Sad to say, this statement shows how ridiculous the average stone fabricator will be with his comments in defending the problem issues of granite. Any fool can touch a granite countertop and realize how it sucks the body heat from your hand quickly, far in excess than regular materials. Simply splitting hairs in a crude attempt to decieve, not even able to concede a easily proven fact. Welcome to my industry….

Bill Alexander,
the EPA’s 4pCi/L is for a daily dose, so that half a pack of smokes is per day, not three months.

Richard Nieporent,

No matter how much you squawk, ALARA remains the law of the land for radiation protection and you are educated enough to know this. You are also well aware that a handful of studies do not challenge BEIR VII in any form or fashion. You are also aware that those studies you refer to are ecological studies where large populations are studied without looking into individual cases and are flawed methods of studying radon risks. The only honest method is to follow the cases one by one to determine the true health risks of Radon. All epidemiologists know this, only those who are attempting to protect their industry will stoop to using false science.

Dude, radiation isn’t chocolate.

And bottom line on Dr. Brenner’s interview is that he clearly stated that avoiding the risk is the intelligent decision. Duh….

Some of the science is being wrapped up on this issue. Dr. Kitto has his first paper out on Radon and granite in April’s issue of Health Physics Journal. He is easing into the topic, simply talking about his measurement techniques, allowing the Health Phycisists to become comfortable with his methods. Kitto did show some granite countertop data with as much as 1,000 times varience from lowest to highest, but his hottest samples aren’t included in this paper. Most researchers will get five or six papers out of a single set of data, publish or perish as they say.

I’ll tell you though, this radon and radiation issue is serious, but it will pale in comparison to the heavy metal issues with granite that are showing up. One researcher in Californina found a granite countertop that had 10,260ppm of Thallium (also radioactive, but far, far, more toxic than it is a radiation hazard).

I thought we were discussing science, Granitefabber. In science you must not ignore a study because it disagrees with the “accepted rule”. I gave you a reference to a peer-reviewed study that has just been published in the journal Health Physics. The article in ScienceDaily states that the study found that “Exposure to levels of radon gas typically found in 90 percent of American homes appears to reduce the risk of developing lung cancer by as much as 60 percent.” But even more significant is the following sentence that says ”The finding differs significantly from the results of previous case-control studies of the effects of low-level radon exposure, which have detected a slightly elevated lung cancer risk (but without statistical significance) or no risk at all.” Thus, it is not just that this study differs from previous studies but the fact that the previous studies do not show a cancer risk! In other words there is no evidence for the Linear Threshold rule. The numbers that the EPA uses are simply made up.

You also dismiss my comment “What is so disheartening is that David Brenner has a Ph.D. in physics and therefore he must know that his last comment is not a rational response.” by stating “Either that, or he knows exactly what he is talking about. I would suggest the latter.”

Did Dr. Brenner also know what he was talking about when he said that “the cancer risk from granite countertops, even those emitting radiation above background levels, is “on the order of one in a million.” Being struck by lightning is more likely.”? Are you trying to tell us that we should ignore his factual statement that the risk level is infinitesimal but accept his non-rational statement that we should avoid a non-significant small elevation of risk? Do you avoid flying Granitefabber because of the small increase of radiation you are exposed to? After all if you can choose another means of transportation that doesn’t elevate your risk, however slightly, why wouldn’t you?

At four inches, celery chopping length (!), 2,280 counts per minute (each count is a burst of radiation hitting the meter) That meter is buzzing pretty good.

At 12″ 840 cpm 14 times background radiation
At 24″ 600 cpm 10 times
At 36″ 480 cpm 8 times
At 60″ 180 cpm 3 times

Even at six feet, the radiation is still high, double background. That is hardly non existent radiation.

We don’t yet know the energy level of the radiation from that slab, the scientist is going to publish, so we aren’t allowed to know, but once that is known, we can take the reach of this radiation, the energy levels of a known sample, and calculate a “reach” for other granites. Or at least a rule of thumb.

So low level granites, yeah, no problem there except for the small increase from doubling background.

NLT is accepted by the ICRP, as is ALARA. True there is a fringe that believes that some radiation is good for you, but the BEIR VII researched it and specifically rejected it. No Linear Threshold remains the world wide accept rule.

True, a pCi is a small amount, but the EPA says Radon at 4 pCi/L is the same as smoking a half pack of cigarettes. The 100 pCi/L quoted in that report would be like smoking 12.5 packs of cigarettes a day.

The EPA level of 4 pCi/L was set by calculating a cost of avoidance per death. I’ll probably mangle the numbers, but it will be close, they said it was like $2,000,000 avoided cost for each life saved at 4 pCi/L. Were they to set it lower, say 2 pCi/L, it would cost closer to $5,000,000 per avoided death.

“What is so disheartening is that David Brenner has a Ph.D. in physics and therefore he must know that his last comment is not a rational response.”
Either that, or he knows exactly what he is talking about. I would suggest the latter.

All the radioactive people, bananas, and brazil nut examples are just straw man arguments. The levels are extremely low, one source said he had to reduce a 100# of bananas to ash to get a very low reading on his meter.

I’ll tell ya, I furnished those samples, they came from scrap from my competitors dumpsters or I bought remnants from them. They are too hot to put in a home, but they were.

To put it in perspective, drinking from BPA-coated bottles while sitting on your granite countertops for a few thousand years increases your risk of death about as much as eating just one raw oyster.

But hey, it’s good that the lawyers are on this one. They can help us sue the manufacturers, so we can all can take our winnings and go back to the familiar safety of our freeways, workplaces and extreme-sport vacations.

100 picocuries per liter is a lot. A curie is a gigantic amount of radiation, which is why it’s not used as often as a measurement.

Holy Isotopes! Radiation Levels at Capitol 65 Times EPA Standards for Facility

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,21015,00.html

If you really think that there is no safe level of radiation, and that there is no good reason to increase your dose, then you need to stop associating with people – stop going to places where there are crowds, stop sleeping with your spouse, stop hugging your children. Everyone irradiates everyone else, due to the naturally-occuring radioactive material within our bodies, and when you are standing next to someone, you receive part of the dose that they are emmiting. Stand closer and the dose goes up.

When I read the above from the NY Times article I thought finally someone has made a rational comment. Unfortunately it was immediately followed by:

Nonetheless, Dr. Brenner said, “It makes sense. If you can choose another counter that doesn’t elevate your risk, however slightly, why wouldn’t you?”

Because if you are a rational individual who understands statistics/risk factors you ignore low probability events. Does Dr. Brenner avoid driving to the store until it is absolutely necessary because he slightly elevates his risk of being hurt/dying by driving? Does he avoid taking baths/showers, going swimming, using power tools, mowing his lawn, etc. because there are small risk factors associated with those activities? What is so disheartening is that David Brenner has a Ph.D. in physics and therefore he must know that his last comment is not a rational response.