Please disregard anything oceangirl posts. Only meant to start debates. Ditto what karin mt said. Really not an issue but if it bothers you don't do it. I see you have a microwave. Some (not me) would say that is more of a health concern. Lots of kitchen related stuff can be debated as far as health concerns, such as use of plastics, pesticides in food, etc. We all have to find a lifestyle that makes sense to us. For you I would say get granite. You have no known radon issues in your building. Sounds like you have lots of air low. Your kitchen is not that big. Looks like you are not leaning toward red granite(which may or may not be an issue). Again do what makes YOU comfortable. There is no right or wrong answer.

When you know what you are buying you have a choice. I believe most of the granite is okay, but there has been a small percentage that is questionable. Ask yourself, what levels of radon and radiation are safe? Do you know how much uranium is in the slab of granite you are buying and/or where the hot spots are? If there are hot spots, can they be left out of the installation? What are you comfortable with? We found out about our granite after it was installed, it was not in our comfort zone, and we chose to remove it and replaced it with a different granite. I am sure there are people on this list who think they would have been willing to live with it, we weren't. Please respect our choice. The Health Physics Society website is helpful: http://www.hps.org/ Here is a helpful link that speaks specifically about granite: http://wjllope.rice.edu/SaxumSubluceo/FAQ.html Here is a link that might be useful: Professor William Llope, Rice University

Hey Al, first of all, if you are going to alter a quote, don't provide an easy link to it. I beileve it says 1/2 ppd NOT 12 1/2ppd and it says the 1/2ppd is what the action level for radon in the home provided by the EPA is equivalen to, not exposure from granite countertops. I consider any study you or the SSFA provided samples to, or in any way contributed to, to not be reliable due to your bias. Nor do I believe the MIA should be funding or contributing to a study if it is to be considered unbiased and reliable. WITHIN the scientic community, readings are sometimes taken at face value until proven otherwise, because reputable scientists should adhere to professional standards. You are in no way a part of the scientific community and about as biased as they come. Your readings carry no weight with me. Neither would the MIAs. Even within the scientific community, results must be reproducable before they are give too much weight. Those scientists have said they WILL publish. The thing about peer review journals, though, is that it not just up to the person who does the study. It has to have been conducted in a reliable enough way to pass scrutiny by the peer review board and accepted for publication. Saying you are going to publish doesn't make it so. I hope they do, though. That would mean at lest that others in THEIR scientific field feel that the study was significant enough to share. Then, if others in that field desire, they will conduct their own studies to determine if the results are reproducable. If not, the entire debate starts again. If they are, then we have a starting point. That is a long way from you shouting from the roof tops in forums that Shivakashi should be banned or that one guy with Lung Cancer of unkown type and medical history got it from his countertop. I certainly don't have any reason to believe you would find a single hot stone and submit as many elevated samples as you could get from it that would make it seem like you were right in your calls of the sky falling, any more than I would have reason to believe the MIA or others in the industry would hide hot stones. But it really is better if you guys have no connections to the studies at all. I am sorry Al, this may be your bread and butter, but I don't plan to make it my profession. I left that one and have made NO to attempts to go back. I disliked working with and against biased people who only want to promote their own interests. I do not sell, fabricate, mine or do anything else having to do with rock, granite, solid surface or any other type of countertop. I am a nurse. I refuse to spend my day following links from the SSFA or the MIA. If there were any independent studies from peer reviewed scientific journals linking granite countertops with cancer, I am sure you would have posted to them directly by now. I did do a quick search at one time from Pub Med and could find no studies linking granite countertops to radiation or specifically to radon exposure. I did find articles noting that radon can come from building materials in general, including cement, drywall and granites, but I mentioned that myself at one time. My impression from your reaction then was the same as it is now, that your only interest in radon or radiation exposure and health risks are if it is in granite countertops. Do you also warn your customers that most elevated radon levels come from the soil, not countertops, and that radon can also come from other building materials, and that they should test their homes and act if they find elevated levels even if they purchase solid surface countertops from you? Do you only sell and install "no VOC" cabinets and carpets and adhesives? If you have a direct link to one or more scientific journals that report on radon measurements from granite countertops in buidlings, or exposure to radon or radation from granite countertops, please provide links and I will be happy to look at a couple (not even 10 so please don't provide 50 and expect me to wade through and find a few lines that you can extrapolate into something). These are specifically studies in peer reviewed scientific journals that AT LEAST test granites of the types being used AS COUNTERTOPS. Please don't waste my time by linking to articles in publications by the SSFA or MIA or any other trade journals. In my opinion, relying on studies about granite funded by the SSFA are akin to relying on cancer studies funded by tobacco companies. I have called you strongly biased, I don't recall calling you a liar. I do have some ignorance about radiation reading and testing, it simply isn't my area of expertise any more than it is yours. However, I don't consider you any more of an expert on it and I do tend to be choosy about who I let "teach me" about any subject. No insult intended but I wouldn't consider letting a guy with a kitchen business teach me about the measuring of radon or radiation or the health effects of radon or radiation any more than you would let me teach you about how to install cabinets. I want information without the "spin". I really don't expect to ever get it from you. Sue

I know Al thinks I fry his a$$!! :-) Karen makes a good point, though. This is just the panic du jour. Before, it was whole milk. Then without whole milk, we're lacking in vitamin D and calcium. Then it's the sun. If we're out in the sun too long, we can come down with melanoma. But if we stay out of the sun, then we have to worry about SAD. What's another good one? Oh yeah-- COFFEE!! it's no good-- the caffeine is addictive. Wait a minute-- it IS good for you!! Red wine. CHOCOLATE!! Even POT had no redeeming medicinal value. Now, it's the cureall for those in pain from glaucoma and chemo, and the list is growing. The same thing happened a few years ago, only then it was a VALID concern, and concern for it thankfully continues even today, and that's mold remediation. I just want to try and get past this with the most REAL education about the problem, and the least amount of injury to the industry. There IS a solution, though. If you want to live longer, it's very simple. Don't eat or breathe!! You'll live forever! :-)