solidsurfacealliance.org Blog

We recieved copies of these form letters designed by the MIA’s PR firm, Cohn & Wolfe. I won’t go over the innacuracies and outright missinformation in the form letter, that has been addressed in other blog articles.

It is important to point out that Dr. Sugarman’s new granite countertops were of a low radiation color, tested prior to fabrication. This is what all of us in the effort are saying, test before buying, but some granites are just fine for use in a home.

Letters For Stone Industry People to be Sent to Ad Reps for Stations and Newspapers Covering the Radon Issue

Date

Name
Company
Address
City, ST Zip

Dear (Ad Rep):

I have a longstanding business relationship with your news outlet, and am shocked at the story you ran last week on granite countertops.

Your story portrayed granite countertops as an imminent danger, and my customers are panicking. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has this to say about the issue:

“EPA has no reliable data to conclude that the types of granite used in countertops are significantly increasing indoor radon levels.”

Your story, based on junk science peddled by people who will gain financially from a public panic because they test for radon or sell competing products, did not contain the EPA’s statement, which was based on real science. By not quoting the EPA, you fuel groundless consumer fears. I have customers who literally are afraid to live in their own homes!

In addition, your reprint of the New York Times story failed to note that the home of Lynn Sugarman, a pediatrician who replaced granite countertops, is in Lake George, N.Y., a region with some of the highest levels of naturally-occurring radiation in the U.S. It would have been helpful for your readers/viewers to know this. I think it’s also shocking that you didn’t notice the article says the granite countertops were replaced with – GRANITE COUNTERTOPS. If granite is so dangerous, why buy more?

I expect the story to be corrected as quickly as possible, with the EPA’s statement cited as prominently as the junk science was in your previous piece. Your (readers/viewers) deserve to hear the true science behind this, and it’s your responsibility as a respected news outlet to make sure that they do. If you need more information, please let me know.

Thanks,
——————————————————————————————-

Then here is the MIA’s second letter to be sent to local media or advertisers. It will hardly endear them to the media.

Date

Name
Company
Address
City, ST Zip

Dear (ad rep):

We have been doing business together for a long time, and in the last year alone I have spent XXX on advertising at your (NEWS OUTLET).

That’s why I am shocked that you would run a story that fundamentally attacks my business. Your piece last week on granite countertops was based on junk science, and the people you quoted – who are in the radon-testing industry – stand to benefit from the pain the story will cause me. The sources’ personal interest in passing along misinformation about granite countertops’ supposed safety hazards should have been noted by your editors before the story ran.

Last Friday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a statement based on true science saying it has no reliable information to conclude that types of granite used in countertops are significantly increasing indoor radon levels. How come that statement wasn’t cited in your story?

I expect you to follow up with a story based on the EPA’s statement that will correct the misinformation you distributed earlier. Doing so would not only be responsible journalism; it would also help ease the minds of my many customers in your community, who because of your coverage are now panicking. I have customers who are afraid to be in their own homes.

I hope to see this follow-up story in the next several days – the sooner the better – and would like it to have the same prominence you gave your earlier piece. Please call me if you wish to discuss, or if you need me to direct you to the EPA’s statement. It is a news outlet’s job to report all sides of an issue, and you have failed to do so in this case.

Sincerely,
——————————————————————————————

There is always some risk that someone skimming a website will not understand why we posted the MIA’s info on our blog. So please add a comment if you have any questions.

Thanks