All granite is radioactive. However;

i. Radiation exposure diminishes quickly with distance. Anyone more than a few inches away is receiving only normal background exposure.

ii. Just because something is emitted doesn’t mean it is absorbed by the body. There are specific formula used for this.

iii. Have you flown lately? Then you received much more radiation than your countertops put out.

iv. Uranium 238, the most common variety, is very stable and has a half life of 4 billion years. Even if there is lots of Uranium in your granite, it isn’t putting out much beta radiation.

Sensa is owned by C & C. That is business as usual these days in the countertop industry. Everyone is diversified. Sensa is one of the largest natural stone importers though and what lead up to C & C starting their testing was a request by Lowes for testing prior to selling Sensa in their stores.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume this was all marketing orientated. Under those conditions, regardless of the reasons it started, the topic has attracted some major researchers and they are finding enough of a problem that both AARST and CRCPD have committees considering standards for granite. AARAST is the radon scientists organization, CRCPD is the state radiation officials organization.

Like I said, Josh used four sentences, all easily proven wrong. Why should anyone consider his points?

As to your countertop causing you harm, no way to tell till you test it. I highly recomend a radon test and if you can afford one, buy a geiger counter off ebay. You can resell it on ebay after you test.

Sensa is owned by C & C. That is business as usual these days in the countertop industry. Everyone is diversified. Sensa is one of the largest natural stone importers though and what lead up to C & C starting their testing was a request by Lowes for testing prior to selling Sensa in their stores.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume this was all marketing orientated. Under those conditions, regardless of the reasons it started, the topic has attracted some major researchers and they are finding enough of a problem that both AARST and CRCPD have committees considering standards for granite. AARAST is the radon scientists organization, CRCPD is the state radiation officials organization.

Like I said, Josh used four sentences, all easily proven wrong. Why should anyone consider his points?

As to your countertop causing you harm, no way to tell till you test it. I highly recomend a radon test and if you can afford one, buy a geiger counter off ebay. You can resell it on ebay after you test.

One can only guess from your comments that you are part of the stone industry, well, so am I. The difference between you and I is that I didn’t trust the MIA enough to swallow their previous “studies” nor will I swallow this one.

For instance, did you know that the MIA study was conducted by a company with zero experience in radiation or radon science? Indoor air quality and BPA type plastic chemicals is about all they are known for publishing papers on. Did you know that they didn’t callibrate their equipment prior to their testing, much less trace it back to NIST standards?

But despite that, if you will look at section four of that study, you will find that 18 of the 39 stones had a hazard index over 6, which means that those stones could not be sold in any EU country. Or are you refering to their first study, again paid for by the MIA and done by an outsider to the radon and radiation fields? That study claimed that 6 air changes per hour is normal, something done only in TB wards or ICU units. A more likely ACH is .5 to .1 and even less.

Or are you refereing to the 1995 Langmuir/MIA study? The one that claimed less than one radioactive decay per year from the average granite countertop? I can tell you that I’ve seen samples from actual countertops that gave off two million decays from a six minute test run on our gamma spectrometer. I can tell you that almost any granite countertop will put off 6,000 to 60,000 counts for a six minute run.

The point being is that the MIA has linked to no studies that were done independently, only those that they financed and controlled. None of their studies were published in any scientific journal after peer reveiw, without which, no credible scientist will quote them in another study.

And what study is this that you claim was quoted in the NY Times story? The first study that was partially funded by a grant to the New York State Health Department came out just a few days ago in Health Physics Journal. There was no study mentioned in the NY Times story. And funded by a solid surface company? No, but Sensa and C & C North America, one of the largest granite importers in the U.S. did partially fund a non profit group that did help fund the NY study.

It might be wise to look into your facts before posting. I see four sentences in your post, yet not one single point is accurate. Are you really doing the stone industry a favor by posting easily disproven statements?

Here is a link to some scientific studies on granite, most are several years old, but the newer studies are just now winding down.

http://solidsurfacealliance.org/granite-Radon-issues-page-2.html

One can only guess from your comments that you are part of the stone industry, well, so am I. The difference between you and I is that I didn’t trust the MIA enough to swallow their previous “studies” nor will I swallow this one.

For instance, did you know that the MIA study was conducted by a company with zero experience in radiation or radon science? Indoor air quality and BPA type plastic chemicals is about all they are known for publishing papers on. Did you know that they didn’t callibrate their equipment prior to their testing, much less trace it back to NIST standards?

But despite that, if you will look at section four of that study, you will find that 18 of the 39 stones had a hazard index over 6, which means that those stones could not be sold in any EU country. Or are you refering to their first study, again paid for by the MIA and done by an outsider to the radon and radiation fields? That study claimed that 6 air changes per hour is normal, something done only in TB wards or ICU units. A more likely ACH is .5 to .1 and even less.

Or are you refereing to the 1995 Langmuir/MIA study? The one that claimed less than one radioactive decay per year from the average granite countertop? I can tell you that I’ve seen samples from actual countertops that gave off two million decays from a six minute test run on our gamma spectrometer. I can tell you that almost any granite countertop will put off 6,000 to 60,000 counts for a six minute run.

The point being is that the MIA has linked to no studies that were done independently, only those that they financed and controlled. None of their studies were published in any scientific journal after peer reveiw, without which, no credible scientist will quote them in another study.

And what study is this that you claim was quoted in the NY Times story? The first study that was partially funded by a grant to the New York State Health Department came out just a few days ago in Health Physics Journal. There was no study mentioned in the NY Times story. And funded by a solid surface company? No, but Sensa and C & C North America, one of the largest granite importers in the U.S. did partially fund a non profit group that did help fund the NY study.

It might be wise to look into your facts before posting. I see four sentences in your post, yet not one single point is accurate. Are you really doing the stone industry a favor by posting easily disproven statements?

Here is a link to some scientific studies on granite, most are several years old, but the newer studies are just now winding down.

http://solidsurfacealliance.org/granite-Radon-issues-page-2.html

Please see my article “Granite Countertops & Radon: What the Granite Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know”. That article uses data from reputable scientists to refute claims in the MIA report.

Several peered reviewed studies on the topic are posted on the website for the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists. You might wish to review those studies for “unbiased opinion”.