Granite Countertops Contain Radioactive Minerals
Granite countertops are increasingly popular in modern kitchens. They’re so popular, in fact, that more than 900 kinds of granite are known to be commercially available in the US residential construction market. Granite sold for countertops in the US comes from at least 63 countries as far flung as Namibia and Brazil.
A report in yesterday’s New York Times (NYT) suggests the possibility that the mineral content of those beautiful granite countertops may include minerals that are naturally radioactive, meaning they emit toxic fumes into the environment as they decay. Mineral content varies from one kind of granite to the next and is often the factor behind the distinctive colors in the stone. Because mineral content varies, so does the level of radioactivity in the stone.
Uranium, thorium, and potassium are just some of the radioactive minerals that might be in a granite countertop. As countertops are used, they emit radon and radiation into the near vicinity. Radon is the #2 leading cause of lung cancer.
Everyone is exposed to radiation every day. It streams down through the air from the far reaches of the cosmos. It seeps up from the center of the earth. Smoke detectors, watches with LED-crystal faces, and the x-rays doctors rely on all emit radiation, too, so it’s impossible to strictly avoid exposure.
Radioactivity is measured in picocuries, with 4 picocurries raising the threat of cancer by about the same degree as smoking half a pack of cigarettes a day. In the NYT report, some of the granite samples tested as high as 100 picocurries.
Radiation tests can be conducted to measure the toxicity of installed granite countertops, floors, and other decorative touches. Even though a counter top is tested and found “hot,” the countertop may still be safe to live with. The danger of radiation is directly related to proximity and length of exposure. The radiation emitted by most countertops isn’t strong enough to cause any harm under normal kitchen use. Where radiation levels are highest, a person would have to remain within inches of the countertop for hours before absorbing a measurable amount of radiation.
Nevertheless, caution is advised in households where smokers or lung-cancer patients are expected to spend time in rooms finished in granite. To minimize harm to children, small children and pregnant women should limit time around granite, too.
Source: NYT
Loading ...
When marketing a product, one expects a bit of hype. The idea is to show that the product is the best over the competitor’s line of product. That is the trade of advertisers and the history of marketing. Some tactics used to sell can be humorous or as serious as the competition between manufacturers. Marketing tactics that play on fears of the general public can be a very powerful tool.
In the present day, there’s a very popular angle of “green.” This is prevalent everywhere in the media. So what happens when you mix a scare tactic under the guise of environmental concern?
Buildclean found the answer to that question. The premise seems of the nonprofit organization seems to be admirable but the fact that the “awareness campaign” that Buildclean is currently using seems to be curiously slanted. In fact, the target seems to be the natural stone industry.
When Sara Selber of BuildClean was asked how she got involved in natural stone and radon, she explained how she was approached by the owner of C&C North America, a company that produces two products – granite and a quartz product called Silestone®™.
“C&C North America then recruited a quartz company called Cambria, after they learned quartz was an issue, she further explained that the two companies hired her to test quartz, granite and other surfaces for radon emission. Both companies are testing their products through BuildClean, and they contracted two labs – one in New York and one in Israel.
We have looked all over the C&C website but cannot find any mention of natural stone.
When ask what granites emit radon, Sara Selber said; “Not all granites emit radon or radiation. There are some that clearly do. There are some that absolutely don’t. We don’t know,” she said.
They’re being set up as a non-profit, and they’re funded with two large donations.
The first is $250,000 from the makers of ‘Silestone.’ They manufacture quartz countertops, which is a direct competitor to granite. Silestone finance records show that they started out in April of 1998 with a an initial investment of $410K, made there first million in 1998, sales in 2002 was over $70M, and sales in 2006 was well over $260M. it is not hard to see that they have the money to invest $250,000 in a new advertising campaign.
BuildClean is also getting money from Cambria, another quartz manufacturer.
In fact, Cambria’s marketing director is on BuildClean’s board of directors.
When asked about the funding Sara responds: I don’t believe the issue is who our founders are. And I’m not going to have that debate.” That answer seems to be clear enough.
In a recent interview Mrs. Selber mentions teaming up with Al Gerhart who has some interest in the granite \radon scare.
Al Gerhart is a carpenter whohappens to own a website called the Solid Surface Alliance .org. He educated himself, regarding materials he works with that may expose him to harmful elements.”
Upon further review it seems this “personality” is well known for his view of natural stone. All one has to do is look at the website to get the gist of his viewpoint. Coincidentally, there also seems to be a new business venture for Solid Surface Alliance as the website now sells Geiger counters to detect radiation…
His debates have earned him quite a place online in forums discussing the subject.
After a certain debate on a well known residential forum, a renowned geoscientist in the industry concluded:
“Al attempts to hijack debates by choking the system with verbal diarrhea. The problem appears to be that he has a bit of knowledge about some things but not enough sense and understanding of the subjects. In that debate on the Garden Forum he threw in so many fabrications (plain made up lies) that his credibility just plummeted to zero.
Anyone who operates this way (by including a number of facts to gain an element of credibility in the eyes of a generally uninformed audience, twisting facts deliberately or because of his lack of understanding, and then throwing in a number of lies) does not deserve extended airtime. Many years ago when doing science psychology I still remember my professor giving the advice to his students that you should never engage a nutter in debate. You can never win an argument with such people. I recognized this early in the forum and that is why I would not engage him in “debate”.
One of his major problems is that he does not know what the numbers mean and how they are derived.”
In response to the buildclean tactics, The Marble Institute of America is in the process of doing their own independent study:
“The Marble Institute of America (MIA) is grateful for the preliminary response from the members to the newly established Truth About Granite Fund. Based on this positive response, it’s clear that their colleagues share their commitment to protect consumers from needless fear mongering by establishing standards for the testing of granite so consumers can safely and comfortably enjoy the beauty, durability and practicality of this natural stone.”
When we asked the MIA why Sara Speer Selber consider The Truth About Granite Fund as a draconian move that is being waged against BuildClean(TM), they simple responded:
“The Truth About Granite Fund was established to help raise funds to develop unbiased, scientific standards for the granite industry, including the testing of granite for radon. No such standards currently exist in the natural stone industry. Previous tests of granite samples have found they are safe. However, the Truth in Granite Fund aims to take advantage of new, advanced scientific instruments that make testing both more practical and more accurate. Our goal is to make sure testing follows consistent protocols, so that future studies are meaningful and based on consistent, approved science – not isolated methodologies or unapproved instruments. Ultimately, our goal is to make sure the granite we sell is safe.”
This latest sales tactic received the attention of an independent group called the Natural Stone Restoration Alliance (NSRA). The NSRA saw Radon testing as an added service that their members could provide to the homeowners along with all their other services for natural stone. Josveek Huligar, one of the lead testers and trainer for the NSRA , invited times Members of the Solid Surface Alliance dot org to discuss and provide proof of this threat to the home owners.
The Solid Surface Alliance dot org agreed to provide an alleged radiation producing granite sample that they claim to have in their possession to do independent testing. After an initial agreement between the two groups it seems the Solid Surface Alliance dot org has reneged on the delivery of the alleged material. Mr Huligar was disappointed of the outcome. The NSRA than requested the name of the company that Mr. Gerhart claimed to just have rejected over 10k worth of radon producing granite. When the information was not provided, Huligar ask if he could purchase the next slab that Mr. Gerhart rejected. But for some reason Mr. Gerhart could no longer find a sample for testing. Mr. Huligar went on to say: “All we care about at this point. As for whether are not Stone adds a measurable amount of “radon” in a home, Mr. Gerhart had agreed to come to NY and pick out a hot slab that I would place in my own home after testing my home for radon. Once the granite was installed I would test my home again as described by the EPA and have it tested by someone approved by the EPA. Not only would we do the short and long term test, we would also video tape the whole event, the selection, the creation, the install, and than setting up cameras for anyone to view the stone and meters on the net. I was looking forward to do this, but at this time it appears that Mr. Gerhart has no plans on doing as he said which is a big disappointment.”
The NSRA plans to push for this simple test, they feel that the consumers only care about one thing; “whether or not adding granite in your home would significantly change the radon levels in a home”. At present, the most prudent consumer should watch the outcome of this debate and make an informed decision, not taken in by a scare tactic by advertisers.
EPA Confirms That Granite Countertops Pose No Significant Health Risk
http://nsraweb.com/index.php/Latest/EPA_Confirms_That_Granite_Countertops_Pose_No_Significant_Health_Risk.html
[...] Granite Countertops Contain Radioactive Minerals. [...]
The Marble Institute of America wants to reassure the public that granite countertops are safe. Research shows granite countertops pose no threat.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Reports and repeated independent studies have shown granite countertops pose no health hazard.
-EPA stated Friday: “EPA has no reliable data to conclude that types of granite used in countertops are significantly increasing indoor radon levels.” (http://iaq.custhelp.com/cgibin/iaq.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php)
-University of Akron researchers found no threat. (www.marble-institute.com/industryresources/radontesting_u-akron2008.pdf)
An independent scientific analysis of a variety of studies shows that, accounting for normal airflow in the typical home, radon contributed by granite countertops ranges from 0.01 – 0.02 pCi/L – levels that are 200 to 400 times lower than the EPA guideline of 4 pCi/L.
-By some measures, the amount of radon emitted by a granite countertop is less than one millionth of that already present in household air from other sources. Many granite countertops do not emit radon at all, and those treated with sealant reduce emissions even further.
Silvia Osante
Cohn & Wolfe on behalf of The Marble Institute of America
Old Huligar is in the stone industry and Silviaworks for Cohn & Wolfe, the big tobacco PR firm that the stone industry hired to do their lying for them. I won’t waste time with Huligar, cause I love slapping Cohn & Wolfe around.
Silvia, you omited to add that the EPA also retracted that statement the folowing Monday morning.
You also forgot to mention that the Akron study was unpublished and paid for by the MIA, the stone industry lobby group. Yet you go on to quote it in your next paragraph. However, you don’t tellthe entire story. That Akron study found one granite with .27 pCi/L radon levels, far more than the lowest levels you quoted.
And 200 to 400 times less than the action levels? Well again, the Akron study, as flawed as it was, showed .27 pCi/L, which is what, 14 times less than the EPA action level? The point it you are either ignorant on the issues or you are lying to the readers of this blog.
I am going with ignorant, because right after you say granite adds 200 to 400 times less Radon, you say it is one millionth less. And all granites have some uranium content, even the lowest levels are at about 1/10th of nuclear fuel source levels (80 ppm), and Radon is part of the Uranium decay chain.
And sealer? Another ingnorant lie. Dr. Kitto reported that sealer did little to slow down Radon emanation.
Go back to selling cigarettes please.
The “radioactivity of granite” really sounds more like a joke which does not deserve much comment. However, I found “interesting” the fact that the engineered stone people were behind the campaing against the use of granite. It is ironic that the manufacturers of a product that uses polyester resin as its structural binding base, say such nonsense about the granite. We know from experience that styrene (the building block of polyestyrene) is a powerful cancernogenic. I personally know of 2 individuals that developed lung cancer after processing silestone tops at a shop in Valencia Spain. Also you may ask Silestone, Caesar Stone, etc. what is is the incidence of lung cancer in their factory workers, probably they will not respond, but I can tell you is well above the chemical industry’s already bad figures. As far as the consumers, they should know that polyester resin is thermally unstable and that when submitted at moderatly high temperatures like the ones you may expect to find in a kitchen, styrene in small quantities can be released to the air and eventually bind to food or straight inhalated. The rest, you can figure out… by the way, according to the study commissioned by the enginnered stone people granite quarry men should all have died of cancer as they literally sit on mountains of solid granites. You may check statistics on this item as well and draw your own conclusions.
Carlos,
your refusing to address the issues and instead bringing up others tells volumes about your arguments.
The EPA has refused to list styrene as a carcinogen due to the science not being conclusive. But, if you want to claim that it is, shouldn’t you reveal that much of the resins on top natural stone are also polyester? And styrene is one of the milder building blocks of the sealers, resins, and adhesives used in granite countertop fabrication. Did you know that many hardners and resins in flowing and knife grade epoxies contain very, very, large amounts of BPA? Some hardners are almost 100% BPA!
Polyester is the resin used in quartz products as well, so whether it is a quartz top or a resined granite top, heat could release some styrene that will as you say, be released into the air and bind to food. Another chemical used in granite sealers, resins, and adhesives is epichlorohydrin, something far worse than styrene which is used in many consumer products, styrofoam packing, C.D. cases, etc.
http://www.environmentwriter.org/resources/backissues/chemicals/epichlorohydrin.htm
Just do a simple google search on “MSDS Akemi” or “MSDS Tenex” or” MSDS granite sealer” and you will find out just how many toxic chemicals are used by the granite industry. Once you realize that Carlos is fairly representitive of his trade, i.e, has little knowledge of the toxic aspects of what he works with, you will see why they can seldom respond to the facts presented against their product.
Another point, if the granite radiation/Radon thing was a” joke”, neither AARST (Radon scientists) nor CRCPD (state radiation protection officers organization) would have committees looking into the granite controvery. The ASME is also looking into this issue as well, I sit on the committee as does the MIA president.
for more info, visit
forum.solidsurfacealliance.org
I cannot tell you why the EPA does not include styrene in a toxic list, but I can tell you than in countries such as Italy and Spain, styrene was banned (that is; its use prohibited) in the stone industry around 12-15 years ago. Before the ban, poliester resin was used for re-enforcing and consolidation of marble and travertine slabs. Today, epoxy resin is used instead, everyone seems to agree that is much less toxic than poliester.
I see we can bring an almost endless list of chemicals to the “unwanted list”, and as Al says, some may be even worse than styrene. The point is, styrene may be harmful, specially in the kitchen (not in the car or in the bath tub). I agree with Al that we should look very closely at any chemical that makes it all the way into our kitchen, regardless via what.
@ al: we are in the process of remodeling our kitchen and just had a friend call us asking if we had heard that granite is toxic. i had not heard this, so i do a couple google searches and to my surprise see that there are indeed articles saying it is toxic. but then i noticed something even more shocking about those articles - EVERY SINGLE ONE IS WRITTEN BY YOU!!! so yes, i am still planning on installing granite counters. i will not purchase the silestone crap that you are certainly peddling and will be sure to tell all my friends not to buy silestone/ceasarstone, etc.
music songs
[...] [...]
[...] [...]
Wow, Al, I had no idea you wrote “EVERY SINGLE” article related to the toxicity of granite. You must be VERY busy.
Fortunately, I was able to find other articles, not written by you, that purport the same findings.
On a more serious side…
I wonder, however, since granite and quartz are indeed quartz-based stones, if both should be considered toxic. What’s the difference?