solidsurfacealliance.org Blog

This is interesting. This writer of this article interviewed me a few weeks back, about the time of the New York Times story. Dr. Chiodo as usual, told it like it is. The only opposing reasonable voice was a lawyer that specialized in defending toxic cases. He bases his doubts on the levels of radiation from granite, without knowing exactly what that those levels are. This is a re occuring theme with the “experts” when they respond in the media.

Of course the MIA was interviewed and made these claims.

“The highest recorded emission rates were hundreds to thousands of times lower than EPA safety guidelines.”

Of course the MIA did not mention that the study they paid Dr. Chyi to produce showed Crema Bordeaux emitting .27 pCi/L, which is about one fourteenth the EPA action level. So much for their claim of hundreds or thousands of times the action levels.

The MIA also had this to say.

“To meet the EPA guidelines for action, 4 picocuries per liter, emissions from a typical granite countertop would have to be approximately 2,600 becquerels, a figure that equals 2,000 times the highest emission rates reported in scientific journals. ”

To put that figure into perspective, let’s look at a Chinese study that also measured the radiation in Becquerels.

In this study, they found Radium levels (Radium is the parent element of Radon, all this Radium eventually becomes Radon, so the two elements will be in equilibrium) from 16 to 204 Bq per kilo gram. Now, the average granite countertop weighs 1,000 pounds (55 square feet), so there are 454 kilograms per countertop. That gives between 7,272 and 92,616 Bq (Becquerels) present per counter top! From 2.7 to 35.62 times what the MIA says is too much!

Another thing stands out, the MIA claim the 2,600 Bq was 2,000 times the highest emission rates reported in scientific journals. That would calculate out to 1.3 Bq per Kilo gram. Since the Chinese study found from 16 to 204 Bq per kilo gram, one wonders why the MIA would claim that granite had so little Radon present?

The MIA’s estimate of 1.3 Bq per Kilo gram matches what the EPA once thought the average granite contained. Being the supposed experts on granite, this seems troubling. Surely granite being found near Uranium quarries would have been tested, indeed there are those who say the MIA knew long ago that there was an issue.

We did get a mention at the bottom of the article, and a quote.

The Daily Record, a Maryland Newspaper

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

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.

I get some flack for posting the MIA’s propaganda, but sometimes the light of day and some comments interspersed are the best way to address it.

Here is their latest, much better than normal but still lacking. My replies are interspersed in bold type.

Quote:

“A considerable amount of research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature and all of it comes to the same conclusion: the levels of radon emitted into the air from a granite countertop are not excessive and not showing any risk for the population in their homes,” said Dr. John McCarthy, president of Environmental Health & Engineering, a public health consulting firm in suburban Boston.

Okay, two things stand out, the lack of any comprehensive studies on Radon and granite countertops and the claim of zero risk from small amounts of Radon. The scientific consensus is that Radon and radiation are linear in dose/risk ratios. I also would like to point out that Dr. McCarthy doesn’t point out which exact studies he is referring to, making it impossible to verify his claims.

McCarthy, who holds degrees from Harvard University and Boston College and has overseen more than 2,500 indoor environmental quality assessments, said some news stories about radon and granite have failed to address the critical role that air dilution plays in testing, measuring and interpreting radon levels in homes.
“To properly measure radon, one must calculate the emission rate in connection with the area of granite and the volume of air in the home,” he said. “Much like paint fumes do, radon generally will dilute into a home’s air. These concentrated emissions will generally dilute down to harmless levels. To get even close to the type of dangerous levels of radon exposure that’s been reported in news articles recently, a consumer would have to completely seal off the room and stay in that room 24/7 — for 72 years.”

Again McCarthy is missing several points. First, while the homes volume does provide a dilution factor, the experts calculate the RISE in Radon levels by using the Radon emission and the amount of fresh air entering the space. It troubles me that McCarthy is unaware of this common practice in the Radon field. He treats the home as if it was static, no air leakage or ventilation, when in fact the ventilation factor is more important than the rate of Radon emission. Then McCarthy descends into the ridiculous, claiming that a rooms Radon level would continue to increase for 72 years. Radon levels will increase only in a closed room for a few weeks at most, until a point is reached where the Radon being created is less than the losses from Radon decay. Remember it has a half life, 3.8 days, so some of it is always decaying into the next lower elements. At some point, it reaches equlibrium as it is decaying as fast as it is being produced, usually in a matter of three weeks or less.

This one point tells me that Dr. McCarthy is very, very, ignorant of Radon science. No doubt he has some expertise and experience in something, but it isn’t Radon.

Dr. David Ropeick, author of the book “Risk,” agreed with McCarthy that recent media reports are needlessly confusing consumers about the safety of granite countertops.
“Compared to all the risks in people’s lives, the risk of radon exposure from granite countertops is as close to zero as you could hope to get,” Ropeick said. “Granite is a natural stone and some samples emit a tiny amount of radon. It’s scary for people to hear that, especially when that’s all that’s being reported. But many of the reports are looking past the important scientific facts that show with the dilution of air, any amount of radon coming off the stone is negligible.”

Dr. Ropeick also omits several facts, the most important is the MIA/Chyi study that found very large amounts of Radon emanating from Crema Bordeaux. He also has not taken the time to call the Radon experts in the NY Times story, or read Dr. Kitto’s findings of one to two pCi/L increase in Radon levels in homes from granite Kitto has studied. What baffles me is that these “experts” don’t pick up a phone and call Stan Liebert or Dr. Llope and ask for proof before blindly proclaiming chicanery. Ropeick also doesn’t address the linear aspect of Radon risk, where even a small amount carries a small risk. Like McCarty, he omits to address ventilation, depending upon the volume of a home to continue to dissapate Radon.

Health Physics Society (HPS), a scientific and professional organization whose members specialize in occupational and environmental radiation safety and which has no connection to the granite countertop industry, took issue with the New York Times story, “What’s Lurking in Your Countertop” published July 24, 2008. According to an HPS fact sheet about the Times story:
– The procedure used by the contractor was not appropriate (as per Environmental Protection Agency radon measurement methods) and did not provide a real idea of the amount of radon in the ambient kitchen.

No, the method used to find the 100 pCi/L of Radon was the standard EPA approved method. The HPS worked with the MIA to forge their statement, they have admitted that, but they chose not to contact anyone in the NY Times story to verify any of the methods or measurements found. What they are refereing to as flawed methods is one of the many tests performed, where a container of known volume is placed over a Radon test kit or meter so that the emission FROM the granite can be proved and measured. In the lab, they would use the same method that the MIA/Chyi study used, placing a known volume of granite in a known volume container, then after an elapsed time, measuring the Radon produced. Same method used in both Liebert’s testing and Chyi’s testing, only a matter of scale. Had the HPS taken the time to call either Liebert or Dr. Kitto, they would have learned that lab tests showed over 4,000 pCi of Radon per square foot were being eminated from the Sugarman’s Shivakasi granite countertop, leading to 100 pCi/L Radon levels in the kitchen.

Dr. Toohey, the president of the HPS wrote this in an email to Christina.
“If I scale the gamma ray measurements for our example to your result, I get about 60 pCi/L radon, which is in the same ballpark as the 100; however, that still assumes no air mixing between the kitchen and the rest of the house, still, that could get the air in the house as a whole over the EPA guideline. So we do, as we said, advocate testing for people who may be concerned.”

This is his revised opinion, sent to us on Tuesday of last week, after the publication of the MIA press release. This was before he was showed the Kitto result on the Shivakasi. Toohey was using the Gamma radiation levels off that top to validate Stan Lieberts finding of 100 pCi/L of Radon in that kitchen.

– Even if the measurement had been valid, one measurement result based on one type of granite in one particular home is not an indication of radon exposure in any other kitchen with a granite countertop.

How true, which is why we say that all granite countertops must be tested. One could read the HPS comment as if one bad granite doesn’t make them all bad. We agree, no one is on record as saying all granite is bad.

– The bottom line: No action needs to be taken to remove granite countertops in existing homes.

True to the extent that testing should be done prior to removing anything thought to be of concern. Were a granite countertop found to be emitting high Radon levels, action would certainly be warranted. But a blanket statement such as they gave is irresponsible at best.

Indeed, Health Physics Society President Richard E. Toohey, Ph.D., CHP said that someone spending four hours a day every day of the year in a kitchen with a typical granite countertop would have their chance of cancer increased by just one in two million. By contrast, the chance of contracting cancer each year simply from background radiation in the environment is three in 10,000.

Again we agree, at least on his first point if he is refering to Radon alone. Still, given the knowledge and choice in the matter, wouldn’t it be best to avoid that small risk? And if 50 million people are exposed to granite, that would be 25 extra cancer cases per year. A small risk for those that dodge the bullet, an agonizing death for the unlucky 25 people in that year.

I want to mark his last sentence though, 3 in 10,000 risk of contracting cancer from normal background radiation in any given year. We will return to this statement at the end of this rebuttal.

Toohey’s perspectives are echoed by the Washington State Department of Health (WSDOH). On its “Radon Outreach Program” website maintained by its Office of Radon Protection, the WSDOH states: “For a person to be exposed to a noticeable amount of radiation, they would have to spend many hours per day lying on the counter. This is unlikely, so the public health risk is extremely low.”

Again we have a quote with no link to the entire statement, one is left wondering what level of radiation they are refering to, and why is it necessary to lie on the countertop?

Offering yet another view on the safety of granite is the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists (AARST). In its “Position Statement: Granite Countertops and Radon Gas” released Aug. 4, AARST states “while natural rocks such as granite may emit some radon gas, the subsequent levels of radon in the building that are attributable to such sources are not typically high.”

Again we have experts not consulting those who have measured and found otherwise. They are simply ignorant of the levels being found. That will change at their Las Vegas meeting.

The AARST statement says that “soil, sand and rock underneath the home are the primary sources of indoor radon gas” and offers the following advice to consumers concerned about the presence of radon in their homes:
“The best approach to reduce radon in the home is to install an active soil depressurization system (ASD) and reduce the entry of radon coming from the soil. In some cases, increasing the entry of outdoor air to the home is an appropriate method to reduce radon levels by dilution and improve indoor air quality. Both of these methods require a qualified radon mitigation professional to design and install the appropriate radon reduction system.

Now it should be clear why AARST would prefer that high levels of Radon be blamed on soil based Radon. They sell mitigation systems. You want to sell a $400 testing job, or a $400 testing job followed by a $2,000 or $4,000 ventilation system? Removing a granite countertop doesn’t pay a lot of money.

Only in extreme cases would removal of the granite be necessary to reduce the radon concentration, assuming appropriate measurements confirm it as the significant source.”

Now we are in complete agreement, it will be rare that a top needs removed. Ventilation can address some of the cases, but one should factor in the cost of the air exchange system and the increased costs of heating and cooling.

Jim Hogan, president of the Marble Institute of America, said he could understand why the issue of granite and radon has become emotional for many consumers, but he encouraged them to consider all the facts.
“We all have to make our own choices and decisions about things in our home,” Hogan said. “But the bottom line is that when it comes to countertops, the science tells us there’s no reason to make health issues a factor in whether you choose granite. ”

Hardly, and one must remember that the MIA spend 14 years say that Radon and radiation from granite was impossible to measure.

About the Marble Institute of America
For over 60 years the Marble Institute of America (MIA) has been the world’s leading information resource and advocate for the natural dimension stone industry. MIA members include marble, granite, limestone, sandstone, and other natural stone producers and quarriers, fabricators, installers, distributors, and contractors around the world.

And a constant source of missinformation on all of the health risks of granite. More discussion below on the most damning statement that the MIA included in this press release.

SOURCE Marble Institute of America
Copyright (C) 2008 PR Newswire. All rights reserved
Top stories
2:21 AM today Australian business conditions at near 7-year low
4:53 PM 8/11/08 U.S. stocks close modestly higher after oil pares losses
4:54 PM 8/11/08 Delta, Northwest pilots approve pact

Now, we marked one of Toohey’s statements above for later discussion:

The MIA has to respond I guess, but by now it ought to be clear that the facts are against them. Their only path to recovery for their industry is to admit the issues exist, then work hard to remove the dangerous granite countertops from homes and workplaces, then clear out any hot stones in inventory, while preventing the importation of any more high radiation level granites.

We recieved a request by a Radon lab last week for a sample of hot granite. We had a section of Niagara Gold ready, around 220 uR/hr Gamma, and a 12″ square of Bordeaux that measured around 120 uR/hr or so.

The lab owner was a bit skeptical of this testing effort but once he heard the names of the researchers and Radon labs working behind the scenes, he was ready to look into the claims. We shipped him a 15″ x 18″ slab and a 12″ x 12″ slab to test.

The MIA has these guys linked to on their website as a fair and balanced source of information on Radon in granite countertops. Hopefully when it comes out that the lab is testing, the MIA will leave the link up. If not, that will very telling as to the MIA’s motives.

Niagara Gold granite in a Mississippi home, one hot kitchen. In more way than one.

from 200 to 500 uR/hr. Way over the safe limit. Click on picture to enlarge.

Rarely do I post some of the propaganda from the MIA without comment, but this one really needs very little. A bit of truth, a lot of lies. Plenty of blame toward others for their current predicament.

And the MIA still seems to be allergic to talking about radiation in granite.

Enjoy, pop some popcorn, it takes 30 minutes to watch.

The MIA’s latest response

Craigs list offer to buy radioactive granite countertops

It is out of Cleveland Ohio, could this be the MIA trying to find some hot tops?

Some one trying to buy some cheap granite for reuse? They aren’t likey to come out in one piece and not likely to fit another kitchen. Besides, it would be cheaper to use China blanks.

We were lucky enough to run into Bob Shannon on the Radsafe forum. Bob is a radiochemist and was gracious enough to go over the ARS Houston Bordeaux lab results and give us his personal opinion on the report. I removed much of the technical info and left in what many homeowners would find interesting.

Much of this info has to be quite technical, but a quick review of this report would be that Bob found that the radium 226 reported might be a little bit high, that based on the radon present, the radium 226 most likely present in the sample was in the range of 400 to 900 pCi/g. He also pointed out that the results actually indicate that Cs-137 and Co-60 show that are not detected in the sample and that Sc-46 is an anomalous reading, an artifact of the radon. Now for a more detailed version of Bob’s findings on this ARS lab report.

First of all, Bob points out that the lab noted in the report that the Ra-226 results could be a bit high. This is because Ra-226 has a photopeak at the same energy as U-235 (gamma spectrometry uses ‘photopeaks’ to measure radionuclides). Uranium is the parent product of radium. Given enough time (that is geological timescales), the uranium undergoes decay and results in radium. Since uranium 235 is present naturally in most geological products, the levels of radium 226 reported by the lab may show a high bias.

Bob also points out that it is possible to estimate the amount of radon in the sample.

From looking at the bismuth-214 and lead-214 results (decay products of radon 222), we get an estimate of the amount of radon trapped within the sample at the time of the analysis. In order to do the gamma spectrometry measurements on the stone, the lab crushes and grinds the sample, so some of the radon in the original stone is lost before the analysis. Counteracting this, however, once the stone is ground and sealed in a container, the radon increases in concentration over several weeks time until its activity nearly equals that of Ra-226. That is, in fact, one of the best ways to measure Ra-226 activity by gamma spectrometry as it is not susceptible to uranium 235’s interfering gamma rays. Of course, one must be willing to wait the several weeks to get better results.

In our case, without more info on how the sample was prepared or how long it was stored before the analysis, it is pretty reasonable to assume that less than half of the radon originally present in the stone was lost prior to the analysis (in reality the losses are probably much less than this but we want to be conservative when we make assumptions). In other words, it is reasonable to assume that the lead 214 and bismuth 214 only account for something ranging between one-half and all of the radium 226 activity present.

In all, one can try and make some conclusions about the first sample (the one with the highest activity) in the ARS lab report:

· It is reasonable to assume that the losses of radon 222 in this material are less than 50%. From looking at the lead 214 and bismuth 214 results as indicators of the radon 222 in the sample, it is seems reasonable to conclude that radium 226 in this sample would be somewhere in the 400 to 900 pCi/gram range.

· If you estimate Ra-226 concentration using the lead 210, the radium 226 activity would probably be roughly in the 400 to 500 pCi/gram range. (Bob notes that radium 226 and lead 210 are often present in similar activities in geological materials and that measuring lead 210 by gamma spec in materials that are very dense can be difficult and the result uncertainty may be higher than expected and certainly higher than one would see for lead 214 and bismuth 214 measurements)

· If you attempt to estimate Ra-226 using typical concentrations of uranium-235 you might conclude that there is somewhere around 800 pCi/gram of Ra-226 (Bob notes that U-235 is often present at roughly 1/20 the activity of radium 226 in geological materials).

· In the end, without allowing 3 weeks for radon ‘ingrowth’ or without specifically testing for Ra-226, these conclusions are not much more than educated guesses.

As far as some of the other results go, the results for Cs-137 and Co-60 are below the detectable concentrations, so these results should be understood to indicate that the two radionuclides are not present in the sample. The lab flagged the Sc-46 as anomalous; it is a spectral artifact resulting from radon decay products in the sample. Finally there are also indications of the presence of thorium chain activity in the ~100 pCi/isotope/g range (once again in the first and highest sample).

Bob had found it interesting so see that the results of the three tests varied so much, reflecting the difference between your average American granite and some of the ones being imported from around the world.

This information was heavily edited for the audience expected in this blog, so any inaccuracies would be mine. Bob works as a consultant and any stone company interested in talking to labs about setting up the right testing or deciphering their own lab reports can contact him. Bob can be reached at the number below or at his email address,

Bob Shannon Tel: 303-432-1137
Quality Radioanalytical Support, LLC (QRS)
BobShannon “at” earthlink.net
(remove the “at” and replace with @ keeps the spam bots away)