solidsurfacealliance.org Blog

Once thought impossible or difficult to prove, long term radiation damage has been found to leave easily read clues in the human body.

This was found by a team of US scientists studying workers from a Russian nuclear facility. Damaged DNA was found by a novel use of dyes, and it was suggested that up to 62% of the workers blood cells had chromosone damage at one point.

Russian/US Radiation Damage Study

Is it possible to have Radon without Gama radiation being present?

I am not aware of any decay chain that doesn’t have ANY gamma, so it should be safe to say that No Gamma = No Radiation Since Radon comes from only two sources, Uranium 235 and Uranium 238, it should be impossible to have Radon with zero Gamma. If you wanted the short answer, stop reading here.

First the nonclamenture needs explaining for Electron Volts (eV).

K stands for Kilo, or 1,000, so KeV is 1,000 electron Volts.

M stands for Million eV, 1,000,000 electron Volts.

One thing to consider though, is there Gamma there that we can’t measure with hand held meters? Each meter, even each individual probe, will have a range of radiation energy (KeV to MeV levels) that it will measure. Higher or lower than this, and the meter won’t pick up THAT energy level radiation. But, look at this chart of Gamma levels in Uranium 238

Uranium 238 decay chart with Gamma energies listed

Note that the levels run from 45 KeV to almost 1,800 KeV, which means that it is likely that SOME of the Gamma will be detected.

Now, look at the Gamma levels in Uranium 235

Uranium 238 decay chart with Gamma energies listed

Note that the energy levels are lower, 27 KeV to 800 KeV, meaning that a detector that couldn’t detect lower than 827 KeV would miss much if not all of the Gamma radiation.

Now you have to look at the efficiencies of individual probes to see if they will indeed measure those levels. Look at the response curve (what levels it will measure) for the Ludlum model 19 probe

http://www.ludlums.com/RespCurvHtm/RC_M19.htm

From 50 KeV to about 1,200 KeV gets detected, so the Model 19 probe will measure most (not anything below 50 KeV) of the U 235. However, since U 238 has some radiation above 1,200 KeV that won’t be detected with the Model 19 probe.

Then consider the PM 1703 we are using, response curve runs from 0.06 to 3.0 MeV, or 60 to 3,000,000 electron Volts. So a small amount of the U 235 and U 238 will go undetected, can’t get through the plastic case of the meter.

Lastly, there is the efficiency of the meter, or how much of the total radiation actually reads or registers on the meter. This is what Bill Llope is going to remind the experts about, that even the most expensive handheld meters catches very, very, little of the total radiation, as low as 2 to 3% of the total radiation emitted.

A good analogy would be a police car trying to catch speeding cars. Some he might be too slow to catch, some he can (Response Curve in KeV). On the other hand, he can catch only so many speeding cars per hour, leaving the vast majority of cars whizzing by uncaught (Efficiency of the meter).

Now, it is possible to have Thoron, another radioactive gas, present but the Thorium decay chain also has plenty of Gamma. So, no radiation, no Radon (or Thoron).

The first question that is probably in your mind is who the heck is the SFA?

Stone Fabricators Alliance, a so called “Brotherhood” of stone fabricators. Brings to mind the Aryan Brotherhood or something. Not saying they are racist, but it is poor choice of words in this day and age.

These guys claim between 300 and 2,000 paid members, but their member location map shows about 175 members. They have two sites, SFArocks.com and stoneadvice.com. The former is their organization’s home, little there currently. The stoneadvice site is pretty extensive, basically a forum with lots of participation. On the forum, they tend to be very clannish, few outsiders are welcomed once they start asking too many questions. People tend to get banned if the others don’t agree with the party line.

This was the home of the infamous granite “Black List”, a list of unsuitable granites put together by granite fabricators, slabs that they planned on refusing to work with for various reasons. Posted in an open section for all to view, once consumers became aware of the list, it was quickly hidden from public view. Off the present topic, but it sets the tone.

So Silestone (actually Cosentino or C & C) had some questions about their own products, knew there were some potential issue with their Sensa line of natural stone countertops, but the MIA refused to start a conversation on the issues. So Silestone partnered with Cambria, a quartz manufacturer, and funded a small non profit called Build Clean. Completely independent, but both parties recieved a seat on the board of directors, two seats out of many. Able to suggest and even guide matters, but not in complete control.

All went well for about ten months, until the combination of the Solid Surface Alliance and Build Clean was wildly successful in finding and publicising the existance of some freakishly hot granite types. What was expected to be a low key back of the newspaper event turned out to be a massive news event, which resulted in people and organizations flocking to help out with the testing and the spreading of the information. Leaving some very unhappy stone companies out there. Not to mention some nervous big box stores.

It was one thing to have a few upset competitors, but when the quarries in Brazil started talking about refusing to sell stone to Silestone, Silestone called a meeting at their Brazillian plant. Once the 80 or so quarries and slab processors realized one of the top executives with C & C would be present on their home turf, it was a matter of a few hours before rumors started saying that a contract was taken out on this executives life. Remember this is Brazil we are talking about, the odds were the guy would not make it from the airport to the hotel. Billions of dollars were at stake, looked like someone wanted to extract revenge and stop others from supporting the effort.

At first, the story was that the Silestone executive found out, canceled the meeting. It was only a matter of a few days before Silestone’s representative on the Build Clean Board of Directors was demanding Build Clean shut down the effort and change their website. Later on, other sources said the meeting went on as planned, and that the alledged “hit” was either steet talk or used to garner sympathy for the change of allies.

About this same time, the SFA decided to approach Silestone. They had earlier attempted to extort Brenton (they make the quartz slab processing machinery) and the MIA (Marble Institute of America), demanding that they lead a boycott of both Silestone and Cambria for daring to point out that some granites were potentially dangerous. Brenton and the MIA both told this small ragged group of stone fabricators to stuff it where the sun don’t shine, resulting in many wails and threats. Rebuffed, beaten, but not defeated, the SFA approached Silestone and cut a deal. There was an effort weeks earlier, attempting to tie Silestone’s Microban to serious health issues, which went nowhere at all. This time though, they happened to ooze their way in when Silestone needed a tool to show the stone industry they were backing down quickly.

What happened? Silestone negociated a deal with the SFA, in return for Silestone shutting down Build Clean, the SFA agreed to start a testing effort in conjunction with Silestone. I think this was pure genius on Silestone’s part, they knew they couldn’t deliver, but they split the stone industry’s organized effort in half, actually forcing the most active members of the industry to not only support the testing effort, but to stab their former allies at the MIA in the back.

This all transpired on Monday, with not a word from the MIA since. Even the most vocal of our critics on the SFA are now some what quiet, with little to say but that some granite must be tested and removed from the market. They are taking their drubbing quite well, with plenty of fabricators saying that the Solid Surface Alliance’s efforts were not only successful, but they were completely vindicated.

The deal was that Silestone not use Radon or radiation in their marketing, but Silestone is still doing just that.

Lot’s more going on with this issue, some effort to get the several sides together to quiet the fighting and work on the issues. Some educating would be possible, but it is looking like quasi govt agencies like ANSI will step in with the help of AARST will actually set any standards and testing protocols.

Time will tell, in the meantime, it is a fascinating story

For more info, go to forum.solidsurfacealliance.org

This story is simple, do you want to have a job or do you want to have water? It shows the lack of infrastructure that turns the stone industry against the local inhabitants.

Marble Trade sucks indian villiages dry

For more info, go to forum.solidsurfacealliance.org

In January 1995, the Indian Citizens’ Commission on Bonded Labour and Child Labour obtained the release of 76 bonded laborers working at a stone quarry in the Bhiwini District near Delhi. Over half of the workers were described as children in a news report covering the release.

For the entire story, go down about a third of the way down, under Manufacturing and Mining Child Labor cases.

Once again, this industry needs some standards put in place to prevent this kind of abuse.

The following is off a radiation safety forum. The debate centers around low dose radiation, why one should avoid as much as possible. Dr. Long’s last sentence says it all.

So, “high dose radiation – 12,000 times – chest x-ray” affects adjacent
tissue?
Would other severe injury, like crushed arm, affect the rest of the
body? Of course!

Why the surprise?

Why the false headline that it “Hints at Dangers of Low Dose
Radiation”?

Hormesis, low dose good where high dose bad, must be taught.
We must correct this disinformation by fearmongers
to dismantle over-regulation and liberate nuclear power.

Howard Long

For more info, to ask questions, or to find a tester, go to forum.solidsurfacealliance.org

Bystander Effect Hints at Dangers of Low-Dose Radiation

By Jocelyn Kaiser
According to ScienceNOW Daily News writer Jocelyn Kaiser, the lead apron you wear during a dental x-ray is supposed to protect the rest of you from radiation. But it may not work very well, according to a new study. When cancer-prone mice were placed in lead containers and irradiated on just the lower half of their bodies, they developed brain tumors. The results suggest that radiation could be riskier than scientists thought.

The study builds on a surprising effect, first observed 16 years ago. When cells in culture are exposed to ionizing radiation, even those not directly hit sustain damage to Chromosomes. Apparently, the irradiated cells pass on a distress signal or emit some chemical that breaks the DNA of neighboring cells.

Although this “bystander effect” has been observed in tissue culture and recently in
living animals, no experiments have yet linked it to the main reason for concern: Bystander effects might trigger cancer. Some scientists even suspect the opposite–that the bystander responses could protect against the disease by killing damaged cells.
Now it seems that the cancer risk is real. Radiation oncologist Anna Saran at the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment in Rome and colleagues studied mice with a mutation in a gene called Patched that makes them susceptible to brain tumors early in life. They placed newborn mice in lead shields that protected their
heads and upper bodies, then zapped them with high-dose x-rays, or about 12,000 times the dose of a dental or chest x-ray. The scientists found that the cerebellums of these animals had higher than normal amounts of DNA damage and apoptosis, or programmed cell death. By 40 weeks of age, 39% of the shielded mice had developed brain tumors. That’s a lot considering that the rate was 62% in Patched mice that were irradiated all over, including their heads. Patched mice that weren’t irradiated did not develop brain cancer.

When the team injected the shielded mice with a chemical that blocks cell-to-cell communication before irradiating them, they detected no DNA breaks and the amount of apoptosis decreased more than threefold. Even though the irradiated tissues are far away from the brain, they are connected by neurons that could be passing on bystander signals, Saran says. The results appear online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“This is a milestone paper,” says Columbia University radiation physicist David Brenner. He suggests that current estimates of cancer risk from low doses of radiation–say, from naturally occurring radon and diagnostic tests–may underestimate the danger by failing to take into account bystander effects. To learn more, however, the mouse work should be
repeated with lower doses of radiation, Saran says.

Bystander Effect” Hints at Dangers of Low-Dose Radiation

Below is the latest MIA newsletter to their members. They are getting a bit testy about our site posting them for all to read. Our comments are in bold, interspersed with their newsletter.

Dear Fellow MIA Member,

Over the past several days, many of you have expressed concern about the unprecedented attacks on our industry by our competitors and other vested parties. It may not be immediately evident, but I want to assure you that our response has been aggressive and multi-faceted. In fact, on Tuesday, MIA officers and senior staff spent an entire day meeting and planning with our outside legal and communications experts. OoooHHHH! and entire day with the lawyers and the big tobaccoPR firm! One would think that meeting with a few scientists would have been good too!

We want to share some general details of the outcome of our meeting, though as many of you already know; member communication has a way of finding itself posted on public web sites. That would be us! To be perfectly frank, I\’d prefer that this message didn\’t show up on an Internet message board or in a blog, where our detractors might twist the steps we\’re taking to defend our industry – and all our companies.

(Hi Jim Hogan, sorry about this, but as you can see we aren’t twisting anything. We just feel that this way forces you guys to be more honest in what you tell your members. While not a member of the MIA myself, a half dozen of MIA members believe having this out in the open is the best way to stop you guys from lying. Otherwise they wouldn’t supply us your communications, got it?)

As you all know, this attack is by far the most aggressive and well-funded we have ever faced. It appears that someone has been planning this for several years. No, actually very little planning was done. You guys are just an easy target. Although our preference was to take the high road in responding, the repeated assaults that our opponents continue to launch at us have forced us to take forceful and decisive action. Much of what we have faced results from the New York Times story, which continues to get attention because the story was distributed by the New York Times Syndicate.Many of you have encouraged us to simply reject the allegations out of hand or share the findings from previous studies to end the accusations. The research we have does not match the allegations being leveled. Well, we agree on that at least. Our attackers have had years to review our studies and anticipate our positions and – as a result – have created more sophisticated attacks that can only be fended off with new more comprehensive research and additional scientific analysis. No, not years, thirty minutes will do when your PR firm posts unpublished “studies” that directly contridict each other. This is why we are undertaking comprehensive, additional research to further assess the radon and radiation risks associated with granite (if any). This is good, Jim, but tell everyone why Dr. Steck dropped out of your stable of experts? You guys were naming him as on your team as recent as late June. I want to stress that work completed to date continues to support the findings of earlier studies that granite countertops are safe. Uh oh, Jim, your nose is growing longer and longer! None of your “studies” were reviewed or published, that makes them articles written by an expert, not studies. However, several media stories have featured what seem to be nonconforming stones that appear to be more active than what we have analyzed in the past. Now why is this, Jim? If you truly studied this issue in the past, why would you only study the “conforming” stones? From your own internal documents (yeah, we have a few of them) you appear to know as far back as 10 years ago that plenty of granite types had high levels of uranium. With that in mind, why did you set up Dr. Chyi with 13 quiet samples? Why was only one even remotely hot? Let’s get real, you guys are the experts in stone and you want us to believe that this is about “nonconforming” stones?

We want to track down those exotic samples (if they in fact exist), to assess the risk they may pose – if any. Oh, Jimmy boy, you know they exist. Tell us who came to you years ago and showed you this issue. Stick to just two organizations for now, just two.To date, our attackers have been unwilling to provide these samples to us. Bull sh*t, Mr. Jim. You had several chances to see the samples and obtain samples, but you insisited on non disclosure agreements being signed. That way you could sue anyone that brought the issue up again. Did you really think anyone would agree to doing that? However, we know that this battle requires more than scientific data to defend the industry. To that end, we are:

Recruiting allies from among the scientific and health communities, who can dispel the groundless fears about granite countertops. Unsolicited support has already come from the Health Physics Society, some radon testing companies and the Washington State Department of Health. All have substantiated our position that granite countertops are safe. Sure, they did just that, but out of ignornace. Watch them scramble for higher ground as they learn the facts.

Aggressively reaching out to all forms of media – including national television networks and newspapers, as well as Internet message boards, chat rooms, radio stations and blogs – to secure news stories and spur discussion that balances out the reports based on questionable science that are being trumpeted by our competitors. Many outlets appear receptive to balancing information. And the allies on our side are meeting you in those message boards and chat rooms, pointing out your ridiculous arguments. Some of which contridict each other. Here is a hint, give a talk to Silvyia and Tiffany, have em read and understand stuff before they use it. Let’s face the facts, you guys brought a knife to a gun fight, then held the knife by the wrong end.

Developing materials that countertop retailers and fabricators can use to balance the unfortunately negative publicity that has created needless consumer concerns. Sure, materials that will drive the nails in your coffin. You guys are being investigated as I write this, don’t you think it is time to stop telling lies? We hope to forward additional materials soon.Working with scientists and government agencies to find common ground for uniform testing in order to reassure consumers about the safety of granite. We hope to have an update report on this in the coming days.

Exploring a variety of legal options to thwart this ruthless assault by our competitorsAnd we\’re not stopping there. Not by a long shot.

In fact, in the MIA is considering:

Ways to enhance online communications through the creation of an MIA blog, where we can host a dialogue with consumers and others who have legitimate questions and concerns about granite countertops. Gee, I sure hope I can ask questions. How about it Jim, are you going to answer my questions on your blog?

The launch of an aggressive advertising and promotion strategy, to take our reassurance message – and new scientific findings – directly to consumers.

The creation of a new Web site to demonstrate clearly the benefits of granite countertops, while addressing the attacks.

Government outreach to determine what is really motivating the sudden attacks on our industry. How is that working for ya Jim? Was asking an attorney general’s office to investigate us such a good idea? It will be the end of you at the MIA cause your board is going to have to throw someone under the bus to walk away from what you started.

Our biggest challenge is that we are fighting a highly organized, well-funded campaign. To do so effectively requires financial support. That is why contributions to the Truth About Granite Fund are so critical.

Please contribute by sending a check to the Marble Institute of America/Truth About Granite Fund. You can send those checks to Marble Institute of America; 28901 Clemens Road; Suite 100; Cleveland, OH USA 44145.

We need to end these attacks once and for all. If we do not, our industry can look forward to ongoing assaults in the future. The MIA is fighting on multiple fronts, but we need your help to succeed in this endeavor.Sincerely,Jim Hogan 2008 MIA President Carrara Marble Company of America

This pod cast with Chrystine Kelley, Environmental Protection Specialist with theColorado Department
of Public Health & Environment and Dr. Leo Moorman is about Radon Home Measurement and Mitigation.

They talk about radioactive elements in granite and the decay chain, leading to continuous Radon release. Dr. Moorman talks about the two issues, Gamma radiation and Radon emission from granite countertops. Even Radon generated in the center of the slab can diffuse into the homes air.

They speak about Radon and the dilution factor inside the home and how the modern energy efficient air tight homes affect. They bring up the low levels of Radon from granite and discuss radiation units. Absorbed dose and exposure rates, biological factors are discussed, with Radon being low, but 20 times more dangerous.

Hot spots are discussed, with the distribution of hot and quiet sections. Distance from the source and background radiation levels in general are discussed. Exposure per year (100 mR/yr) is discussed, then a computation of a 30 uR/hr minus background, or 17 R/hr times 4 hours. Leading to 24 mR/yr exposure.

Dr. Mooreman recomends finding the lowest level granite for your countertop. Those concerned should test their basement, kitchen, and other living areas.

Radon pressure builds up due to difficulty getting out of the granite, which slows down the initial rate, but in the end the granite emitts almost as much Radon as if it were free to move.

They no doubt are not 100% convinced that a granite countertop can add the majority of the Radon in a home, but they are intelligent enough to admit that higher radiation level slabs might be out there. All in all a pretty decent discussion although some what lacking in information on the hotter varieties of granite.

This was interesting for those who have a lot of granite installed in a home, tiles, showers, or countertop. If the general level of the home is raised more than 11 uR/hr, you will exceed the maxiumum allowed dose past background radiation levels.

From the Health Physicists Society “ask an expert” section.

How many mR/hr (alpha,beta,gamma,or x ray) could be considered unsafe for continuous exposure?

First of all, the units, mR/hr apply only to gamma or x radiation. However, the same question could be posed in terms of dose equivalent rate, mrem/hr, which is applicable to all types of ionizing radiation. As a matter of reference, an exposure of 1 mR gamma or x radiation results in a dose equivalent of approximately 1 mrem (with a small variation depending upon the energy and irradiation conditions). The current regulatory occupational exposure limit in the United States is 5000 mrem per year. If continuous exposure is interpreted as 2000 working hours per year, this translates into 2.5 mrem/hr for radiation workers. However, occupational exposures should be kept as low as reasonably achievable with 5000 mrem/yr as a regulatory upper limit. This does not necessarily mean that radiation does in excess of 5000 mrm/yr are unsafe for radiation workers, but this is the limit applied for regulatory purposes. Because of factors such as the general population being more heterogeneous and containing individuals of all ages and conditions of health, the regulatory limit is lower than for occupational exposure. The limit for radiation delivered in addition to the natural background radiation to individuals of the general public is 500 mrem in any one year and 100 mrem/yr on a prolonged basis. If we interpret continuous exposure as 8766 hours per year (24 hrs/day x 365.25 days/yr), 100 mrem/yr translates to 0.011 mrem/hr or 11 microrem/hr. This would be in addition to the natural background radiation which is quite variable but which averages about 300 mrem/yr or 34 microrem/hr. This does not necessarily mean that radiation doses in excess of 500 mrem in a single year of 100 mrem on a prolonged basis are unsafe when added to the pre-existing natural background but rather these are the limits accepted for regulatory purposes. Charles E. Roessler, CHP, PhD