A Rational Discussion on Radon in Granite Countertops
This post is a follow-up to The Fight Over Radon in Granite Countertops Heats Up, which will provide some background information on the granite/radon issue.
With the legion of both deniers and alarmists out there attempting to monopolize the discussion over the safety of granite countertops, it is difficult to find unbiased information. Peruse the comments in the above post and you can see the discussion has devolved into name calling. The deniers, many of whom work in the granite industry, blast any insinuation that granite could be dangerous as “fear-mongering” and put down the current research as “junk science.” The alarmists, many of whom sell competing countertops, argue that consumers shouldn’t take the risk that comes with granite. The truth, as with most heated arguments, can be found somewhere in the middle.
- » See also: Eco-living by Building Homes Asbestos Free
- » Get Green Building Elements by RSS or sign up by email.
First, let me say that the vast majority of granite countertops are perfectly safe. Very rarely, a granite countertop may emit radon gas or gamma radiation beyond a healthy level. Before anyone claims that by making such a statement I am now in the “alarmist” category, look at the study that the Marble Institute of America links to showing most granite countertops are safe: 2008 Radon Study Released. Dr. Chyi found that while most granite emitted little to no radon or radiation, one color emitted radon slightly higher than a healthy level and another color emitted radon 7% beyond the healthy level. Add the EPA’s claim that “Some granite may emit gamma radiation above typical background levels,” and I think we can throw out the claim that there is zero potential for dangerous levels of radon or radiation in granite countertops.
Pay attention to the language used when discounting the potential dangers of granite. From the Texas Department of State Health Services: “The amount of radioactivity in most granite is quite small.” From the EPA: “Based on existing studies, most types of granite used in countertops and other aspects of home construction are not typically known to be major contributors of radiation and radon in the average home.” While certainly reassuring to those worried about their own granite countertops, the qualifier “most” in both statement allows for the reality that in very rare instances radioactivity levels in granite countertops are beyond safe levels.
Some have argued that any radon a granite countertop releases would be mitigated by a home’s ventilation system. While this can be true on a house by house basis, both the EPA and the Surgeon General recommend limiting a family’s exposure to radon whenever possible. And an efficient ventilation system does not address the problem of direct gamma radiation from granite countertops, an issue that Dr. William Llope, a physicist from Rice University, is continuing to research. Similar to the findings of Dr. Chyi, Dr. Llope has found that while most granite emitted little to no radiation, a small number of the samples he tested emitted unhealthy levels of radiation. He is compiling his results for peer review.
The question is no longer whether granite can contain radon or radiation, but how are consumers going to be reassured that the granite they are buying is radon free. The Marble Institute of America is beginning to move away from denial and toward reassurance of the public, a move many in the middle of the argument applaud. Their website directs current granite owners toward radon testing kits and they have recently announced the formation of a panel to develop a protocol for testing granite for radon and radiation. Check back here for updates on this panel and new testing protocols.
Update: I spoke with Jim Martinez from the Marble Institute of America, who told me that the MIA is working together with the Environmental Health & Engineering consulting firm to study the issue of radon in granite countertops. The most active stones they have found are 70 times below the safe level. “Based on our analysis, we’ve not found a single stone that’s a problem,” said Mr. Martinez. The scientific panel being put together will address the issue that there is currently no scientific standard for measuring radon in granite, and it is Mr. Martinez’s hope that the panel will not only develop a measurement standard but also a standard for interpreting the data.
I welcome comments from all sides of this issue, but please try to keep the discussion on a rational level. In this political season, I think we’ve all had enough of spin and name calling.
Related Posts:
- Fight over Radon in Granite Countertops Heats Up
- Green Counter Culture
- The Costs of Not Building Green
Picture courtesy of stock.xchng
[...] Please visit an updated post on radon in granite countertops here: A Rational Discussion on Radon in Granite Countertops [...]
I live in new england, couldn’t get away form granite if I tried lol however, I think the radon scare is overdone. Radioactivity in granite is a problem and is easily taken care of by screening it at the quarry with a geiger counter. Granite naturally contains uranium, at least around here so you’d think they’d be screening it regularly to see if they found a commercially viable source. I wonder about all the old granite stone buildings around here. Has anyone thought to check them for radon/radioactivity? Many of those were built before the study of radioactivity. I’ll check tonight and see if one glows, but I won’t inhale.
A curiosity to be sure and it should be checked out to see if there really is a need for screening.
Why am I just now finding out granite counter-tops may emit radon gas or gamma radiation? It makes perfect sense radon gas comes from deep underground (mostly).
Granite can look attractive but even the slightest risk to my families health is too high a risk. I am glad to have found this post and will research this further, THANKS for the information!
Excellent points in this article…Granite has been a building material just about forever, so it has a pretty good track record, but as always, when you get down to the fine details, you can find some granite that might be unsafe, just like you can find building materials with recycled content that emit more VOCs than we want because it is hard to completely regulate the recycling process.
One of the tactics used by unscrupulous debaters is to use a straw man arguement,in the previous thread it was said the “alarmists” say all granite is dangerous, then the stone only fabricators would attempt to score some cheap points by proving this statement wrong.
I have been pretty deep in this testing effort since the beginning and I have never heard anyone say that all granites are dangerous. What has been said, and I have said it myself, is that there are few if any “safe” granites. Here is why.
The Health Physicist Society says that for every year that 10,000 people exposed to normal background radiation (60 counts per minute here in OKC), 3 extra cancers will occur.
The consensus of every major scientific organization and the vast majority of scientists is that there is no safe level of radiation or Radon and that the risk has no threshold and is linear in response. So, if one doubles the background radiation by adding a 60 cpm granite countertop, you double the radiation dose and double the excess cancer risk.
Typical granite sample slabs that we have in our showroom read from 120 cpm to 300 cpm, which after the background 60 cpm is subtracted leaves 60 to 240 cpm increase in radiation. That would be from 100% to 400% increase, so one would not be able to claim that these granites are “safe”, the definition of “safe” being absence of risk.
So, my question is this. Would one be being “alarmist” with this line of reasoning?
There are oncologist and radiation professionals that believe that a single track of radiation in human flesh has the potential for causing genetic damage or cancer. Even BEIR VII accepted this theory, which is why the specifically retain and support the theory that there is no safe level of radition.
And Dr. Chyi…
Rather than go into it in detail, allow me to link to a series of articles I wrote on the MIA/Chyi study. Suffice it to say that while it was interesting that he found .27 pCi/L coming from the Crema Bordeaux, the study was not published for a reason, it wouldn’t have passed peer review. So basically the Chyi study was really an article written for pay for a trade association.
Some of the flaws were the lack of detail allowing the study to be repeated, the very small granite countertop used for computation, the lack of data on air change through out the entire 2,000 square foot home (I do have a copy of a study that addressed that ,and you would be surprised), the multitude of unsupported statements contained in the study…. Well, like I said, please read where I covered it in depth.
http://solidsurfacealliance.org/blog/2008/07/07/what-does-the-granite-industry-have-to-say-on-the-radonradiation-issues/
As to the govt organizations comments on this issue, they are hedging their words because they don’t know what radiation levels are out there, nor do they want a panicked public calling them to test their granite. Keep in mind that many of the departments have rules saying they must respond in a certain time frame. They don’t want their regular work load to suffer from a distraction.
At the AARST conference, (American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists) there were many papers presented on this subject. Granite countertops were found to raise a homes Radon level from less than 1 pCi/L per liter to around 24 pCi/L, with 4 pCi/L being the EPA action level.
On that note, don’t make the mistake of assuming that the EPA is a “safe” level, not at all, in fact the EPA estimate of 21,000 deaths per year from Radon in homes is based on the national average, 1.3 pCi/L. The 4 pCi/L standard is based on a $6,900,000 estimated remediation cost per life saved. Lowering the action limit would dramatically raise the cost per life saved,and at some point a diminshing return tells you to use the money to save lives in another manner.
On the Marble Institue setting standards and protocols, how is it that they can mislead the public for 14 years on Radon, radiation, and granite and have any crediblity to set anything? Read the MIA/Langmuir study, where Langmuir claimed .85 radioactive decay per year from a granite countertop. Each click on the geiger counter is one decay, or really it is one radiation particle or ray caught by the detector. A low radiation granite will have one decay per second, 86,400 decays per day, 31,536,000 decays per year. But wait, we aren’t done yet!
Dr. Llope has stated that even the most expensive hand held meter is capable of capturing a few percent of the radiation UNDER the probe. What geiger counters detect is mostly low level stuff, the truly high energy particles or rays blast through the meter like it isn’t there. So take that 31.536 million decays per years and multiply it by 50, or around 1.5 billion decays per year!
And that is just what is under the 2.5″ diameter probe! Consider the rest of the slab of granite. Then consider a granite that is over 60 cpm, and Dr. Kitto has recorded and reported 40,000 cpm granite with his Gamma Spectrometry equipment.
We are talking about trillions and trillions of radioactive decay in the worst offenders, and the MIA/Langmuir study claims less than one?
And the Environmental Health & Engineering consulting firm? The MIA hired them, they aren’t independent in any form or fashion. Nor is the guy a Radon expert or radiation expert. See the link below on McCarthy who runs the firm.
“The most active stones they have found are 70 times below the safe level.”
Uh, they forgot the MIA/Chyi study, which as bad as it was, showed a lot more than that. Look at the Crema Bordeaux, .27 pCi/L, fourteen times less than the action level. One wonders why these guys aren’t capable of finding any hot granite slabs and ask why the are ignoring Brodhead and Dr. Kitto’s work were some serious Radon producing granite was found. Here is an article showing McCarthy’s lack of experience in Radon and radiation
http://solidsurfacealliance.org/blog/2008/08/13/the-mia-is-fighting-back-but-are-their-experts-knowledgable/
We used to say that 25 uR/hr gamma granite was fairly safe, but Brodhead reported a 25 uR/hr granite that emited 508 pCi/Sf/Hr of Radon, over 20,000 pCi per hour in his example, which raised his example home by 4 pCi/L. Now we say we don’t have a clue what radiation level is considered safe. We just say that the lower you go, the safer the granite is.
I applaud this effort to have a civil discussion on these issues. The problem will be that one side of the discussion is so far from the facts that any discusion will wind up a brawl simply from a lack of the opposition having any other way to respond.
Mr. Bittle, I would say that I have shown you in private, a bit of the depth of my involvement in this effort and the number of experts backing my side of this discussion. I would love to see an honest discussion, but it will be up to you to help keep it so.
Thank you, everyone, for your comments.
Mr. Gerhart, I think you will find that when it comes to the issue of public health, we are very much on the same side. But these forums exist as an alternative to those provided by the opposing sides in this issue. For me to come out in support of one side’s arguments or assign some kind of debate points would be counterproductive, and ignoring the forest for the trees.
Based on the previous thread, there are people who come to this forum to post their concerns or experiences in an environment free from the bickering of the two sides. Dr. Llope was very helpful in answering questions and providing insight. But as the comments became longer and more rancorous, comments from those outside of either industry dried up. I don’t see that as a coincidence.
The ultimate goal is better safeguards preventing dangerous granite from entering the home. While the process is frustratingly slow and riddled with arguments, I believe the increased research and public discussion will result in a process that catches dangerous granite at some step before it enters the home. Until that time, I will continue to write about this issue.
I’ve been doing some research for my home remodel and I’ve been running into this Al Gerhart. Al is posting everywhere making wacky claims because he is financially involved. His posts are laughable too. Check out his Youtube video saying that “granite glows with radiation” because it might show up under a blacklight. Minerals like flourite glow in a blacklight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujJC07B9Nz4
A blacklight will make things glow like teeth and fingernails. Does that make me dangerous?
You should visit a real government agencies site, where you will find different facts that what he provides.
Go to the real sites:
http://www.epa.gov/
http://hps.org/newsandevents/societynews.html#658
His silliness didn’t scare me away from planning my kitchen. Use government sources for your information instead of a guy in it for money.
Anna,
Would you please provide proof for your claims? How is it that I am involved financialy in any manner that the stone industry is not? I sell granite along with everything else in the countertop world.
And what “wacky” claims? Please elaborate.
And thanks for posting the link to the Youtube videos, but you forgot to mention the other videos showing the high radiation readings in those very same slabs and in the same areas where it glows under black light. And on the hand holding the black light, did you see the fingernails glowing?
Now, since you are convinced I am completely wrong, there are dozens of points made in my previous post. Pick three and show proof that they are wrong.
Anyone who has followed this issue can verify those on my side of the debate, look at the AARST studies presented this fall at their conference, and you will even find a thank you from one researcher for the samples I provided. The cold hard fact is that the majority of the leading researchers are on my side of the issue, that there are some dangerous granites and all should be tested prior to sale.
Mr. Bittle,
I agree with your stance in your reply, you should remain neutral. However, allowing name calliing and unsubstanciated claims from posters will simply ensure that nothing of substance is posted. On the other hand, challenging someone like Anna to back her claims both furthers the debate and brings intellectual honesty to the discussion.
As you said, allowing rancorous postings derail the discussion. One then must ask if my providing proof invites those with no ammunition to lash out, and then how can the issue be discussed honestly?
You are right, it is not a coincidence that the rancorous messages are posted, the quicker the thread gets ugly, the quicker people avoid reading and the info gets deleted. I’ve battled this from the beginning and they are remarkably successful in getting threads deleted so as to supress the info.
Really, there is only one question. Is honest debate the goal, or is this more about posting snippets of views?
Anyone who has followed this issue can verify those on my side of the debate, look at the AARST studies presented this fall at their conference, and you will even find a thank you from one researcher for the samples I provided. The cold hard fact is that the majority of the leading researchers are on my side of the issue, that there are some dangerous granites and all should be tested prior to sale.
[...] Building Elements.com reports both sides of the radon issue surrounding granite countertops. (http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/09/18/a-rational-discussion-on-radon-in-granite-countertops/ [...]
It is my understanding that the organization that brought this about has stated that not all Granite has high levels of Radon or Radiation but some of them can be quite dangerous.
This movement in my opinion was not a scare tactic, it was to raise awareness that there are indeed some building materials out there that are not as safe as we would believe them to be. There is no harm in bringing that out, after all- I would want to know as I believe most people would.
Interesting discussion