chemical pneumonia. It also came very close to killing a 14 year old up and coming high school jock, who even now, 3 years later, only has 25% lung function after coming into a room where his dad was sealing their grout. A respirator isn't enough with this stuff. Even the manufacturer has stated that a positive flow respirator (one hooked up to a pumped air supply) is the only safe way to use the product. How many homeowners do you know that have one of those? Hell, I'll take it a step further- how many PROS do you know that have one? Meanwhile, there's not a thing on the can that states that. In addition, many of the victims WERE using ventilation, with both windows open and fans going. So don't talk crap about something you know absolutely nothing about, mister.

NOW you're being ignorant.

drhans...is any of the granite sold for use as a countertop sufficiently radioactive to create a legitimate health concern?

* Posted by drhans (My Page) on
Thu, Jun 5, 08 at 0:09

revans1

I suspect that there will be some when and if reliable testing is done.
Sweden and Canada had sufficient concerns 20 odd years ago

In case anybody forgot what this thread was about...

And besides selling tons of granite tile over the years, exactly why do you object to testing granite before it is used?

I don't doubt that the sealer product could possibly have caused some problems, but the entire episode is a parallel to the granite/radiation issue. I was yanking your chain, partly, on the sealer issue.

Randy,
we got in a sample today that is generally around 150 to 175 uR/hr Gamma, or 21 to 25 times background radiation levels. A dozen hot spots up to 284 uR/hr, 40 times background radiation levels. And this is a 18" x 72" sample slab.

Counting all Radiatin with our LENi, which the experts say is not counting anything over 1 MeV, the hottest spots measured 8.1 to 8.6 mR/hr, or 8,600 uR/hr.

If a small child were to use that spot for their homework for two hours, that would be pretty close to the same exposure from a chest X ray. Maybe 2 1/2 hours at the most.

Surely this amount of radiadiation can't be dismissed by those on other side of the debate.

That sample is going to our scientists ASAP, maybe tomorrow.

Something else we are finding. You find a very hot slab of one type and the next slab yard will have the same type with lower radiation. Beside Juparana Bordeaux and a few others, the high radiation is completely random. Baltic brown is another that will run from 11 to 40, with no outward appearance to show a likely hood of higher radiation. I still think some types of granite can be cleared as reasonably safe, as long as they are checked before fabrication.

Other recent finds, the EPA at one point was pushing a standard of no more than 15 ur/hr from a single source, a bit higher than the Florida guidlines they helped set up which were at 10 uR/hr for any single ingredient. Basically, anything hotter than your average low level granite would not meet safe standard requirements.

Don't even try to put yourself in the same league as him, Al.

Funny, even Al's own 'proof' (links he furnished), report that only a very small number of samples tested showed any discernible readings, yet it seems every other sample he tests is 'hot'. Further, these 'tests' provide no baseline, nor comparative info - so it's pretty meaningless to me.

Randy, it will be interesting to see what Dr. Llopes says after he's had an opportunity to expound on his research.

No, it doesn't have "some risks". It's DEADLY. And yes, it's been proven.

And besides selling tons of granite tile over the years, exactly why do you object to testing granite before it is used?

Just for the record, I HAVEN'T sold tones of granite. I've INSTALLED a bunch of it, but personally, I've only sold total about maybe 1000 feet. Now, as for the question, If it would make people feel safer, fine-- give stone shops a geiger counter. I don't believe that'll do a damn thing to help, but so be it. If you're talking about widespread lab testing of every slab that comes out of every quarry, you can go pound sand. my reason for that has already been stated. I see that as nothing more than a way to drive ht price up so far as to put granite out of the market which is just what you want for personal gain. I don't see personal gain as a good reason to go through extensive testing, and quite frankly, I think shop testing is STILL a waste of time and money.

but the entire episode is a parallel to the granite/radiation issue

Not even close. If it were, I'd be the first one to demand that safeties be employed. As far as I see, you're blowing smoke because you don't like granite. End of story.

12 to go.

In the meantime, I love my granite countertops.

The EPA thing was a red herring from the start. The EPA does not, apparently, have any recommendation for granite owners different from the recommendation that it makes to everyone.

The "I don't have cancer, so all granite is safe" thing was a red herring from the start. It means nothing.

The "get rid of all granite" or "paint all granite with the same brush" thing was a red herring from the start. No reasonable person ever did that. I can't find any evidence in this thread that ANYBODY ever did it.

There are lots of other examples. Everything under the sun gets "discussed", and almost everyone seems to willfully ignore what seems to be the fundamental question that doesn't yet have an answer. And for most of the participants on this thread, it won't matter if an answer ever comes, because they left rationality behind a long time ago in regard to this topic.

Entertaining, indeed.

you are the only ones making sense and people have to be irrational not to want to make sure there is no high level radioactive granite in the kitchen. Thank you for making me aware of the dangers because I had no idea my granite countertops (probably from namibia) were anything but an inert rock from the ground. Even if the chance is remote, I am not willing to risk my health just to have a lovely kitchen. Now i can at least check to make sure our granite is safe and radon and radioactive levels normal.

I don't know that there are dangers. I only know that I support scientific testing to see if Dr. Llope and drhans are right to SUSPECT that a SMALL percentage of granite sold here is more radioactive than most consumers would want.

great cartoon - IMHO - IT pretty much sums up this whole thread...

This Thread wasn't too bad for a while... that was, unitl
on or about the 12th of June at 23:02..... HA!!!!

anyways..........

I thank Paulines for her words of wisdom and observations in her
responses to the various agitations.....

So.........

What's the next "scare" to come out of Oklahoma City????

I can only imagine.....

"Respectfully"

kevin

Kevin M. Padden
FABRICATOR, Trainer and Consultant to the NATURAL STONE INDUSTRY
www.azschoolofrock.com
www.naturalstone101.com

Lisa, by any chance, do you have a microwave in your kitchen?

Randy-- testing isn't going to help unless every piece of stone that comes out of the ground gets thoroughly tested, and some moron that just upgraded from working the drive-thru window to working at a stone shop waving a geiger counter probe in front of a slab doesn't constitute testing the rock. REAL testing would add big money onto a surface that's already expensive, and it would put it right out of the market, which is exactly Al's aim. Don't let him fool you. As I said above, if I thought for one minute that there was really something to this, I'd be right alongside Al. I don't want to see ANYONE getting hurt as a result of trying to beautify their home. I just think this is so much hogwash.

3 more.

Bill, so true. I have a mental picture of some wide eyed, pimply faced kid waving a geiger counter back & forth (probably wetting his pants).

Thank YOU, Kevin!