solidsurfacealliance.org Blog

At times, one just has to shake their head in wonder. Yesterday, James Gross, Purcasing Manager for G&L Marble, admitted that they knew of the Radon and radiation issue for over a year. That employee has used the screen name of “vrjames” on Gardenweb.com in their kitcen forum for many years. The fact that he was high up in the company was just revealed today because of an astute gardenweb.com reader.

Of course they claim ignorance and say I have been remiss in certain manners, but they lead with this:

“First of all we must admit Al has come up with something. Just exactly what that something is, we do not know yet. He has shown there are “hot spots” in some granite, and it just so happens that one of the stones is from our quarry. ”

“This has taken us by surprise, and I was not convinced Al had anything until I saw his U-tube video a few months ago.”

“Al, what is so very disappointing is that at no time did you approach G&L or Stone Africa regarding the information you discovered. THIS is why everyone is skeptical of your motives. If you really were concerned for the granite consumer, don’t you think you would have made the call?”

End Quote.

Of course the post contains much more, disdain for my methods, claims that there is no credible evidence yet. I’ll let others read for themselves.

A few posts later, “kareninknoxville” is wondering why:

“I hate to be the “doubting Thomas” in this but….why did the purchasing manager from G & L Marble use vrjames’ GW member name? Why not his own?”

“laxsupermom” replies:

“karenfromknoxville, the purchasing manager’s name is James. I’d have to guess he is vrjames.”

Notice that this poster is not 100% supportive of my info, said it felt “spammish”, yet she has no problem with the purchasing manager for a huge natural stone company hiding his association for many, many, years.

James Gross, the G&L Purchasing Manager responded:

“I have been contirbuting on this site for the past 4 years, purely as a personal endeavor to assist with granite installation issues. I have never hid the fact that I work for G&L but I do not lead with the information either.”

I finially added two and two last week when vrjames said we had mentioned his company as having a problem, initially I thought this guy worked for Bedrock international, but my wife provided the clues that proved it was G&L. Another poster didn’t get it either, so this fact was not common knowledge.

“I apologize for being slow and not putting the GW name vrjames and James Gross together. I didn’t know vrjames worked for G & L Marble and that vrjames may be his GW name.”

All of this leads up to some very interesting issues. If G&L’s Purchasing Manager had been not only reading all the information in these debates over several years, but actively attempting to suppress the discussion, why would anyone give him credibility now?

Also, doesn’t this absolutely prove that an employee with specific responsibility for purchasing completely ignored the issue for a very long time? Sure he says the videos convinced him a few months ago, so why did he continue to fight to silence the discussion instead of imeadiately looking into this issue to protect his companies, himself, and his customers?

Instead, I am castigated for not calling G&L, despite this man’s intimate knowledge of everything I had posted for month after month on this isssue. Even Dr. Llope, the Rice Univeristy Physicist, posted many, many, posts that proved the existence of a serious problem.

As you read the thread, you will notice “revans1″ being dismissive of my information, yet there is a story behind that as well. “revans1″ is a guy named Randy, works in the insurance field, down south. Not going to release all the details, but I know exactly who he is.

Randy was one of the more vicious attackers from the last years debates on Gardenweb. During the brawls, he followed me back to thefabricatornetwork.com, a countertop fabricator forum where I posted a lot on these isssues. Randy read everything I had written the past years, would cherry pick sentences in an attempt to discredit me.

Guess what? After I was banned, Randy must have finished reading my posts, because he suddenly apologized for his behaviour, then later said he had become convinced that I was truly searching for the truth of the matters. Randy then became a voice of reason, at times telling former allies to shut up if they couldn’t contribute to the discussion.

Since I was banned on Gardenweb, Randy stood in my place for a few months, actually helping contact posters for more info in some cases. Once I was able to rejoin, Randy was some what distant, always taking a position that made it clear I was not the issue, but that he also didn’t agree with everything I said. Fair enough……

However, the dirty dozen or so on Garden web, all associated with granite in some manner, a kitchen designer who had recomended plenty of it (reputation at stake after arguing last year), stone fabricators, granite tile guys that also installed granite, people who worked for granite companies, even plain old homeowners that either didn’t believe or worse, had huge investments in granite installed in their home, all of thes people continued to hammer any attempt at a civil discussion on the issues. Who wants to find out that their home value just dropped because everyone suddenly found out the truth about granite and Radon/radiation?

So in a twisted attempt to calm the dirty dozen, Randy started with attacks on my methods and info, despite being a supporter and avid reader of my work on Fabnet. I realized he was just using distance to get the others to admit the important points that I was bringing to the discussion, I guess he realized that if the info came from me, the others would dismiss it out of hand. Indeed, he was correct, most of the rabid opponents admited that they would dismiss all info I provided.

To me it was clear at that point that this was ego getting in the way of listening to the truth, that despite Randy’s best efforts, reason would never hold sway. So, tired of Randy’s personal attacks, I outed the guy. No, the dirty dozen wouldn’t care, although they might have turned on Randy, but surely the reasonable readers would figure things out.

And there was a spate of new voices, saying that “That damn Al” wasn’t the issue, that I was far more polite and reasonable than the other side, that I was asking the tough questions that needed answering. But despite the Houston TV story and Dr. Llope vindicating my position, despite the New York Times and CBS news absolutely proving that some granites were radioactive as hell itself, I was banned again after complaints from those who vehemetly shouted down any discussion. Almost every single one of the dirty dozen actively attempted to convince homeowners from testing! Paragraphs after paragraph of postings almost begging the person who was cocerned, even Shivakasi grantie owners (!!!), that testing their granite was handing me a victory!

An absolutely stunning window into the depths the stone industry will go to prevent this subject from resulting in comprehensive testing of granite materials. It also shows an incredible tolerance for the companies selling proven toxic materials, such is the emotional power of the mind, prefering to cling to the waning status symbol that was granite despite scientists and govt agencies warning of potential problems that need addressing.

So now, one who has been labeled as the most knowlegeable on the subject, is prevented from answering questions, despite the many posts the last few days reassuring consumers that their granite is likely safe (while also saying to get it checked just to be sure). The one person that fought tooth and nail against the stone industry has no voice while every other participant in the brawl is allowed to continue spreading the lies, indeed, new stoners are pouring in including the President of the MIA!

Everyone will agree that the MIA couldn’t show up till I was silenced, no one else had the experience, the knowledge, or was deeply involved in the huge but loose alliance of those who put this issue in the national news.

Despite this, there are homeowners in that very thread saying that depending on vauge EPA statements that don’t really vindicate granite is not a good idea. Another poster warns that many lawyers are looking into this and that due dillignece should be done.

No doubt the consumer and I have lost this battle on gardenweb, unless…..

I can convince enough of the readers of this site to register and start asking the questions that need answering.

People, I have spent thousands of hours and thousands of dollars to get this into view. Now I need help. Please do this, if not for me, for those that may have or might be harmed by the radiation/Radon from granite countertops.

We are getting almost 2,000 visitors per day on the Solid Surface Alliance site, despite not being mentioned in any of the national media events. If enough people register outrage on my being banned, or just ask why, then start asking the tough questions themselves, this victory can be reversed.

Go get em!

Thanks,
Al Gerhart.

I frequent another site, stoneadvice.com, keeping tabs on the latest in the stone world, rarely posting except to defend another poster being blamed falsely. Maybe four or five posts a year. I have also stepped in on occasion to provide a homeowner reassurance that her granite is not a known dangerous one, advising not to freak out, just get it checked.

So it was a surprise to find a stone fabricator posting a quote that had been edited by someone with either access to my posts via editing or access to passwords. Fortunetly, I am more than aware of what type of people I am dealing with and usually save copies of web page postings just in case.

Here is what was quoted by a Miles Crowe, owner of Crowes Custom Countertops out of Acworth, GA. His website is at crowecounter.com. Miles claimed that I wrote the quote below.

“”Mr. Distelhorst,

I make plastic countertops for a living AND am slowly going broke as Natural Stone has killed the plastic countertop industry. I hate granite guys….just thought you might like to know that. ”

Here is what I actually wrote in response to Mr. Distilhorse:

“Mr. Distelhorst,

It is over and we both know it. If you have any doubt, get on a plane and come down to see me and I’ll show you plenty of hot granite.

If you would treat this issue as you did your customer care and cleaning page on your website, none of this would have happened.

It is time to set things straight. Build Clean will help, and I will help you identify the hot granites. Clean up your website, fess up, and let’s clean this mess up.

I actually admire the gumption of the MIA, but it is ill spent beating a dead horse. Get this cleaned up, then take over Issfa. I’d join if you got rid of a few of the wussies over there.”

END QUOTE:

No doubt I have strong opinions of the ISSFA organization, the older solid surface trade association.

Reading the history of radiation will answer the question of why so many in the radiation industry is adamantly against any discussion of low level radiation risks.

This is linked off Associated Radon Services, William Levy’s excellent site.

Part one:

Part two:

Part three:

Bill Levy’s site is a treasure trove of information on Radon and low level radiation risk. Spend some time there if you truly want to understand these issues.

John William Gofman was a legend in the health aspects of radiation. They guy actually discovered three elements while an undergraduate, a bona fide radiation physics genius. He also graduated medical school, and established the Biomedical Research Division at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, for the purpose of evaluating the health effects of all types of nuclear activities. This guy was working for the Atomic Energy Commission. He held three patents in nuclear work, published over 100 studies in journals, and authored four books on the health risks of radiation.

John died a few years back, but his work includes this effort to show the risks of low level radiation to the public. It will answer many questions on the subject.

No Safe Dose for Low Level Radiation

A few weeks ago, we contacted Dr. Chyi, the author of the Marble Institute’s new article on Radon emission from granite. I say article because the work was not peer reviewed or published, the only reliable mark of a truly scientific study.

The study was rushed, started in Feburary after Build Clean started asking questions. Revealed in mid May, two and a half months not a lot of time to test, sort the data out, write a report, find other scientific studies that support your work for footnote use, then submit for peer review and eventual publication.

These scientists live and die by their published works. I can think of little reason not to submit this paper for publication, unless it falls short of scientific journal standards.

I had numerous questions about the study and asked Dr. Chyi for comments on several issues.

Here is my entire email to Dr. Chyi :

“Hello Dr. Chyi,

I am curious about this report that the MIA is circulating. Specifically, is this entire report your work, or did you provide a different version, perhaps more condensed that they added an introduction or conclusion.

I am interested in the Radon/radiation link to granite and have read many of the studies out there on the subject. The MIA report seemed different and I thought I would ask.

Thanks for your work in this area, it is needed.”

I thought it was rather neutral, for me at least. Dr. Chyi did not agree, here is his reply:

“Dear Mr. Gerhart:

I take it from your note that you assume the MIA somehow changed the report. I want to stress that it did NOT. The MIA has been very supportive of appropriate scientific method — and insistent that we use proper protocols for this study. I would not have participated had that not been the case and, frankly, I resent the implication that I would in any way compromise research standards to help anyone achieve a commercial goal.

Sincerely,

L. L. Chyi, Ph.D.
Professor of Geology and Civil Engineering”

Hmmm, this is the first time an author of a scientific report I have contacted had a problem with questions. Others contacted, several dozen, were estatic that people were reading, and answering questions was never a problem. In fact, many of the scientific authors went to considerable effort to provide anwers and assistance. Dr. Chyi’s taking offense, even when a ready excuse was offered, that it was possible that the MIA modified his work, made it even more inexplicable.

The meat of the matter was that the report seemed to differ from some of the published studies on this issue, I had questions. Dr. Chyi’s refusal to consider a simple question as simply that is so out of character for a scientist. Indeed, that is the process by which science advances, you put out a study or theory, others question it mercilessly till the idea is boiled down and striped of any innaccuracies.

So I sent this reply, hoping to draw Dr. Chyi into answering some of my questions on his report to the MIA.

“Dr. Chyi,

Please accept my apologies if I came off as implying that you were implicated in anything unacceptable in this matter.

I was not insinuating that you compromised anything in the report, in fact I was told by two other PhD that your measurements were fine. What I question was some of the language in the introduction and in the conclusion of the report and was wondering if it was your work or was tacked on your finished report by the MIA. The MIA has a history of using unpublished articles such as your own, some of which have been really opposite of what other studies were finding. They are the ones facing scrutiny, not you.

It seems that some of the suspect language is written with a marketing viewpoint, completely unlike the language in the body of the report, thus my curiosity.

I applaud your effort, especially the finding the higher levels in the Crema Bordeaux, ending the MIA’s 14 year claim that no Radon or radiation can be measured from granite. I am currently sending samples to three PhD level scientists, all university professors, one of which has done extensive work for the stone industry. Also measurements by two long time Radon experts found as much as 500 pCi/SF/hr in some of the samples I provided. One Bordeaux was only 50 pCi/Sf/Hr, but it was hotter than much they had tested. These samples results were forwarded on to one of the professors, and both Radon experts have worked with these professors before so their protocols are reliable.

Those two samples tested for Gamma at 180 and 40 uR/hr respectively, but we brought in a full slab last night that hits over 600 uR/hr Gamma. We are using the Gamma as an indicator to show slabs that need further testing. Our scintillator was found accurate by our local state DEQ Radiation dept head, within 25% of their meter, which was said to be in tolerance for hand held meters. The guy actually defended our measurments on a conference call with the regional EPA head.

I also question the samples that they provided to you, if that was the case. No doubt their goal was to show that granite was generally safe. In that I agree somewhat, but it has also been proven that some small percentage is not safe, and that must be removed from the market. Our granite supplier is currently testing for Gamma in an effort to weed out the higher level stones, reports that out of 8 bundles of stone, they are finding 3 that meet his standards of 20 uR/hr (on contact, PM 1703 scintillator, 30% accuracy range).

He sent a meter that I supplied, the same PM 1703, down to Brazil so that his employee could sort out the bundles prior to purchase. The quarries are very proactive in this, welcoming his man in to help them choose blocks of granite that are lower levels as they are purchasing blocks for processing. It is really quick and simple, over a certain level, and they just don’t by that block of stone.

Out of curiosity, they decided to check the sludge from their two saws. The one used for common granites, like most of those you tested, were not to hot, but the gang saw used to process the Bordeauxs was very hot. They decided to check the huge pit that their water and slurry ran off into, a settlement pit about 200 yards square. The meter started alarming 100 yards a way. They are quite concerned on how to dispose of the material, and worse, had used a lot of it as fill under their building foundations. My suggestion was to haul it to the local uranium mine, only a couple miles from the quarry, and see if they could process it into nuclear fuel feed stock.

I understand they wish to speak to me on this issue, and if I can arrange a call, will ask for detailed measurmenst and distances involved.

As you see, there are others in the granite industry that wish to protect their employees, some have generations of families working for them. I represent that side of the industry, the MIA represents the side that wants to squash any testing that it out of their control.

In this spirit, may I forward a copy of the MIA’s version of your report and ask some specific questions on the Introduction and Conclusions?

Thanks for your respose, understand that I repect the work you did, just have some questions.

Respectfully,
Al Gerhart
Granite fabricator ”

It will be interesting to see Dr. Chyi’s response, or lack of same. Next week, I will go over the MIA report and point out some issues that are either fail to meet scientific standards or defy common sense and facts on the issues.

One of the problems with knowing who to trust is that everyone has a dog in the fight that is publishing information on the issue. For instance, the medical field has a reason to want to minimize the risk of radiation, they sell a product, CT scans, X rays and other radiological procedures and they also want to manage their risk of being sued by performing tests. So they profit in two ways.

Here is a link on the risks of radiation to fetuses.

In the first paragraph, they outline the risks quite well, but then the rest ofthe article says not to worry. The most troubling portion was this:

“At the level of most diagnostic procedures ( fetal dose < 10 rem), little data in humans is available. However, some qualitative observations regarding fetal risk can be made.”

Were it my wife and baby, I would care little about “some qualitative observations”, I want to know in plain language if they really know if there is a risk or not. No disclaimer, straight up yes or no, is there a risk or not?

First Trimester of pregnancy

“The incidence of fetal wastage consequential to radiation exposure at this stage of gestation is not known, since (a) many women were never aware they were pregnant at the time of the exposure or miscarriage, and (b) the “background” rate of miscarriage is believed to be high (25 – 50 percent of conceptions). ”

Okay, fine, you don’t know…. and if there were a study of this, the results would be hidden in the normal rate of miscarriage.

“It is believed that radiation injury during early gestation is an “all-or-nothing” effect. ”

It would seem, taken in context, that they are saying that a significant radiation exposure will simply kill the fetus in the very beginning, or cause the womans body to miscarry. Reason enough for our warning to never, never, allow a pregnant woman around a granite countertop unless it has been tested and found to be safe.

Second Trimester of pregnancy

” During this period, the overall growth rate of the fetus has slowed. However, the major organ systems are beginning to differentiate. From a standpoint of future development, the fetus is in its most sensitive stage. The incidence of gross congenital malformations and mental retardation are dose-related and appear to have thresholds; i.e. doses below which the incidence above “background” is not elevated.”

The opperative word is “appear”. Again, I don’t want to know that it may “appear” or is “most likely” to have a threshold, I want to know that there is a threshold and exactly what that threshold is. And I see that “gross” problems are covered, but how about smaller defects? Is the baby safe from radiation or not? What levels are unsafe? Are the “background” levels of miscarraige also hiding any surprises?

Third Trimester

” Irradiation during this period may deplete cell populations at very high doses (over 50 rem), but will not result in gross organ malformations.”

Okay, 50 rem won’t be encountered in a medical procedure or a granite countertop, so why is it mentioned. Wouldn’t it be best to use medium dose or low dose data? And again, how about minor damage or malformations? Will you tell me straight up, is there any risk from low level radiation in the third trimester or not?

“For some prenatal irradiation effects, there is epidemiological basis for the existence of threshold doses. For others, such as childhood cancer induction, the existence of a threshold is not clear-cut. Despite these uncertainties in the dose-effect relationship, some broad generalizations based on fetal dose ranges may be made.”

Great, there is some data on some prenatal effects but childhood cancer induction is unknown. Since there is uncertainties, tell me why one woud make a broad generalization on this issue?

“Fetal Dose Less Than 1,000 millirem — There is no evidence supporting the increased incidence of any deleterious developmental effects on the fetus at diagnostic doses within this range.”

Okay, but have there been studies on this? If so, come out and make a definitive statement on the risk.

“Fetal Dose between 1,000 millirem and 10,000 millirem — The additional risk of gross congenital malformations, mental retardation, intrauterine growth retardation and childhood cancer is believed to be low compared to to the baseline risk. However, the lower limits (in terms of statistical confidence intervals around the mean) for threshold doses for some studies, especially those related to cancer induction, fall within this range.”

1,000 millirem (1,000 mR or 1 Rem) can be obtained from a granite countertop hot spot. Take our example of the Four Seasons slab, 3.2 mR per hour exposure. That is 312 hours of use of that granite countertop, 156 days at 2 hours per day. Less than the 270 day pregnacny period. Keeping in mind that some experts are predicting that our meters are from 2 to 6 times low, the 1 Rem level could be easily reached. And I could care less that it is low compared to the baseline risk, if we are the couple that gets the 1 out of 100 problem, it is a huge risk to us.

“Fetal Dose Exceeding Than 10,000 millirem — The lower limits (in terms of statistical confidence intervals) for threshold doses for effects such as mental retardation and diminished IQ and school performance fall within this range. Overall, exposure at levels exceeding 10 rem could be expected to result in a dose-related increased risk for deleterious effects. For example, the lower limit (95% confidence interval) for the threshold for mental retardation is about 15 rem, which an expectation value of about 30 rem.”

Okay, even I would admit that a 10 Rem dose would be difficult to obtain from a granite countertop in a home.. On the other hand, would a pregnant woman working in a granite showroom be likely to reach that exposure? Many granite showrooms use granite for desks, were a hot spot such as the Four Seasons slab to be in a work desk, 270 days (nine months) exposure would be 4.6 Rem for the desk alone. No doubt the lady would not spend a full 40 hours at that desk, but there will be plenty of other granite radiation sources nearby, all adding to the exposure. Let’s hope she doesn’t have a granite top at home with a hot spot.

4.6 rem is too close to 10 rem for comfort. Most safety rules have rigourous amounts of excess built in. Take as an example the strength of a rope or chain used for lifting, factors of ten are common, or ten times less than the chain will usually hold. Only prudent to have safety factors.

The same should be done with radiation risks for non essential uses of radioactive products like granite. Especially since low level granite can be found with a little care and trouble.

In the past few years of researching the issue of radiation in granite countertops, many things were found to have multiple recomendations. One issue that has been consistent is the allowed doses for pregnant women, even the skeptics prefer not to take a chance with a developing fetus.

Basically, the developing fetus is far more likely to suffer damage during the first few months of pregnancy. So if a health issue arises with the mother, the dose from radioactive medical procedures must be know, then the risk/benefit of the procedure discussed with the patient, and a decision made on whether or not to have the procedure.

Here is a link to some info on Fetal Doses for common medical procedures.

It is of interest to this discussion in two manners, to show the risk of radiation from any source to developing babies, and to show that granite countertops can provide the same dosage given enough exposure time.

As an example, we have in our shop this week a slab of Four Seasons granite that was found during a survey of one of our suppliers. It measures 12.5 mR/hr for Alpha, Beta, and Gamma. Blocking the Alpha resulted 10.5 mR/hr. Blocking both Alpha and Beta resulted in 3.5 mR, Gamma radiation only.

To put this into perspective, an abdomen X ray from the Fetus dose chart showed 240 mR dose, so keeping it conservative by using the Gamma results of the Four Seasons granite, means that 68 hours of standing in front of or sitting at this counter would provide the same radiation exposure. Two hours per day, 34 days. Of course even being in the kitchen within five or six feet will provide a dose as well, less so because of distance, but some radiation will hit.

We recently found a case of a hot spot in Bordeaux, right at the most popular place in the kitchen for sitting. Luckily, the lady’s pregnant neice had not used the penninsula, just the kitchen, so the dose was much lower.

A chest X ray according to the Fetal Dose chart, provides less than 10 mR per Xray. The Health Physics Society claims that an average dose to an adult is around 5 mR per Xray. Using the 3.5 Gamma only from the Four seasons, sitting there for one hour and 25 minutes gives a fetus 5 mR radiation dose.

So like a medical procedure, a pregnant woman needs to know that radiation is coming from that granite countertop, and decide for herself if the risk is acceptable or necessary.

Once found, shipments of simular granite were stopped by our supplier within minutes untill testing equipment was sent to Brazil. Also, current orders for that material were canceled till the existing slabs were checked. Once a meter was delivered to Brazil, they found that 3 out of 8 bundles would be acceptable for radiation content and quality. Once other importers start measuring radiation when purchasing granite, expect prices to rise on the low level slabs and prices to drop on the high radiation level slabs. Then it will become even more important for a homeowner to see the slabs tested before their very eyes as a cheaper high radiation level slab could be substituted for a more costlier low radiation level slab.

As this effort to get high radiation granite off the market progresses, we are finding more and more allies. Recently, we ran across a man who has been working for the last 18 years on the issue of Radon, concrete, /building materials in general.
Bill Levy, of Associated Radon Services, Stuart Florida, has turned out to be a treasure trove of information on Radon. His company is able to measure new home natural ventilation rates by using tracer gas decay measurements show just how Radon can build up in homes. Basically, you have a source of Radon, be it soil based, from concrete, a granite countertop, stone tiles, or some other source, that is emitting a fairly consistent amount of Radon gas. What matters as much as the amount of gas produced is how often the air in the home is changed, the ACH levels (Air Change per Hour). ASHRAE recommended 0.35 ACH, or 35% of the homes air changing per hour. Bill is finding it can be less than that, as low as 0.10 ACH.
With less air being replaced with fresh air, the Radon levels begin to rise. Modern energy efficient homes are the most at risk.
To put this in perspective, the MIA/Dr. Chyi study used 6 air changes per hour (ACH), 17 to 60 times the levels Bill found, in an attempt to minimize the health aspects of the Radon levels they found in the natural stone they tested.
But with rising energy costs and more effort on the energy efficiency of new homes being built, Bill said “This means that a little emanating radon can go a long way…and building codes are making the structures even “tighter” every revision ! ”
Bill has an excellent website on Radon at Radonserv.com , one of the best sites I have seen on Radon. He has a new article on a possible link between Childhood Leukemia and Radon.
Bill has started sharing information from the Government agencies which are responsible for keeping workers safe. It seems there are laws already in place to protect workers, with the problem being the agencies not knowing how radioactive some granite slabs can be.
The U.S. Department of Labor has clarified the definition of Reasonable Diligence in regard to shop owners testing for Radon or Air Borne Radiation hazards. They say that each case is looked at individually, but if a shop has head of the Radon or radiation hazard in granite controversy, they would be held to a higher standard than an employer that had never heard the subject brought up. If the media has reported excessive Radon, then the owner of the shop should have known of the hazard and taken the proper steps to find out if there were any hazards facing his workers.
With the history of the MIA (Marble Institute of America) on the Radon/radiation aspects of granite being widely reported, tested, and discussed, it would seem that any MIA shops were given the opportunity to protect their workers.
It seems that a level of 7.5 pCi/L of Radon requires that the area be posted as a “Airborne Radiation Area”. Areas of more than 2 mR/hr exposure are unrest riced areas as long as workers could not receive more than 10 mR in seven days exposure.
Furthermore, Bill has provided proof, in the form of a letter from the Dept of Labor, that NORM material such as granite are indeed covered by the regulations. So the bottom line for granite shop owners, such as myself, is that we have all been given an ample opportunity to realize the risks and be proactive at protecting our workers. We researched the hazards in the beginning, and as more and more info on the actual levels of radiation and Radon present in natural stone becomes known, our protocols for worker protection are increasing.
Many shop owners, especially the MIA member shops, vehemently deny the issues. One wonders what the future holds for these shops as the regulations start to be enforced. The lawyers that were asking “Is granite the next asbestos?” may well have know what they were talking about.

Here is another more detailed account of employer responsibilities

Last year, the SSA reported on the link between the Bin Laden family and the natural stone industry. We took a lot of heat, people saying that Bin Laden was not supported by his family. Who knows? Still this made perfect sense, in the lawless areas of the world where some of the stone is mined, rebel or terror groups control the areas. If you want to mine stone, you pay bribes.

So today, when Christina ran into this article, it was no real surprise, just nice to have another source backing the claim that Terrorism is linked to natural stone. Click on the link below to read the entire story.

Pakistan Marble Helps Taliban Stay in Business

It seems that Pakistan has lost control over much of the area between it and Afganistan. The Taliban stepped into the void, forced a settlement between two fueding tribes over mineral rights, then found a stooge to run the quarry. The Taliban got thousands of dollars for making it happen, then they collect tax on the marble blocks being trucked to processing plants.

The Taliban recieves about $500 per day in “Taxes” or bribes. The Pakistani Taliban is lead by , Baitullah Mehsud, a powerful ally of Al Qaeda who keeps his base in South Waziristan, another part of the tribal areas.

The Taliban is being revitalized by the cash generated. One tribesman, known as Bahadar, who works there, predicted, “If this continues for two more years, they will take on America itself”.

So to be socially responsible, one must find the country of origin of the slabs to ensure that neither child labor companies or terror cells profit from the purchase of natural stone. Just one more thing foisted upon a consumer who is interested in doing the right thing.

Beir VII stands for Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII which is an update of the BEIR V report (NRC 1990) back in 1990. A large group of experts were commissioned to look into the health effects of low level radiation or low-dose, low linear energy transfer (LET). Since much of what we know about radiation is from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, more info becomes available as these survivors live out their years and sucumb to disease.

They took another look at the dosimetry at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and increased the certainty to the dose estimates and providing more confidence in the relationship between radiation exposure and the health effects observed in the survivors. New information available from radiation worker studies, medical radiation exposures, and groups with environmental exposures.

The cancer risk estimates have not changed much since the 1990 report, but they trust data more because of the increase in epidemiologic and biological info nowavailable.

The estimation of genetic (hereditary) effects of radiation has advanced. Human molecular biology has been incorporated into genetic risk estimation, and it’s now possible to project risks for genetic diseases .

Cellular and molecular biology have also added information on the process that cells respond to radiation-induced damage and to associations between DNA damage response and cancer.

The NRC found scientists and educators with expertise in ionizing radiation, while others were experienced in other fields. All members were chosen by looking at any conflict of interest.
The committee held 11 meetings over a period of 4.5 years. An array of experts in Cancer, NASA, University Professors, and doctors then wrote the report after much public commentry from the public, government experts, and experts in many fields.

TABLE 1 Units of Dose

Unita
Symbol
Conversion Factors

Becquerel (SI)= Bq= 1 disintegration/s = 2.7 × 10−11 Ci

Curie= Ci= 3.7 × 1010 disintegrations/s = 3.7 × 1010 Bq

Gray (SI)= Gy= 1 J/kg = 100 rads

Rad= rad= 0.01 Gy = 100 erg/g

Sievert (SI)= Sv= 1 J/kg = 100 rem

Rem= rem= 0.01 Sv

Ionizing radiation like X-rays or gamma rays is radiation that has enough energy to knock off electrons from molecules. Free electrons can then cause damage to cells. Nothing that makes the effects of man-made radiation different from the effects of naturally occurring radiation. Cancers that are caused by radiation exposure aren’t much different than cancers that occur from other causes.

Evidence suggests that exposure to high levels of ionizing radiation can cause illness or death. In addition to cancer, ionizing radiation at high doses caused mental retardation in the children of mothers exposed to radiation during pregnancy. Data from atomic bomb survivors suggest that high doses are also connected to heart disease and stroke.

Low-LET radiation deposits less energy in the cell along the radiation path and is considered less destructive per radiation track than high-LET radiation. Examples of low-LET radiation include X-rays and Gamma rays. Cancer, hereditary diseases, heart disease,and other effects are possible.

Clarence Dally became the first known radiation cancer victim in 1904. His boss, Thomas Edision, said “The x rays had affected poisonously my assistant, Mr. Dally”. These days, radiation is the most studied hazards to humans. Standards have become stricter over the years in an attempt to protect humans.

Low dose radiation are those doses in the range of zero up to 100 mSv (0.1 Sv) of low-LET radiation. The annual background exposure from natural sources of low-LET radiation is close to 1 mSv.

I will add to this blog as often as possible until the entire report has been covered. Please mark your spot as this article will grow.
——————————————————————————————-

Sunday, July 13th, 2008 Page 3 of BEIR VII

We get some radiation from the ground, building materials, air, food, the universe, and even elements in our bodies. In the United States, the majority of exposure to background ionizing radiation comes from exposure to radon gas and its decay products. The National Research Council 1999 report, Health Effects of Exposure to Radon (BEIR VI), reported on the health effects of radon.

Annual exposures worldwide to natural radiation sources is between 1 and 10 mSv. Average is around 2.4 mSv, about one-half (1.2 mSv per year) comes from radon and its decay products. Average annual background exposures in the United States is (3.0 mSv) due to higher radon levels. Number two source of natural ionizing radiation exposure comes from cosmic rays, followed by terrestrial sources, and “internal” emissions.

“Internal” emissions come from radioactive isotopes in food and water . Exposures from eating and drinking are due in part to the uranium and thorium series of radioisotopes present in food and drinking water.

People worldwide are exposed to low-LET radiation in the range of 0.2–1.0 mSv, with the average being around .9 mSv. 82% of this radiation is from natual sources, 18% from manmade sources. Of the manmade sources, 79% comes from medical uses. Only 5% comes from work, fallout, and the nuclear fuel production and use. Traveling by aircraft adds 0.01 mSv for each 1000 miles traveled, being near a coal-fired power plant adds 0.0003 mSv), being close to X-ray luggage scanners adds 0.00002 mSv, and living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant adds 0.00009 mSv.

Computed tomography (CT) as a way of screening for early signs of disease among asymptomatic adults. Estimated radiation dose and risks from such procedures, a single full-body scan results in a dose of 12 mSv. A typical mammogram has an dose of 0.13 mSv, almost 100 times less.

People who work at medical facilities, in mining or milling, or with nuclear weapons take steps to lower exposures to radiation. The maximum amount of radiation that workers are allowed to receive are 50 mSv per year . The exposure limits for a pregnant worker,are much lower.

About 210,000 military and civilian personnel were exposed to about 200 atmospheric weapons tests. Soldiers recived doses as low as 0.4 mSv and as high as 31 mSv. That would be from five chest X-rays to approximately 390 chest X-rays, one chest X-ray to be about 0.08 mSv.

Ionizing radiation can change the structure of molecules, including DNA. these changes are complex enough that the body’s repair mechanisms might not work perfectly. A very small fraction of imperfect repairs might result in cancer. Mutations could occur in the sperm and eggs, causing heritable disease. This has not been yet been detected in the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Sixty five percent of the surviors recieved less than 100 mSv, low dose ranges. That is about 40 times the average yearly background radiation exposure. But doses from 40 to 1600 times the average yearly background exposurewer thought to produce excess cancers ,above the levels expected in the population. In pregnant women,excess cancers can be detected at doses as low as 10 mSv. A linear relationship was found, more exposure resulted in more cancers.

Estimating Cancer Risk

BEIR VII developed risk models for estimating the relationship ionizing radiation and health effects. The linear no-threshold model (LNT) provided the best description of the relation between low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation and the incidence of cancers. At doses less than 40 times yearly background exposure (100 mSv), it is difficult to evaluate cancer risk. After looking over the data, the committee concluded that the risk would continue in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold, that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans.

Approximately 42 people out of a 100 will develope cancer in their lifetime anyway, then add one more cancer per 100 exposed to a single exposure of LET 0.1 Sv radiation. Age at exposure and sex affects the risk, with females having more risk ,and kids exposed at young ages the most risk.

Approximately one individual per thousand would develop cancer from an exposure to 0.01 Sv. And one individual per hundred would be expected to develop cancer from a lifetime of exposure to natural background radiation not counting radon and other high-LET radiation. Risk estimates are uncertain, there could be a factor of two or three times smaller or larger might be possible.

Estimating Risks to Children of Parents Exposed to Ionizing Radiation

Hereditary diseases from mutations contribute to illness and death . Mutations occur in the DNA of the sperm and ova and can be transmitted to offspring and following generations. Studies on the children of A-bomb survivors looked for stillbirths, early neonatal deaths, congenital abnormalities, deaths among live-born infants over a period of about 26 years. Growth and development of the children, chromosomal abnormalities, and specific types of mutations were followed.

If three mutations occur spontaneously in 1 million people in one generation, six mutations will occur if the same people are exposed to 1 Sv of ionizing radiation, and three of these six mutations would be due to the radiation exposure. The studies showed that at the 400 mSv or less dose recieved, the genetic risks were very low. Other studies of the children of those exposed to high doses of radiation for radiotherapy of cancers have also shown little increase in genetic diseases. BEIR VII estimates that one would not expect to see an excess of adverse effects in a sample of about 30,000 children evaluated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One reason is that those infants that were still born or died early on could not pass on any defects.

BEIR VII looked at claims that low doses of radiation are more harmful than a LNT model of effects would suggest, then concluded that radiation health effects research as a whole does not support this view. In essence, the committee concludes that the higher the dose, the greater is the risk; the lower the dose, the lower is the likelihood of harm to human health. Any single track of ionizing radiation may cause cellular damage. However, if only one ionizing particle passes through a cell’s DNA, the chances of damage to the cell’s DNA are proportionately lower than if there are 10, 100, or 1000 such ionizing particles passing through it.

One theory is that cells do not necessarily have to be hit directly by a radiation track for the cell to be affected. Some say that hit cells communicate with nonhit cells by chemical signals or other means. “Bystander” cells may be affected, resulting in a greater effect at low doses than would be predicted by extrapolating the response at high doses. Others believe that the bystander cells just die.

Others claimed that radiation was actually good for humans, the so called Hormesis theory. BEIR VII rejected those claims saying that the preponderance of information shows some risk, even at low doses. Before coming to this conclusion, the committee looked at reports that advocated Hormesis, but the reports were found either to be based on ecologic studies or to cite findings not representative of the data.

Ecologic studies looked at regions, and have suggested that the incidence of cancer is much higher or lower than the numbers observed. But a closer look says that the risks of ionizing radiation at low doses, are a function of dose.

The main studies establishing the health effects Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed less than 100 mSv). The arguments for thresholds or beneficial health effects were not supported by the data. And studies of cancer in children following exposure in utero or in early life indicate that radiation-induced cancers can occur at low doses. The Oxford Survey of Childhood Cancer found that at a rate of 10 to 20 mSv, a 40 percent increase in the cancer rate among children up to 15 years old.

There is also support for the LNT view of how cancers form. Studies show that a single radiation track traversing the nucleus of an appropriate target cell has some small chance of damaging the DNA. Other findings, such as ionization spurs can cause multiple damage in a short length of DNA, making it difficult for the cell to repair or causing incorrect repair.

BEIR VII concluded that there is no evidence to indicate a dose threshold below which the risk of cancer is zero, but that the occurrence of radiation-induced cancers at low doses will be small. The committee maintains that other health effects like heart disease and stroke can occur at high radiation doses, but that more studies were needed to show any connection between low doses of radiation and noncancer health effects. Additionally, although health effects in children of exposed parents may not have been found, there is some proof that radiation-induced mutations in mice and other organisms have been found, so humans could be harmed.
———————————————————————————–
Page 10 of BEIR VII