hi brewbeer,

i definitely agree that the risks of dying from common accidents exceed those from exposure to radiation levels that are near background by some orders of magnitude. that we are constantly surrounded by background radiation sources in our everyday lives (which can vary by factors of 2-3-4 depending on location, lifestyle, and numerous other factors) is not generally well-known.

that said, it would help the general reader of this forum understand your comment a bit better if you mentioned what level of radiation fluence from "granite" that you assumed to arrive at the factor of 1000 that you used in your post. just a suggestion to try to help anyone reading your post that is interested in a better understanding this complicated subject (including me!)...

take care, cheers
bill

Hi vic.s
I'd be happy to use capitals in the proper spots if that is the preferred style here. I agree - i typically type in all lower case on the internet. But please consider it done. Thanks for the suggestion.
And i certainly agree that your post-it note summary covers the vast majority of the homeowners out here. No argument whatsover. Take care,
bill

Experts: Thanks! The time you've given us really is appreciated. Advice that is timely from actual experts and free. Amazing world.

Couple quick questions: if I get a cheap [-$100] geiger counter from ebay, will I be able to make sense of the readings I get? Are there charts etc. out there that will help me understand how high is too high?

Second, does anyone know if the stone used in making solid surface counters has been tested before its ground and molded, or would the consumer be wise to take his geiger counter to those stores as well?

Cynical of me, but I wouldn't be surprised if the prettier colors of those 'stones' are just as hot. When people are pointing their fingers at someone else, they almost always bear watching themselves.

Bill,

I would be very interested in reading your paper. I'm putting you in my calendar for later this year to get a copy.

Thanks.

Joel

One more question from me...

Dr. Llope suggested that when conducting your radon testing, you should use several testers on different colors of the stone. I have New Venetian Gold (which I understand is quite popular, so sure I'm not alone in wondering this...), which doesn't have any 'movement' - it's sort of consistently 'dabbled' with colors. Since I don't have any various in colors, I was plan on probably testing in 2 spots in the kitchen. I guess my question is, if there isn't any color variation, can one expect the radon/radiation level to be fairly steady across the stone (i.e. no significant "hot spots")? Am I making sense?

PS REvans1 - got my package of radon testers in from Auburn yesterday! Thanks for the tip!

Hi,

Thank you very much radiation/radon experts! I'm so glad you are participating in this discussion and we are finally getting some intelligent useful information. I must confess that at best I only understand about half of your comments but at least I have a bit of understanding of this situation.

My question for the experts is where do I put my cell phone when not in use or when it is recharging? If I put my cell phone on my granite counters, will I get twice as much radon in my kitchen? I know my question may seem facetious, but both SEEM to emit very low levels of radiation/radon. If they are combined, will the radiation or radon levels be cumulative?

I'd like to do all I can so my kitchen does not resemble Love Canal or Three Mile Island! Although I don't plan to pull out my granite countertops or give up my cell phone, I was wondering what you would suggest to minimize any potential problems?

Thank you for your patience in this matter.

Karen

I know I said I was only asking one more question, but seems as if I have another...

I think we've about pounded this topic to death perhaps, and I greatly appreciate the experts opinion. I also greatly appreciate the civil nature and intelligence of this tread.

I was just curious what you, the experts, think of the media coverage surrounding this topic. On another message board today for mothers, this topic was brought up. I gave my 2 cents and actually referred to this thread for some good information. But another poster said she heard on NPR about a woman who had been feeling sick, then had her home checked for radon and discovered alarmingly high levels when her pregnant daughter was coming to visit. I'm not sure if this is a new story, or a mis-interpretation of the NYT story (that woman wasn't sick). I can image there are alot of stories out there that have become mis-interpreted through multiple tellings. It's sort of like the game played as kids where you tell on person something, and you see by the time it gets to the end of the group how distorted the message became. I was just curious if you feel like there is alot of mis-information flying around out in the media, or if you feel the majority of what's being reported is on target? I saw a video clip of a story from CBS in NYC on this topic where the reporter had the guy from CMT Labs test a viewers stone, which was deemed quiet, but then they tested the granite in the reporter's home, and it was 'hot'. If the odds are low (I trust Dr. Llope that it is), then how come all of a sudden these ginger counter on TV are more likely than not to be going off the charts? I know it makes the story if someone's granite is 'hot' when tested, otherwise there isn't much of a story. But do you think all of these stones are really hot (of course I know when they bring their own samples, they're going to want to bring the 'baddest' ones), or are some (I didn't say all, obviously Dr. Llope was in one himself, and I believe he is giving a balanced interpretation) of these stories media hype?

Again, I don't mean to keep rehashing this, but I think this is a good conversation going.

Hi hokie98,

Boy that CBS Radon clip is pretty scary. I'm with you on beating a dead horse or beating this issue to death. I guess all we can do is test our granite countertops and ventilate! I'm afraid I have more radiation/radon in other things then my granite. (I live way too close to Oak Ridge National Labs and they seem to have too many spills or accidents for me!).

I'll check the NPR web site for that story. In the mean time, I'm trying to find out what the SAR level is from my cell phone! That is my concern du jour!

Good luck trying to stay on top of this!

Karen

But another poster said she heard on NPR about a woman who had been feeling sick, then had her home checked for radon and discovered alarmingly high levels when her pregnant daughter was coming to visit. I'm not sure if this is a new story, or a mis-interpretation of the NYT story (that woman wasn't sick).

Remember the game from when we were kids where someone would start by whispering a story to someone, who would then pass it on, and by the time it got to the other end, it was completely unrecognizable? I'd be willing you're both talking about the same story.

As for the CBS story, I have a real probloem with it, because it makes it sound like if you've got granite, then there's no need for a nightlight or microwave. AS I've said in the back and forth with Al, yes, I'm sure there are stones out there that are above safe limits. But those stones make up a fraction of a percent of all granite. Is it a good idea to have your slab tested? Lets just say it's not a BAD idea. Let me ask you this, though-- past the inspections done before closing on a house (which are required in most areas), how many people in here have taken the time BEFORE this to have their homes tested for radon? This is BY FAR, not the first radon threat to homeowners. It's not the worst, either.

Karen & Hokie98:

It IS indeed refreshing that even though quite devisive,
the tone of this debate has gotten much calmer over the last
week.

The thing that I keep finding amazing (or not surprising -
depending on how you look at it) is the major networks NOT
doing anything to run any kind of re-buttal (sp) by the
Stone Industyr representatives, OR the revelation of who
is behind all of the original start of the issue - a
contractor in Oklahoma City that can't Fabricate Granite
(but claims to be a Fabricator)and wants to sell
his solid surface countertops at the expense of the Natural
Stone Industry,
and two of the largest Engineered Stone companies out there -
Silestone and Cambria - the two major companies that are
funding "Build Clean"...

Coincedence? I don't think so... You've got four players
on the "Anti-Granite" side of the debate - ALL with a vested
interest in seeing the market share of Natural Stone - take a MAJOR decrease.
one wants to sell more solid surface and gieger counters,
Two want to sell more Engineered Stone, and the fourth is the
"front" company thats "concerned" about radon in our homes -
ESPECIALLY if it's coming from GRANITE....

Hmmmmmmm......

I say - follow the money

As far as radiation and radon coming from Granite - it could be,
but the samples that have been tested to date have been BY
one of the four players on the anti granite side of the debate - this could be suspect.

The Marble Institute of America on the other hand,
is saying that Granite is safe,
and they have funded their own study, which
honestly could also be suspect -
and remember -
I am siding WITH the MIA on this whole issue
as I make my livelyhood working WITH Natural Stone
as a Fabricator, Trainer and Consultant to the Natural Stone Industry,
BUT...... - ANY testing should be done in
such a way that NEITHER of the two sides have anything to
do with the actual tests. These HAVE TO BE DONE in my opinion
by a dissinterested third party that has absolutely no
influence or dependcey (sp?) on the outcome -
whichever way it falls....... period.

I'm just saying as I have said before - UNTIL a TOTALLY
NON-BIASED organisation does a COMPLETELY UNBIASED battery
of tests on Granite SLABS - and that organization - I would
prefer seeing it be the United States Government -
UNTIL THAT HAPPENS....I will STILL
be of the opinion that this whole radiation/radon thingy
is a non-issue, and that you'll have a better likelyhood
of being eaten by a giant godzilla monster that getting
cancer from your Granite countertops.

Remember This:

This whole radiation/radon thing started -
NOT - out of ANY "concern" AT ALL for folks
like your's and my safety and wellbeing -
on the contrary - IT was
started because ONE GUY COULDN'T STAND
to see every one of his solid surface countertop
bids being LOST to Granite countertops
(which he could not properly fabricate on his own),
and because two other major Engineered Stone
companies wanted to increase their own market share -
ALL at the expense of the Natural Stone Industry.

So they ALL got involved with Build Clean, and now there's
a "problem"?????

C'mon......

NONE of these four players could care less about consumers
being exposed to any amount of Radiation or Radon in Granite (actual or imagined) -
they only care about their own bank accounts and profits.
They'll keep beating this dead horse all the way to their banks.

All of what I have just said is what the
New York Times and the solidsurfacealliance.org and
most of the various TV networks running the original
story..... ARE NOT REPORTING.....

There's a saying in the TV News Business pertaining
to getting the "attention" of the veiwing audience
in order to boost rating - and it goes like this:

"IF IT BLEADS - IT LEADS"

remember this.........

I would like to add my thanks to the experts who have helpfully and calmly weighed in here. Actual, meaningful information is what this subject really needs here, in my opinion.

Kevin, I understand your points. You've made them, over and over. I've tried to be as fair and non-inflammatory as I can be through all of this (at least this time around). The fact that there are interested parties with selfish motives is undisputed. There is also a real question to be answered about this, and we have people, including participants on this thread, who are helping to find the answer. The answer exists independently of all those interested parties, and I'd like to know what it is.

I started this thread with the suggestion that no one needs to panic. That's still very true. The information being captured and described here can be a resource for GW readers, if they're interested. Yet another long description of this or that entity with financial motives to find this or that outcome helps only those who are interested in derailing the meaningful conversation that is occurring here, in my humble opinion.

Hi Kevin and Bill,

You both make very good points. As Deep Throat advised during the Watergate scandel, Follow the money! I think that is very true here and those are the dots we need to connect.

And Kevin you're right about the media's "if it bleads--it leads" strategy. There have been many cases of the media reporting suspect information. The retractions are not on page 1 and rarely is a mistake in reporting noted. If this whole granite thing blows over, I doubt it will make the news.

Thanks to both of you and all the stone people for fighting the good fight. I'm sure this has been a test of your patience and endurance!

Karen

Brother Randy-

I agree - and yeah, my last post may have been
a bit "al"esque in length... you obviously know where I stand,
and I tried to keep this civil, so appologies to all
for running way long on the "word count" of my last post.

You wrote:
"The answer exists independently
of all those interested parties,
and I'd like to know what it is."

Randy, I'd like to know too -
so that ALL of us can move on to bigger and better things

Can we start with a basic point of what is a safe & acceptable
exposre level to radiation,
and what's a safe & acceptable level of exposure to radon?

And WHO is establishing those levels?
Hopefully the EPA or the NRC...

How about that - can we start with those?

trying to keep this civil my brutha!!!

kevin

I apologize; I didn't mean to get everyone fired up, again. I was just curious of Dr. Llope's and/or Joel's opinion of the media coverage if they came back to this thread. Dr. Llope seems to be to be very bias, quite informative, and extraordinarily helpful. To be candid, I don't doubt there could be some sort of issue there with some stones. However, do I think it's the problem that the media and others are trying to hype it as? Not hardly, but as someone that is doing testing on different stones, like is being done on some of these TV stories, I was just curious if Dr. Llope would be willing to share his opinion. I can understand if he'd like to refrain, as he may would want to keep opinions out of it and let the facts speak once he has enough information to release. I've read some of the post from Al, and it seems as if he would say every other slab he tested is "super hot," but it's refreshing to know that someone of Dr. Llope's caliber can say that "The odds that the results for radiation or radon will be "LOW" are overwhelming". I was just simply wondering if he finds it convenient that alot of these reporters are finding hot stones, or if he think their coverage is on the up-and-up. The video I posted sort of suggest they went to the one viewers home, her stone was okay, then they happened to stop by the reporters home and her stone was hot...so if I didn't know better, I'd wonder if there wasn't a 50/50 chance of having a hot stone. But again, I don't want that to have any reflection on the story Dr. Llope did in Houston.

Again, sorry; I REALLY didn't mean to fire everyone up, but I thought we were having a pretty civil discussions and was just curious as to Dr. Llope's opinion of the coverage since these test have been his new 'hobby,' whether he was looking for a new hobby or not. For that, I'm grateful.

For the record, I do plan on testing our home for radon myself next week. We did test our previous home because we lived in a 'moderate' radon zone. We had high readings, even prior to our installation of granite in that home, and had the sellers install a mitigation system. We didn't test this home when we bought 6 months ago because we bought in a 'low risk' area. I realize that isn't a great excuse, but it is what it is. I don't anticipate that we have a problem in our home, from the radon or otherwise, but if we do, I'd like to know so we can mitigate. I don't plan on taking the granite out, unless we have a MAJOR issue, which I'm not anticipating.

I can't say it enough - I wasn't intending to fire everyone up again, but since we seemed to have a captive audience with Dr. Llope & Joel, I thought I'd ask about the media coverage. I'm not picking or choosing sides, I just find this entire situation interesting and would just like to learn more, as I'm sure several other readers of this board/thread would.

Hi all,

Kevin - thanks for not including me in your list of participants with potential ulterior motives. It would've been untrue in my case if you did that. I am not funded in any way with any granite seller, or anyone selling a competing engineered product, or any non-profit, or, well, anyone.
I have not been paid for any of the interviews that I've done, nor do I have a side business testing radiation levels in homes for which this might all be seen as some kind of viral advertising.

Frankly this little hobby of mine (to try to take some data on this issue) is wearing me thin. This is not even something the DOE cares about - and they pay my salary. I've been doing all of this entirely at my own expense.
Driving around to collect samples from local stone dealers. Driving in to the lab late at night (20 miles each way) and on weekends to rotate samples in front of the gamma spectrometer. Answering every e-mail I get (many tens per day). If I would have known this subject would've gotten this much attention, I might've thought twice about getting involved in the first place.

It might be hard for any cynic reading this thread to understand, but there *are* people out there that just live for collecting data on interesting subjects. I am one of those people. It's all about the joy of discovery. I live for it actually. And anyway, it is far too late for me to stop now. I am less than a week from completing my data collection.

I called it a "hobby" above but this might make the wrong impression about the amount of effort that I am putting into this. I am getting what I think is interesting and very defensible data. So, the only thing I actually expect to get out of this is a decent publication ("publish or perish").

And if i can help anyone that emails me along the way to better understand this subject, then that makes me feel good too. By no means am I the only person out there that people interested in this should be asking questions of. But when someone asks me a question, I answer, always, even though answering these emails, and posting here, and doing interviews, only holds me back from the only thing here which is actually in my best interest, which is publishing something. No one is paying me for any of this and I have no personal stake in the result. The data is the data, and the pubication will describe the data in complete and utterly scientific detail.

It's actually a sort of personality disorder. I stand to gain precisely nothing from any of this - except a publication - but it'll be a publication that my funding agency could not care less about.
It will be a nice publication though, and I will be proud of it.

and hokie98 i could not agree more. I've read perhaps 10% of the news articles out there and even then that's a lot of articles! And in those, i've seen misquotes attributed to me, and incorrect assumptions about what I am actually doing. I have seen comments that I've made being attributed to "a BuildClean study" and comments that I have not made being attributed to me.

it's a pretty messy world out there in the media. This is probably the main reason that I answer every single email that I get. In that case, it is at least my own words that the person is hearing.

A common misconception is that I am bought and paid for by BuildClean because both that group and I are in the Houston area.
Another misconception is that I am measuring radon rates. I am not measuring radon rates at all. I am 100% concentrating on the radiation side of this coin. Of course, if I choose to later, the library of samples that I have in hand will easily support such measurements. But I am concentrating on the radiation right now. Just the radiation.
Another misconception is that I saying that all granite is dangerous. Or even that most granite is dangerous.

No. No. and No.

So, I can easily see why there have been so many threads here and elsewhere on this subject. In the first place, there are some subtle aspects to the subject, and in the second place, the information that is circulating around in the media is not always correct.

Often, what's on "the wire" is as clear as mud.

I hope this post better clarified what I'm about here. I certainly appreciate all of these discussions. They've really helped me see all of the many many sides to this issue, some of which are subtle and not immediately obvious. And I always appreciate the comments that you folks have made, and will make, here or in my in-box.

Take care,
Bill 2 (now trying to do better w/ the capitalizing!)

Thanks again Dr. Llope for all of your work! I really do appreciate the effort you made to be straightforward and as mentioned before, extraordinary helpful and accessible. I'm not certain alot of researchers would be as accepting of request for information. I, for one, am glad you are involved, even if it's a bit more than you thought initially.

I look forward to reading about your results when they are available, and I hope you get a chance to enjoy the weekend, whether that is chasing around hot granite, or not!

Bill - thanks for your kind words..

we're good....

Are you in a position where you can address what I asked
in my last post of Randy?:

"Can we start with a basic point of what is a safe & acceptable
exposre level to radiation,
and what's a safe & acceptable level of exposure to radon?

And WHO is establishing those levels?
Hopefully the EPA or the NRC... "

Frankly, as you know already - I am a Fabricator
and not a science dude like you, so would you be able
to address the questions?

Maybe you've already said it somewhere on another post,
but I'm pretty busy, and prolly didn't read it if you did...

Is there a benchmark/baseline that we all can
start with on this?

kevin

I haven't read through this whole post but I wonder if anyone has mentioned a study done some years ago in the Pennsylvania mining area where radon levels are particularly high. Researchers analyzing the health of the population in regards to high radon exposure expected to see an increase in lung cancer. Instead, the population showed a lower incidence of lung cancer in areas with higher radon levels.

One thing that most people are not aware of is a phenomenon where small levels of harmful poisons or otherwise cancer causing irritants will provoke an immune response that actually improves the health of the body. It is likely THIS response that is at work in the above study. Typically the response kicks in at around 10 to 20 percent of what would be a fatal dose. This is why minute amounts of carcinogins are essentially harmless and may actually be beneficial to the body. At any rate, from my point of view the whole radon scare is just that, a scare tactic. There is no real evidence that this is a true problem. Makes for a good story, though. So don't worry. Be happy. There are more important things to worry about than this nonsense.

Kevin, unless I completely misunderstood them, I think that most of the exchange between Bill and Joel was on the question of "acceptable" levels of radiation. You're asking about radon, but it seems to me that for our purposes understanding either one would be sufficient.

I don't know Randy -

In the interest of understanding this whole thing for
myself (since I am a Fabricator and make a living doing
Granite) I need to be up to speed on what (if any) are
some foundational values on the subject - you know -
like some "cardinal rules".... And I'm thinking radon
and radiation are two different animals.....

That's what I am trying to ascertain here - is a basic
foundational starting point of "what would a safe, acceptable
limit of radiation exposure be, and what would a safe
aceptable radon exposure be" and would this be over
a period of minutes, hours, days, months or years....???

Then we all could at least know what EPA or NRC or any other
established governmental agency says.. That's all I'm
trying to say....

What does everyone think?

kevin

Kevin, I think that's covered at least in part up the chain of this thread. The EPA says that you should pursue remediation if the radon level in your home is at 4 pC/l. (The average indoor level is 1.4 pC/l.) Radiation exposure levels are pretty thoroughly discussed by Dr. Llope and Joel, above.

As Dr. Llope has indicated, radiation and radon can be understood as sides of a coin. Radon is a radioactive gas that will not exist in the absence of some source of radioactivity. I agree that they're not the same thing, but they are very highly related things.

From a granite fabricator's standpoint, you're probably wise to pursue a more nuanced understanding of this whole deal. From a consumer's point of view, I think it is good to identify realistic steps that can be taken by anyone who reads all this and wants to know about their own situation. If such a person tests for radon and it comes back at a low level, then I'd suggest that they have nothing to fear.

" And I'm thinking radon and radiation are two different animals..... "

Well, sort of. Here's a quickie primer for this subject. Radon is an element, like oxygen, nitrogen, or hydrogen. It is also a gas like these other elements. However, Radon emits radiation in the form of alpha particles. Radon, although a gas, is a heavier molecule than lead. All elements (and all isotopes of those elements) that are heavier than lead are radioactive. Isotopes are different forms of the same element that have different masses. Some of those isotopes may be radioactive, some may be stable. For example, hydrogen has 3 isotopes. Regular, every day hydrogen has an atomic mass of 1 (1 proton in the nucleus). But there are also 2 isotopes of hydrogen that are heavier. One is called deuterium, and has a mass of 2 (one proton and one neutron - the number of neutrons is what changes-if you change the number of protons, you change the element!). Both Hydrogen-1 and deuterium (hydrogen-2) are stable. The third isotope is called tritium. It has one proton and 2 neutrons, and therefore a mass of 3. Tritium is radioactive.

Radon is also radioactive and it emits an alpha particle. Alpha particles do not travel very far in air as they are too heavy and charged. They consist of 2 protons and 2 neutrons (it is essentially the nucleus of a helium molecule). Because it has 2 protons, it has a positive electrical charge. That will attract free electrons (which have a negative electrical charge). Once it captures 2 electrons, it is now helium. Because alpha particles do not travel far in air, they are no threat to human health-SO LONG AS THEY STAY OUTSIDE THE BODY. Even if it contacts your skin, the layer of dead skin cells on your body will absorb all the energy and no damage will be done.There's the rub. Radon, being a gas, gets inside the body, directly into the soft tissue of the lungs.

If there is a low concentration of radon gas in the atmosphere, you have a very low probability of it affecting you. As noted earlier I think, radon has a half-life of 4 days. So, the radon has to be generated in the granite by radium, then outgas to the atmosphere, then get breathed in by you, and then, by chance, happen to undergo its own radioactive decay before you exhale it. The chance of all that happening with one radon molecule is miniscule. But as the concentration of radon goes up, the greater that chance becomes.

I strongly recommend that everyone read the information available on Dr. llopes website if you want some good info on the subject, if you haven't already. The site is noted in one of the first few posts above.

Joel

"My question for the experts is where do I put my cell phone when not in use or when it is recharging? If I put my cell phone on my granite counters, will I get twice as much radon in my kitchen? I know my question may seem facetious, but both SEEM to emit very low levels of radiation/radon. If they are combined, will the radiation or radon levels be cumulative?"

The quick answer to that is no, you will not get more radon.

The radiation emitted by radon is known as ionizing radiation. The radiation coming from your cell phone is non-ionizing radiation. The radiation of concern from radon is particulate in nature (see my post above), whereas the radiation from your cell phone is electromagnetic (like light). X-rays and gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation too, and they are the only forms of EM radiation that carry enough energy to be ionizing (create ions in air). All other forms of EM (ultra-violet, visible light, infra-red, radio waves and microwaves) are non-ionizing and create different potential hazards. I am not aware of any conclusive evidence that the low levels of EM put out by your cell phone would have any more health effects than listening to the radio.

Joel

Thanks again, Joel, for giving us the benefit of your knowledge.

One thing that came to my mind over the weekend, having to do with all of this, is the EPA standard of 4 pC/l for radon in a home. Not everyone agrees that the standard is justified by the current science. Nevertheless, it is the standard, and is used all the time as a condition in real estate transactions.

So, is it possible that a house whose radon level is below the standard, can see that radon level rise to a level above the standard by introducing a granite countertop? As I said on another site, the difference to my health between a 3.5 pC/l environment and a 4.5 pC/l environment may or may not be a big deal to me, but it does have the potential to be a big deal if I want to sell my house. (I might have to pay for the ventilation that I mentioned in the OP, or I might see my potential deal go "poof".)

I'm not buying or selling here, just thinking in terms of what a consumer can or should consider on all this.

"So, is it possible that a house whose radon level is below the standard, can see that radon level rise to a level above the standard by introducing a granite countertop?"

I believe one of the articles I found had an instance of the radon level in the person's house exceeding the 4 pCi/L action level. However, and again, another rub, when radon is tested in real estate transactions, it is usually done in the basement of the home because radon usually outgases from the soil and accumulates in the basement through cracks and other openings in the foundation. So it is not usually tested in the upper areas of a home for real estate.

Joel

Thanks, Joel. In a case like mine, where I have no basement and the kitchen is on the lower level, I'd get some (probably significant) lowering of the radon level on the basis of normal ventilation patterns that typically wouldn't apply in a basement. Is that fair to say?

Yes.

Joel

Here is a link to a letter from the president of the Health Physics Society ("Specialists in Radiation Safety") to the editor of the New York Times. The HPS is very skeptical of the measurements reported in the Times article, and skeptical generally of the idea that granite countertops can be a source of significant radon.

Great thread all!!! I was going to purchase a granite counter top two weeks ago but I read the NYT article and decided to hold off until I could do some research to determine if the granite would be hazardous to my family. I spoke to my granite guy this morning and he told me that I should consider the engineered granite, as it does not emit radon/radiation. Has anyone done, or know of, any testing of engineered granite for radon/radiaton emission and if it is any safer?

Has it been determined if it's granites that come from certain areas since it's mined all over the world? I'm just wondering if that makes a difference in the amount of radon, as some of the areas might have more of the minerals or whatever it is that creates the radon in the first place. This may have been explained above, so i'll go back and read thru the posts.

Someone told me that keeping nearby windows open 1/2 hour every day would help with keeping the levels down in a home. Does this theory 'hold water'?

Thank you very much revans1 for posting that letter to the New York Times. The writer of the letter was extremely credible with no horse in this race. He was also very reassuring as to the scope of this "perceived" problem, which is minimal at best. Kudos to the GW stone experts which have been arguing this point all along.

Unfortunately, I doubt that his letter questioning the claim of the NYT article will get as much press as the "hot granite" issue. It would be great if that letter got as much circulation as the original New York Times article and all the other media coverage, but my skeptism prevails.

Also thanks to Joel for answering my question on the granite counter and cell phone.

Another question for Joel, I just saw on the news where I live in a "high risk" county for Radon. I thought Jersey was bad and could understand the testing requirement for real estate transactions. In Tennessee, Radon testing is not a requirement for real estate transaction. Hence, the townhouse I purchased was never tested as part of the Home Inspection.

Now I am planning to test my house for Radon. I don't have a basement but the townhouse was built on a concrete slab. Where do you suggest I test? And since this is a 2 level townhouse, do I test upstairs as well as on the 1st floor?

Thank you very much for your help!

Karen

jerkyboy, I think your best option is to get a new granite guy. I've never seen anybody claim that they got a bothersome reading off a quartz product, but if you want granite there's no reason not to pursue that (even if the claims about radon from a few granites turn out to be true.)

patty cakes, my guess is that no one has done a comprehensive-enough survey to answer your question about geography (assuming that any of the stones from anywhere are problematic). My thought is that some quarries may be "hotter" than others, but that may vary widely even within a fairly small geographic area.

Also, ventilation of the radon gas is the way that houses with a high reading (which is nearly always from the soil beneath it) are remediated. Opening a window is a low-tech solution, but if it successfully ventilates your house then I can't imagine why it wouldn't work.

Karen, you wisely directed your message to Joel, and I hope that he's still hanging around to answer. If not, I will say that my reading suggests that radon testing is generally done in the lowest area of the home, because the radon gas is heavier than regular air and tends to sink over time. (In addition to the fact that it most always comes from the soil that the house is built on, so the foundation level will be the worst. My understanding is that the new, "tight" construction of homes creates a sort of vaccuum effect that literally pulls the radon gas out of the ground.)

For those of you who want some straight talk from someone who's built his life around studying this kind of thing, and knows how to speak in an English that we all can understand, go to the following thread, and pay particular attention to the posts by a man named Caoimhín P. Connell.

Randy-- I'm surprised YOU haven't sent people there! :-)

Bill, I'm not sure that I know what to think about that whole deal. I certainly am in no position to debate Mr. Connell, whose greater expertise I readily concede. I'm understanding him to say that it just doesn't matter about the radon, because 1) there is no definitive proof that radon is bad for you and 2) there is no reason to believe that the measurements are any good anyway.

He may be right, but it seems that he's swimming upstream in many respects on the science. And, as I've tried to ask about in that thread, there is a purely pragmatic concern for anybody who might ever want to sell their house.

I guess it puts one too many balls in the air for me to try to keep up with....but it is very interesting.

The pragmatism, I'll agree with. What gets me about him is he's the first person with any kind of professional knowledge of the subject to check in who has absolutely no ties whatsoever to either side. In addition, Al conceded straight out in the thread that he (Connell) knew what he was talking about.

Bill, I'll give Llope the same credit ("absolutely no ties whatsoever to either side"). He was asked by a TV station to check a granite slab, and he did. He's a pure academic, and I don't think he has any interest in this other than pure intellectual curiosity (and publishing a paper, which is how he makes his living).

Brother Randy (revans1):

Thanks for sharing your latest post -
the one with Dr. Richard Toohey's
responding "letter to the NYT" link...It's
obvious that he does not "have a horse in this race"
so his words are of particular value and his neutrality in
this whole "issue" is what puts things more into
perspective for people wanting the "truth".

I think that what you have done by posting Dr. Toohey's letter
does a lot to (in my opinion) bolster your own level of being
unbiased in this whole debate, so I tip my hat to you Randy
for your latest post....

I got a chance to read it, and I echo what Karen has said too -
(not surprisingly) I doubt that the Dr. Toohey's letter
will get as much attention as the original NYT "alarming" article
did to start this whole mess, but I really appreciate
what you've done here..... You have done something to help
show both sides of the story. As someone that "does" have a horse
in this race - I thank you for your efforts!!!

Once again - Thanks Randy for your post...

your friend

kevin

Brother Bill - you must have posted your latest
ones while I was writing - The Caoimhín P. Connell posts
are very enlightening and very easy to understand -
Kudos to you too - Brother Bill!!!

kevin

Thanks, Kevin. I'm seriously just trying to find reliable answers that a shopper/homeowner can actually use in their real-world lives. Some days I manage to aggravate both "sides" of the debate at once! :-)

Thank you Dr Lope, Joel and all others for making this a civil and very, very informative thread regarding the presence and effects of Radon and radiation in "granite".

When all this hoopla started, I was irked by one thing more than others: It was started by someone notorious for wagging the dog. A whiff of scandal was blown to near nuclear proportions by a clever use of mass media and a little dash of misinformation.

But that is neither here nor there.

One question that I have, and that could hopefully be answered by Dr Lope is this: Very few stones being used as slab material are in fact true granites. The majority run the gamut from meta conglomerates, basalts and labradorites through to garnet gneisses and quartzites. Most are not igneous rocks either, but metamorphic stones originating from sedimentary deposits. Would this have any bearing on the likelihood of the presence of Radon and radiation?

Thank you again for shedding some much needed light
Regards,
Adriana

jerkyboy, I think your best option is to get a new granite guy. I've never seen anybody claim that they got a bothersome reading off a quartz product, but if you want granite there's no reason not to pursue that (even if the claims about radon from a few granites turn out to be true.)

revans, based on this response, I should have very little worry about radon/radiation emission from the engineered stuff??

I will affirm yet again my utter lack of professional or academic credentials before responding. I'm just an ordinary non-scientific person who is interested in this particular question.

It is my opinion that one should have "very little worry" regarding engineered stone. It is also my opinion that one should have "very little worry" with real stone. If one is worried, about either one, then there are some fairly simple and straightforward tests, discussed above, that would allay one's fears about whatever surface one might desire.

"Now I am planning to test my house for Radon. I don't have a basement but the townhouse was built on a concrete slab. Where do you suggest I test? And since this is a 2 level townhouse, do I test upstairs as well as on the 1st floor?"

On what level are the entranceways to the townhome? If they are on the first level, I would check both the first and second level. This is due to constant ventilation of the first floor area when opening and closing the doors, so the upper level may actually have a higher radon content. If the doors are on the second level, as I've seen sometimes, then checking the lowest living area should be sufficient.

As for the granite, this is some of what I've found:

Granite is a normal, geological source of radiation in the natural environment. All of the minerals in granite contain some radioactive elements: the white or pink feldspars contain potassium-40 (which is also present in bananas and kiwis, as well as salt substitutes), the black biotites and horn-blendes contain potassium-40, uranium ore and thorium, and the small inclusions of minerals such as zircon, apatite, etc. contain uranium and thorium. The inclusions can contain the highest amounts of radioactive materials.

From this I would say the radioactive content can vary greatly within a small area. We have responded to several people's requests to test their granite, and none have registered any radiation levels of note. But, they are few and far between, as Dr. Llope has found some, so the only way to be certain is to survey the granite for radiation. But the chances of your granite being of radiological concern are very slim.

Joel

Hi Joel,

Thank you for your reply. I'm thinking of testing my house not because of the granite thing but because where I live is labeled a "high risk" area. In Tennessee, they are very low key about everything. They tend to have toxic spills or accidents over at Oak Ridge National Labs and it doesn't seem to bother most people. I'm from New Jersey and probably very neurotic by Tennessee standards! Although I'm no stranger to pollution and toxic dumps, I really don't want it in my home

Towards that end, I would like to know what exactly constitutes the "high risk" label and approximately how much Radon gas is in my home. My entranceway is on the first floor as is my kitchen (home of the granite and cell phone station). I'll probably test the upstairs too as your point about ventilation makes a lot of sense. Regarding ventilation, since it is the summer, I don't think I've had the windows openned since early June. Will that make a difference in my Radon levels as opposed to say testing in the Fall? Or doesn't it matter when I test?

Thank you again for your response and especially your contributions to the granite discussion.

Karen

"Will that make a difference in my Radon levels as opposed to say testing in the Fall? Or doesn't it matter when I test?"

Karen, if you want a 'worst case scenario', I'd wait until the dead of winter when the house has essentially been closed up for a while except for your comings and goings and check it then.

I lived in NJ from 1985-99 - They are much more strict when it comes to the environment than most states. In fact, NJ seems more strict in most ways. I refer to it as 'the police state' and not because Sting & Co. like it there. TN seems to be very lenient in that regard, which is why a lot of companies go there. Personally, you couldn't pay me enough to live anywhere near Oak Ridge.

Joel

Results are in!!! We tested our Shivakashi in two places using the kits at HD. We left it in our kitchen while we were away and taped a bowl over the tester thingy so as to concentrate the potential gas. It was a four day test. One loction tested 6.5 pCi/L and the other 5.6 pCi/L. While we might follow up with another test in the fall at least for now we've got some idea.
Karen

Karen, thanks so much for posting your results. When you report the numbers 6.5 and 5.6 pCi/L, are those the actual numbers from the test? I am assuming that is the concentration of radon in the air inside the bowl, and that you did not do any calculations to account for the dilution that would occur in your whole house?

I hope that Joel and/or Dr. Llope will chime in here, but I'm thinking that you're in great shape if you only get up to those relatively small numbers in 4 days in such a small volume of air.

Yes Revans1, you are correct. Those numbers are of the area inside a 2.5 qt. pyrex casserole. Just don't ask me to calculate the pCi/L per Qt.

Bump................

This is a test to see if a thread that is too old to be found with the "search" box can still be resurrected with a new reply.