timss_gw

the radon thing

timss
July 15, 2008

In what seems to be a genuine concern of the effects of radon emissions in residential homes, a certain website from a non-profit organization out of Houston has made it a point to imply without scientific proof, that natural stone could be a major contributor of radon in a household.


The allusion that seems to be made, that natural stone installed in your home is dangerous to your health is raised repeatedly on the website and in a recent local Houston TV news program.

Its interesting to note that the two major contributors of this non-profit organization are manufacturers of engineered stone. One of those contributing manufacturers has a marketing executive on the board of directors of this particular organization.

From what may be perceived on the surface as perhaps another "going green" ad campaign, seems to be a different slant on the ongoing battle of the engineered stone manufacturers against natural stone.

Keep in mind that granite as does most natural components found in building material, allows vapors to pass through them that might contain trace amounts of radon. There are very small amounts of uranium found in trace minerals such as biotite in some natural stones. When quarried if a large cluster of biotite is exposed the result initially would be a radon reading. However, once a piece of granite or natural stone exposed to a large amount of uranium rich mineral in the ground is removed from the source and exposed to the air, the radon vapor transmission would weaken drastically and then dissipate. Simply put, think of natural stone as a very dense sponge that allows water, air and yes radon to pass through the stone. Once the stone is removed from the source of radon (the earth) the stone has no radon to filter through it.

We do endorse Radon testing but to allude that natural stone is a main contributor seems ludicrous.

Here are some facts about Radon:

WHERE DOES RADON COME FROM?

"Radon comes from the natural radioactive decay of radium and uranium found in the soil beneath the house. The amount of radon in the soil depends on complex soil chemistry, which varies from one house to the next. Radon levels in the soil range from a few hundred to several thousands of pCi/L. The amount of radon that escapes from the soil to enter the house depends on the weather, soil porosity, soil moisture, and the suction within the house".

HOW DOES RADON GET INTO THE HOUSE?

"Houses act like large chimneys. As the air in the house warms, it rises to leak out the attic openings and around the upper floor windows. This creates a small suction at the lowest level of the house, pulling the radon out of the soil and into the house. (Just as natural stone filters radon emission as mentioned before.) You can test this on a cold day by opening a top floor window an inch. You will notice warm air from the house rushing out that opening; yet, if you open a basement window an inch, you will feel the cold outside air rushing in. This suction is what pulls the radon out of the soil and into the house. You might think caulking the cracks and the openings in the basement floor will stop the radon from entering the house. However, scientific studies show, it only takes enough unsealed cracks or pin holes in the caulking to equal a hole 1/2" in diameter to let all the radon in. It is unlikely that caulking the accessible cracks and joints will permanently seal the openings radon needs to enter the house. The radon levels will still likely remain unchanged.

Fortunately, there are other extremely effective means of keeping radon out of your home. Throughout the country, several million people have already tested for radon. Some houses tested as high as 2,000-3,000 pCi/L; yet, there hasn't been one house that could not mitigate to an acceptable level. The difference in reference to natural stone is that one the stone slab is removed from the source and exposed to the atmosphere the radon is vented in the same way ventilation of a house mitigates the radon emissions in the soil.

Levels of radiation from granite products, which technically are measurable, are in fact, small fractional values of established thresholds for environmental safety. The truth of the matter is that granite is a safe product. ItÂs been used for thousands of years and the relationship between granite and radon has been studied for years and years. How safe is granite? There have been mathematical models developed that show that one could live in an all-granite home or building, including sleeping on granite, for an entire year and still be within very safe levels of exposure.

Calculations show that, if an average countertop, traps an average uranium concentration of four ppm (parts per million), the concentration of radon that is given off by the countertop into the household air would be 270,000 times less than the level of radon in the outside air. The maximum contact level that you would receive over one year if you were to sit on a countertop all of the time would be about one quarter of the annual radiation from all sources. If you were just a few inches away from the granite (such as when doing the dishes), the dose would be too low to measure.

To Quote Donald Langmuir, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Geochemistry, Colorado School of Mines, & President, Hydrochem Systems Corp.

"To show how laughable are the concerns of radon emitted from natural stone, the typical granite countertop in our example will release 7.4 x 10 -7 pCi/L of air. This corresponds to 2.7 x 10 -8 atom decays per second (dps). This represents 0.85 decays per year. In other words, less than one atom of radon is produced by the countertop in one year. This is hardly worth getting excited about. I would suggest that a good way to reduce our exposure to the radon present in outdoor air would be to build an air-tight house out of granite countertops! There are certain properties of rocks that can increase their radon emanation efficiency, or in other words increase the release of radon from a given weight of rock. These are rock properties that maximize the exposure of internal or external rock surfaces to water or air, allowing any radon gas to escape. The author of 'Granite and Radon' argues that such properties, which include rock porosity, fissuring and mylonitization, will increase radon releases. This is probably true, however, a granite with such properties would be too brittle to make into a countertop, and too open to take a polish, and so would not be marketable as a countertop - unless the rock pores were first filled with a chemical sealant. Such sealing would also eliminate any possible radon release problems."

In a more recent study that was conducted by L. L. Chyi, a Ph.D. and professor of Geochemistry and Environmental Geology at The University of Akron, Akron, Ohio. Dr. Chyi studied 13 of the most popular granites used throughout the United States as determined by an industry-wide survey. Due to their popularity these 13 granites, are believed to represent up to 85% of the granite countertop market in recent years. The granite types are as follows:

1. New Venetian Gold, Brazil; medium grained, yellow-beige gneiss with many dark red garnets

2. Uba Tuba, Brazil; A medium- to coarse grained, olive-green granite

3. Santa Cecilia, Brazil; A coarse-grained, yellow-grey gneiss with up to pie-sized, red garnets

4. Tropic Brown, Saudi Arabia; medium-grained, brown granite

5. Absolute Black, India; black basalt

6. Tan Brown, India; A black-brown igneous rock with big, shapeless, brown-red feldspar crystals

7. Giallo Ornamental, Brazil; coarse-grained, brown-yellow granulite with some brown-red garnets

8. Crema Bordeaux, Brazil; Juparana Crema Bordeaux (Brunello). A coarse- to very coarse-grained, pink to red granite with areas of quartz, alkali feldspar and quite a lot of ore

9. Baltic Brown, Finland; brown-black granite

10. Giallo Veneziano, Brazil; medium- to coarse-grained, ochre-yellow to golden-brown, also light pink, gneiss

11. Dakota Mahogany, USA; medium- to coarse-grained, brown-red granite

12. China Black, China, a fine-grained plutonic rock

13. Yellow Star, China, a medium-grained yellow to pink granite

The testing methodology was designed to measure the amount of radon which each granite type would add to the interior of a 2,000 square foot, normally ventilated home with 8 ft ceilings. The results show that Crema Bordeaux (the most active in terms of radon emissions) would contribute a concentration component of less than 0.28 pCi/L, or less than 7% of the EPA's recommended actionable level of 4.0 pCi/L. This radon amount is well below a level which might cause health concerns. Tropic Brown and Baltic Brown, second and third in radon emanation based upon Dr. ChyiÂs testing, amounted to only 1% of this action level. The other granites tested added almost immeasurable amounts of radon to the house. Radon atoms in pore spaces and fractures are of minimal concern in the case of granite countertops

Dr. ChyiÂs test results show that the granites that are currently found in the United States market place are insignificant contributors to radon levels in the home. "Based on the testing results and EPA standards, we can conclude that the most popular granites used as countertop surfaces pose no health threat to homeowners. If proper resealing is applied once a year or at other frequencies determined by the industry, the radon emanation can be further reduced".

Daniel J. Steck, Ph.D. also ran a test on interior radon and granite, and this is what he had to say.

"The average radionuclide contents of your building material samples are similar to other average granite samples and other common earth-derived building materials such as brick and soil. Thus, the amount of gamma radiation emitted from similar masses of these building materials will be approximately the same;

There is little sample-to-sample variation in the radon family radionuclide concentrations; the radon flux is somewhat larger for the counter-top squares than for the smaller samples. This indicates that the effective diffusion length is only on the order of the thickness of the counter-top samples, i.e. several centimeters. Thus, material thicker than 5 cm (2") most likely will not emit more than the counter-top samples.

While we feel that health safety is a great concern especially in our homes, for an industry to attempt to gain financially by "scare tactics" or under the auspices of "Eco friendly" is reprehensible. We urge the consumer to not be taken in by these alarmist tactics.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments (151)

  • azstoneconsulting

    ok...I'll do my part here...

    102

  • logic

    Al: "Logic, who are you and what do you do for a living? All here are known, but you. Fess up...."

    Your statement clearly indicates that you perform little if any research, and instead make assumptions..which if nothing else at least explains most of the misinformation you have disseminated in you posts.

    Search for posts on the home forum...I have made countless posts, where I have said many times exactly what I do for a living....specifically on the "Buying Homes" forum. If you are that interested, you will take the time to find your answer.

    That said, why it should matter, I haven't a clue...but I am not in the business of counertops, stone or anything even closely related. I have soapstone perimeter countertops..and a Bianco Romano island countertop. That is as far as my relationship with countertop materials goes...

    However..here is a clue...I DO know numerous licensed radon technicians and mitgators...however, I am not in the business or radon testing and/or mitigating at all myself.

    Happy researching. :-)

  • Related Discussions

    Wet Basement Issues and Home Inspectors

    Q

    Comments (0)
    When a house is listed for sale a sellers’ disclosure must be completed. Homeowners are obligated to disclose certain details, like wet basement issues, about the home to prospective buyers. If you think the house may be haunted that doesn't have to be disclosed because it’s subjective to your own personal ghost belief system. Whether or not the basement has ever leaked is black and white. Actual New Jersey Seller’s Disclosure ATTIC, BASEMENTS AND CRAWL SPACES (Complete only if applicable) Yes No 8. Does the property have one or more sump pumps? 8a. Are there any problems with the operation of any sump pump? 9. Are you aware of any water leakage, accumulation or dampness within the basement or crawl spaces or any other areas within any of the structures on the property? 9a. Are you aware of the presence of mold or similar natural substance within the basement or crawl spaces or any other areas within any of the structures on the property? 10. Are you aware of any repairs or other attempts to control any water or dampness problem in the basement or crawl space? If “yes”, describe the location, nature and date of the repairs: “My basement only leaks if there is a hurricane” There is no designated area on the Seller’s Disclosure for stories. It is much more efficient to fix basement issues rather than disclosing them and trying to explain them away. Nearly all buyers hire a home inspector to examine their new house before closing. If you want the house to be easier to show and thus easier to sell, the homeowner should have the basement made dry and healthy before the house is shown to prospective buyers. You can speed things along by analyzing the condition of your home and making necessary repairs now before the house is shown to prospective buyers. What does the home inspector look at? A home inspector will look at everything in the basement. Things you don’t want him to find are: Efflorescence The white flaky stuff called efflorescence can show as a water line on walls and doors. Efflorescence is proof positive that water has been present. Mold & Mildew Mildew is the odor that you smell when mold is present. Basement odors scare buyers. The chances are you won't even get an acceptable offer if mold and mildew are present. Mildew odors signal that a basement is too moist. Remediate the mold and fix the problem behind it before showing the house. Dampness of Basements Buyers and home inspectors will look closely at the walls and floors for signs of dampness. The inspector might use a moisture meter to determine how much moisture is present. Exposed Crawl Spaces Exposed earth in basements and crawl spaces can let moisture levels and radon levels increase past tolerable limits. Cracks in Walls & Floors As I always say, no crack is a good crack. Therefore all cracks should be fixed immediately. Wall and floor cracks can let moisture levels and radon levels increase past tolerable limits.
    ...See More

    What inspections did you have when you bought your house?

    Q

    Comments (26)
    Full Home Inspection but there was mine subsidence (abandoned coal mine collapses impacting everything above it) in the condo complex that was not disclosed to me until after the deal was done. My furniture hadn't even arrived when i found out. No recourse since it didn't impact my home at the time. Was laid off in June 3 years later and offered a job out of state. Put my home on the market and the complex suffered a recurrence the Saturday before my first open house and this time it impacted every condo in the complex which had to be disclosed. It didn't help that my neighbors were telling people as they got out of the car to see the place. Sold my home for 40,000 less than what I owed. And to add insult to injury, the insurance policy wasn't paid until a year after the occurrence and would only be paid to owner at the time of the payout so of course the bank decided they need to foreclose one month before the payment was due to happen. I ended up selling it and it closed 5 days before the foreclosure was scheduled. The new owner was probably able to pay off the loan with the insurance payment.
    ...See More

    Basement office

    Q

    Comments (25)
    Gbtoo: there is an egress window that was just installed. The inside trim still needs to be finished. segur: it took us two weeks to paint the rafters white and I got vertigo that lasted two weeks! I think I would be headed to divorce court if I suggested we paint it again! We did consider painting it black and had it not been such a low ceiling would have done that!
    ...See More

    Thoughts on floorplan with garage conversion

    Q

    Comments (7)
    The architect doesn't show 10 x 12 bedrooms in the garage conversion. The dimensions read: (about) 12x8'5". The length shows 11-11.3/4's which is close to 12 ft and is a great length. I am questioning the width. I see s/he marked the window opening on the width but not the actual room width. I am looking at the bedrooms in the garage conversion. But if you look closely at that plan, there is no way that the room is 10 feet wide. Double check with the plans - because 10 ft wide would be much better IMO.
    ...See More
  • sue_ct

    Revans, what you would find interesting is not debatable, it is what it is. I however, find little or no significance to those numbers done by layman out of context to what it adds to a house you live in. Most radon in houses DOES come from soil, but if you are not worried about that, don't stop children, friends, or yourself from being outside, sitting or walking or playing on that soil, why the concern for the countertops? If the countertops don't add enough radon to a house to make it a health concern, why worry about that if you are not going to be concerned about where most radon DOES come from? I can't tell you what to be interested in, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me from a health perspective. Now, if you said that you were concerned about Radon and its health effects, and you had tested your house before buying it or after and made sure there no other high sources of Radon there, and didn't want to bring in a potential source, I would understand.
    If you are interested, by all means do your own research. But layman throwing numbers around on a kitchen board is not going to convince me of much. The CDC and most researchers in cancer, radiation and radon apparently are not interested in the subject, do not feel there is anything too it. Not one published article in a professional journal has been found, in my opinion because there is not sufficient reason to believe the issue would even justify the time or expense it would take to complete a formal study, even a small one, in a scientifically valid way.

    A guy who works with an organization specifically designed and formed to promote a competing product, who is out to start a "scare campaign" on the internet to further his own business agenda, when his claims obviously don't hold any water, I won't do anything to help. Believe me, from my background I can tell you if there were anything to this that they could hang their hats on there would civil litigation going on already. There is no "science", no basis for litigation or even advertising against stone countertops, which would require them to put up the evidence or get sued for it. That is why they can't do an advertising campaign that says solid surface countertops are safer for your health or talks about radon in granite. If they are on such solid ground, why isn't the ssa promoting the information? Because a few lawsuits would destroy them, and I am sure they have received legal advise about the dangers of doing so. They really aren't stupid but they treat others like they are, for example by inferring that an email address is sufficient evidence of any type of expertise.

    This from wikipedia:
    In law, defamation (also called vilification, slander, and libel) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.

    False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[3] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading then a tort of false light might have occurred.[3]

    However, as long as they can keep the claims to internet boards and add words he frequently uses like "maybe", "could", "might", "appears" and I "believe" or "think", he tries to do what he cannot do in a more legitimate and above board way. It is a new and sleezy way of trying to damage the competition without being held legally responsible for what you say.

    I refuse to be a part of it.

    It might be interesting if a legitimate researcher from a University did a scientifically valid study using grant money available for a related topic, and not funded by any stone or countertop or other industry or business organization that had a stake in the outcome. That however, would require such researchers to feel that there is actually a legitimate reason to be concerned, and clearly that has not happened yet. Of coarse, the spin doctor could use the time it took to complete the study to make all kinds of claims indicating that it must be a legitimate issue or they wouldn't even be studying it.


    Sue

  • revans1

    Sue, let me try to clear up what I meant. I'm curious about whether or not some (probably quite small) fraction of the granite being used for counters is radioactive enough that a consumer might reasonably be concerned about it. What I wanted to say was that tests of radon levels in homes with granite tops would not really help answer that particular question. The radon measured could (almost certainly would) come from somewhere else. I understand radon to be a real health concern, and I certainly wouldn't want to be understood to suggest that it is not. I think people ought to follow the recommendations of state and federal health authorities in regard to testing and remediation, but that just doesn't seem to relate closely enough to the question that I have.

    Have you taken a look at any of what Dr. Bill Llope at Rice University has said on this topic? His apparent complete independence from financial interests, and his (very preliminary) results, are part of what has piqued my interest.

    I agree that we won't "settle" anything, and that what we found wouldn't be scientifically useful. That doesn't mean it would be worthless, though. If people who know how to use a measuring device take proper measurements of a large number of granite slabs, and find that all of them have very low radioactivity levels, then I don't think I'll be alone in finding that "interesting". The same will be true if 1 or 2 per cent measure 100 times higher than average, reaching a level that a reasonably educated person could find troubling. If the 1 or 2 per cent share some characteristics, that'll be interesting too.

    I'm under no illusion about what can be accomplished by people here. We've already collectively posted many hundreds of times on this topic, though. A post that says "I am an engineer/professor/researcher/etc with a proper meter and training to use it, and I walked through a stone yard checking out slabs, and here is what I found" would be more useful than the overwhelming majority of them, imho. (Or, "I walked through a stone yard with my spouse/friend/neighbor who is an engineer/professor/researcher....)

    Finally, regarding Al's impact on all of this. I tend to agree, that he went out of his way to earn most all of the disapprobation piled upon him now. I'm certainly not trying to help him wage some sort of campaign. If he had never existed, and I had read Llope, drhans, and Chyi, then I would be in the same position that I'm in now. I don't believe anything because of Al, and I'm not going to disbelieve anything because of Al. He really should be irrelevant, at this point.

  • sue_ct

    Revans1, I don't disagree with anything that you just said, really. However, there was some indication that the person doing some of the "readings" was Al and/or his wife. Also, the fact that those researchers are not willing to pursue a formal peer reviewed study, gives me pause. I did note that Al claimed to be very friendly with at least one of them. The attempts by industry to influence scientific studies for their own financial gain has historic significance. Try looking into studies done regarding tobacco and asbestos on one end, to saccharine or cell phones or any number of products where no scientific link has been found. Yet just the idea being out there can scare people and many of those items will never be PROVEN safe, because as I said earlier, it is almost always impossible to prove a negative and once a seed is planted it tends never to go away. You will not find a researcher who is likely to talk in absolutes. So, Al has accomplished his goal just by getting you to run a geiger counter over your stone and talk about it. The idea that he might be able to convince a person to collect data informally and post it on the internet even if they don't believe the issue is substantive enough to rate a formal study, means nothing to me. I firmly believe that no self respecting researcher with real expertise in an area is going to do a legitimate study and post his findings on a kitchen forum. Research data is always kept private until all data is collected in large part to prevent erroneous and skewed conclusions from being drawn. I question anyone claims to be a researcher and who does not understand that, and the possible damage their actions can cause simply by spreading fear.

    Maybe many people think I take this way to seriously. I assure you those who stand to have their livelihood impacted by fear campaigns do not. My point of view was developed as result of working closely with medical researchers from Yale, Harvard, the Mayo Clinic and other places over 15 years in product liability, personal injury and toxic tort litigation.

    Since I don't know what prompted those people to do those readings, I can't say if they are unbiased or not. But I can say that if they really are experts and researchers in the field, they would not be doing the readings as hobbies or posting them on forums.

    Sue

  • azstoneconsulting

    He is....( little "al" being irrelevant - that is)

    106 and counting

    respectfully

    kevin

  • karencon

    Revans1 et al. I just got an email back from our state radon office and thought you might be interested. The reccommendation is as follows: " The best information I can give to you at this time is test the air in your home. Most of the current information is:
    1. Test the air in your home every two to three years,or if you do any remodeling
    2.If the radon levels in your home are elevated (4 or above), and you have a private well you should test the well
    3.The amount of radon added by building materials is in the range of .04 to .07pCi/L ( this includes granite countertops)"
    Standard testing of the whole home just doesn't seem to cover it if there's a chance the gas is coming from the top of the place where we eat and cook and the room where we spend most of our time. I do not want to rule out the "down up" method of identifying possible problems. It seems to me that either this issue is not even on the radar for most officials, or it is truly bogus. I feel caught in the middle of debate that I'm totally ill equipped to master. Don't see any other way for me but to test.

  • revans1

    Sue, are you referring to Llope or Chyi in any of that? I confess that I'm not sure what you mean by "those people" doing "those readings". I'm not relying on anything Al ever did or said to lead me to conclude that I've seen enough information to persuade me that the question that I've posed is reasonable. (Have seen FAR from enough to persuade me to reach any particular conclusion, just to be clear.)

    I can go further, since Al seems to have succeeded at placing himself and his ego at the center of this. Al is wrong. Demonstrably, measurably, epically wrong. I'm not saying what he is saying. I'm not engaged in a fear campaign. I'm not allowing him and his activities to affect my thought process ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

  • chipshot

    Have there been any studies done that show that mold and radon offset each other?

  • sue_ct

    What if it is coming from the ground you walk on and the soil you garden in and children play on? I am just saying, apples to apples. I don't disagree, i just think people see the countertop as something easy they can feel like they are "doing" and the ground as being more than they want to deal with, but if you are concerned about exposure, you really need to check both. If you want to check your countertop and tear it out based on your own readings, go for it. If you want to test slabs before you buy, go for it. But know it is minor compared what may already be there and that is not being addressed.

    #108 (come on, keep them coming)
    Sue

  • sue_ct

    Oops, missed your post before I posted, Revans1. I refer to the "readings" done by Al and a video he posted of himself doing them, and a subsequent statement by Dr Llope that he was not aware of any reason to suspect Als readings and so he was willing to give them credence. Don't know if he would feel the same now or not, or if he does know that it was not because Al was unknown to us, but because he WAS known to us, based on precious conversations and the bias had already been revealed in the past.

    I am looking forward to any of them publishing findings of thier studies in scientific peer reviewed journals. This would not include publications by the SSI or MIA, or other "industry" publications that benefit from the findings. In my opinion, if they do not rise to the level of being worthy of that, the results should not be relied upon. If they do, and there is a legitimate issue found, subsequent studies will need to be done to verify the results, and steps taken to based on the findings.

    Anyone can do anything they want when buying slabs or with their own countertops.

    I have no quarrel with any of the 3 you mentioned. When they publish their findings we will know what they are. In the meantime, I hope none of them jump into the fray prematurely on a kitchen forum with incomplete results that could impact others livelihood or feed into a fear campaign.

    Sue

  • bill_vincent

    I wouldn't even bother trying to run out the posts. Another one will just get started. Besides, I'd rather he HAD the chance to blow his smoke, just so I have the chance to refute it.

  • azstoneconsulting

    Brother Bill -

    You make a good point, and I suppose that like a weed
    that one pulls, another weed of the same species will
    pop up here again....and soon.....

    I just can't give any creedence to the guy that is trumpeting
    his message aka "hotgranitekills" and says that we should all
    embrace the mantra being spoken over at the ssa website....

    the ssa IMHO is a joke - it should really be re-named "I hate Granite" -
    it has NOTHING to do with solid surface countertops,
    but rather, it's a site setup STRICKLY to slam Natural Stone...
    check it out for youself if anyone doubts what I am saying....

    little "al's" argument is tantamount to if Henry Ford
    would have said that ALL Chevys were going to give you cancer!!!

    not a personal attack towards "al".. just making an
    observation that a blind man could see.........

    PS... and NOW little "al" is calling himself "Granite Fabricator".......
    OH PLEASE - I think I'm going to be SICK!!!

    "al" - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - DO NOT flatter yourself
    and even attempt to put yourself in the ranks of real
    Granite Professionals....... I'm laughing so hard I think
    I pulled a muscle.... Talk about misrepresenting yourself...

  • bill_vincent

    Here's a list of the links to the rest of the site:

    * Does Low Level Radiation Really Cause Harm?
    * Granite and Radon
    * Granite Radiation
    * Granite social and envirnomental issues
    * Granite Toxic Heavy Metal Issues
    * Recent Info on the testing effort
    * Site Rules and info
    * Uncategorized
    * Welcome
    * Who Is Attempting to Stop the Testing Effort?

    Where in there, other than maybe "Welcome", is there anything about solid surface?

    Oh yeah-- if you go to the last one, you'll see there's even a link to a Gardenweb thread there.

    "Granite SOCIAL issues?" You've GOT to be kidding!! I thought that was bad enough, and then I clicked on the link and looky what I found:

    Terrorism is Linked Again to the Natural Stone Industry
    [snip]
    Last year, the SSA reported on the link between the Bin Laden family and the natural stone industry.

    This goes right along with the quote I posted from one of Al's threads above:

    We are paying for the test, and putting out the effort.

    We are a small group and have fewer resources to bring to the fray.

    Life ain't fair, neither is love or war, why should a marketing effort be so?

  • paulines

    This ongoing smear campaign has nothing to do with your pocket Al? You wrote:

    03/07/2007 10:53 PM
    "Jeesh, just about every bid we have done since our home and garden show, a dozen full kitchens or so, the people have been going with granite tops. Heard that one of my competitors is down to one job a week, fills the rest of the time with granite work.

    Got one customer thinking cove splashes, so the good stuff for that one, but one out of twelve? How is everybody else doing selling solid surface?"

    And even after your many rants on the dangers of stone counters (but evidently actually knowing little to nothing about it), you still considered getting into fabricating the material?
    You wrote:
    07/31/2007 6:45 PM
    "Well, I am new to the granite trade, but our supplier claims that even the resined slabs need sealing. Says the resin is just in the crevices and pits, not on the surface after it is polished."

    REvans, thought you might find the following interesting (have you seen it already?):

    "My name is Dan Dauchess. Al wants to question my background so here's a quick resume of my adult career:

    Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering and Master's in Business Administration.
    7 years working at the Savannah River Site as a process engineer. This is a US facility in South Carolina that manufactures nuclear materials for the US government. Experience included safety analysis of material handling and transportation.
    7 years working as a process engineer/manager at a computer chip manufacturer in Richmond, VA. Experience included design and analysis of safety measures for handling highly hazardous materials.
    3 years as owner/operator of Signature Stone. We are a small fabricator of stone tops in Williamsburg, VA.
    Reading my previous two posts, most would find me a reasonable person. I can even agree with Al on certain things but will not stoop to the fear-mongering and intimidation he is attempting.

    The only self-serving interest in my post is that I am passionate about the benefits of nuclear energy and muddying the facts like this frustrates me. The Cypress study prepared dose equivalents based upon granite being 50% of the mass of the building (reference Table 2). They were analysing the risk of constructing the home/foundation out of granite blocks. What we're talking about in this discussion thread is potentially adding granite counters to a home - clearly not 50% of the home's mass.

    What is true about this study is that granite countertops will be an incremental source of radon in the home. What it doesn't address is what that incremental value is. Based upon rough approximations, it will probably be a couple orders of magnitude less than if half of the house was constructed of granite-containing materials. The radon burden in your home is more dependant on your location than the countertop selection.

    The statement on page 2 of the study that I believe that you are referring to is:mSv y −1, two of them meet the upper dose limit of 1 mSv y −1 and only one exceeds clearly this limit.

    Applying dose criteria recently recommended by the EU for superficial materials, 25 of the samples meet the exemption dose limit of 0.3

    This statement does state that 25 out of 28 of the samples were better than the exemption limit (meaning that they didn't need to be analyzed further), that 2 out of 28 were better than the public exposure limit and that 1 out of 28 exceeded the public exposure limit. Again, this is based upon 50% of the home's mass being constructed out of the analysed material.

    What about the one's not measured yet? Good question. There is always fear of the unknown. To put this all in perspective, a typical CT scan has an effective dose of 2 mSv/year - about twice the limit referred to above.

    I certainly hope I've answered some questions but I've probably raised a few more. Radon exposure and mitigation is a complicated subject with many factors entering into the final outcome."

  • azstoneconsulting

    Brother Bill -

    Thanks for pointing the other options on the
    "I Hate Granite" site... or as "al" would rather
    refer to it in his charade of being so "concerned"
    about public safety - the now infamous ssa site...

    I'm still waiting for the next "danger" and "concern"
    as a result of "al" saying that using Granite instead of
    solid surface is/could be/might be/etc harmful...
    what'll it be next "al" ?

    Hot Dog Fingers ???

    or

    Count Choc-u-litis ????

  • revans1

    Karencon, I'm genuinely sorry that this has added to the hassle of doing a kitchen remodel for you. I'd certainly follow the advice of the authorities. I don't think that this IS on the radar, generally. Relatively speaking, it's a minor issue. By that I mean, my impression is that lots of people who need to test (because of where they live) aren't testing for radon. In the worst-case scenario that I can envision, only a small fraction of granite tops will generate enough radon to matter. If you've already got a radon problem, then the remdiation that you do for it will take care of the radon from your granite. If you have low radon, then the top probably won't push you over the "limit". (All of this discussion focuses on radon, and not on the related-but-separate topic of the radiation that might be present- also a very-low-probability item imo.) I've tried to say all along that this is an issue that I see as potentially affecting a small fraction of granite. My prior position was that the whole question was absurd, and if that turns out to be wrong I'd like to try to help set the record straight.

    Too many posts on the other issues for me to keep it all straight. I guess I'm just hopelessly swimming upstream here to suggest that criticizing Al is NOT addressing the question that I'm trying to ask. Heck, I can criticize Al all day long. That has nothing to do with the possibilities that I've described, that are suggested by Llope, drhans, and Chyi.

    Al is rude. Al is mean. Al stretches the truth beyond recognition. Al has ulterior motives. Al shot JR, hid Jimmy Hoffa, and stole my bike when I was a kid. Everybody except Al seems to agree with all of that, but it doesn't have anything to do with the topic that I think bears scrutiny even if you expunge all record of Al from your memory.

    I'm staying in a Holiday Inn Express tonight (no lie). If I wake up smart enough to settle this, I'll post first thing before I forget it all:-)

  • bill_vincent

    revans1-- the problem is who is it PAYING these guys to do the studies? Anyone can slant findings. We see that every day on the news. They all report the facts..... AS THEY WANT TO SEE THEM.This is no different, if it's not an unbiased source.

    Al has made it very clear that he's not above twisting things for the sake of marketing, which makes anything he has to say or sources he produces, suspect, unless it comes from a place that's pretty much untouchable, (no dogs in the hunt) such as the CDC or CPSC. Again, let me emphasize-- I'm not saying these scientists work for any organization that has an ax to grind with the granite industry. But the people paying for the research do, as evidenced by Al's repeated references to being connected to these places, and his unscrupulous way of doing business..

  • vic.s

    IMPACT,

    is a really strong word. The economy has had it share as a whole. The Stone Industry has had it's share, in the past few months we have seen over 60 people get laid off from our company, that is 60 families, how many kids affected? I don't know.

    Al, could your posts have an Impact? I believe it could, I know for a fact that some customers have doubts on information that has been floating around the Web such as yours. The misinformation that your scientific studies are correct only serves as fuel to the fire against Solid Surfaces. So in the end the many of us that work both Natural Stone and Solid Surfaces end up losing. As competitive as the market is right now, we cannot afford to bring inconclusive evidence and scare our customers trying to make a frenzy out of 'theories' NOT 'theory' because there are so many variables and possibilities.

    Stop giving scientific examples, or getting 3rd parties involved on these forums, and use that energy to give conclusive evidence. We know tobacco causes cancer, we know radon causes cancer. If you leave a cigarette box on your table will it create enough agents to cause you cancer? We could debate about it or we could find a solution. Personally when I must call an employee's attention because he/she made an incorrect decision, I always come forward with the solution first. It would be good if we could put together all the facts, in order to find solutions that will benefit us all, because if there's anything that can be done to improve our work environment and customer's peace of mind, I know we would do it. It just seems that you are taking the wrong steps or incorrect approach toward those goals.

    Vic

  • bill_vincent

    It just seems that you are taking the wrong steps or incorrect approach toward those goals.

    IF that were his goal. it isn't. His goal is to wipe out the use of natural stone. Period. End of story. And he doesn't care what it takes, or who he hurts, doing it.

  • vic.s

    Thanks Bill,

    I know you understand what I mean. If Al has this vast amount of information, let's capitalize on it. If we agree or not, let's review what's there, and learn. Is the SSA website exclusively made to defame natural stone? YES, that is my impression.

    I didn't want to bring it up, but I see I'm not the only one that has been doing some reading. This is not going to go away that easy. Unfortunately there are many technical terms, measures and conclusions for all of us to understand. I think I understand one of every 100! :) if that many.

    I recall that some of you (Pauline) misunderstood my position at first, when I stated that this is a topic that shouldn't be discussed in these forums. It is not that we know more about the subject, I've noticed so many people with great knowledge, people who are the consumers of our products, but for some of us this affects our everyday lives and we've been discussing this for years.

    No matter how much some people might discredit the MIA, we have the full respect for their authority. If any additional studies are brought to their attention I know it will be reviewed thoroughly. For now, unfortunately for you, Al, we do trust the MIA studies and will do so. Bring your results to qualified personnel, let's review it and make verifiable conclusions.

  • sue_ct

    Very sensible, Revans1.

    Anyone who is that concerned can spend the 300-1200.00 Al's tester costs (I understand you get a discount if you join the ssa, buy through them and let them test it first to make sure it is working "properly" before sending it to you). Then test the stones you are interested in and pick one you are happy with. Then, since you are concerned about the health effects of radon, test your home for radon and if you have a problem anyway, mitigate it.

    Then play with the expensive little machine and see what you find. I have read you should try placing it against you watch with the glow in the dark painted on numbers, among other things. I don't know if that is real or not, I just read it and it might be fun to see what else "registers".

    You really don't need a formal peer reviewed scientific study to buy a countertop. I just think you need one (preferably more than by different researchers which shows reproducable findings) to back you up before you suggest pulling granites off the market or suggest they cause cancer or start a campaign against them that is designed to put them out of business.

    Sue

  • lisagraz

    you can also rent testing equipment from various online places. I think the reference to testing your "glowing" watch dial is a joke referring to the time in the early 1900's when they used real radium to paint the dials--there was a factory in new jersey --the many women who worked there later sued because of sickness from the radiation

  • paulines

    vic.s. it seems that many of us are saying the same thing -we eagerly await unbiased test results done by qualified specialists.

    Until that time;

    I totally disagree with you in where and when a topic is appropriate for discussion. Not to sound cold, but you need to separate issues involving workplace exposures (such as siliosis) from public health issues (such as excessive radon exposure) that may involve many here.

    To suggest that this radon exposure issue and testing results (if there is an issue at all) be left to discussion, scrutiny and judgement behind closed doors by stone fabricators and those in the stone sales business is somewhat ludicrous. Almost as ludicrous as Al and his geiger counter. It's just not their forte or area of expertise, sorry.

    Yes, this issue (or rumor or theory) definately belongs on this forum, where members who are home inspection specialists, scientists, industrial hygenists, engineers, and others can make their own educated assessments.

  • revans1

    In the unlikely event that anybody else here is still checking this thread, I repeat my suggestion of yesterday. If this interests you at all, and if you or someone you know has access to an appropriate meter for testing radiation, check some granite slabs. If you're really interested, go to a stone yard or two. Measure the radioactivity that you find, if you find any at all, and let us know what you come up with.

    I believe that one, small-scale, legitimate question exists underneath this blizzard of hyperbole. I believe that for many of us here, much useful information can be generated by a few volunteers at no cost other than the time it takes to get the measurements.

    Sue, I've read your post twice and still can't tell what you're trying to say. I think that you and I may just be talking past each other on this deal.

  • sue_ct

    Paulines, I am not saying the issue needs to kept off the forums or that the results should not be discussed here. My concern is the quality of the data being relied upon and who provides it and whether those providing it are trustworthy to do so in an unbiased fashion. If statements are made and data is presented and no one provides information on who those people are or their biases, the information is likely to be taken at face value and presumed to be "fact" when it might be very misleading.

    The term by the way, is actually "silicosis" and asbestos causes "asbestosis", not silicosis, and and no disrespect intended, but I have to disagree, it has been and still is a public health issue as I think you would realize if you ever had to deal with what to do when faced with finding it in your home or a school, and sorting out real facts from hysteria. Radon and radiation in granite would also potentially effect both workers and be a public health issue if you believe some of the stuff that has been written here.

    revans1, I am not disagreeing with you at all. Your statement "If you've already got a radon problem, then the remediation that you do for it will take care of the radon from your granite. If you have low radon, then the top probably won't push you over the 'limit'" I think puts it into the same perspective I have on the issue. My additional information on buying that gadget is simply acknowledging that some people may not be satisfied with that. I would rather that they purchase a tester and test their own slabs than rely on any data I have seen so far. If they are still REALLY concerned but love the granite, I don't see any other way around it. There simply isn't ANY reliable information out there yet. There is no indication if any of the readings are legit, because they all either seem to have been done by those with some type of relationship to the industry, to Al, the the SSA, MIA or by as a hobby by people whose methods and data have not yet been published and who are collecting samples that may be being provided by those with something specific to prove, rather than in a true random or scientifically designed way. Even a very reliable reading from a piece of stone could mean 1 in 1000 are high or 1 in 10 are high. How could you determine the real incidence of something like that if the samples had been provided by Al or the SSA, and would Al or the SSA rely on them if the samples had been provided by the MIA? Could you trust that the samples were random and that mulitple samples were not provided from the same "clean" or "hot" stones by those with a stake in the outcome?

    I keep going back to, what would I do if I was reading this and really concerned about this issue and facing having already purchased 10,000.00 or 20,000.00 worth of granite slabs for a kitchen? What would I do? What would I advise a friend to do? I just don't see any way I personally could trust the results unless it came from a published, unbiased source, from another source I personally know and trust or I tested my own stone.

    Fortunately, I DON'T think its going to turn out to be much to be worried about and I haven't purchased a lot of expensive stone. But that doesn't mean someone doing a search for this topic and reading this hasn't.

    Sue

  • paulines

    Sue, my last post was directed towards vic.s and his stance on this issue.

    FWIW, I think you and I are on the same page.

  • sue_ct

    Sorry I misunderstood. :)

    Sue

  • hotgranitekills

    Sue, as to the settlement amount,it might come out this week from another source, but John signed a nondisclosure statement. The current homeowner and the Radon tech did not. And in a way, you prove my point, that granite is too dangerous to sell unless you test first. The plaintiff doesn't have to prove anything if the facts are science based.

    And Sue, you want more science and Vic doesn't want any more scientific studies posted. What is a guy to do?

    As to lung cancer causes, I found that 80% were attributed to smoking, then 12% to Radon, then secondhand smoke, Asbestos exposure, then pollution at 1%. No figure for Asbestos, but that is 93% without Asbestos. Some sites say family risks or race can be a factor. But, with a high radiation and Radon source, why would a good lawyer need to look any further? This case can't be proved without a lot of info, if then, but the most probable cause since John didn't smoke, was the Radon from the granite top.

    And Sue, I have huge crediblity here. I scare the pants off the granite industry which is why they take me so seriously. Read what they write, reading what I wrote for the last few years. Besides, I just report what the studies said, then went further by buying meters to test for myself.

    Sue wrote "He is not one of those who contributed to the document."

    Here is Sam Keith's comments, which you claim didn't exist.
    http://www.icrp.org/remissvar/viewcomment.asp?guid=(C83AA0D1-9FEA-4B4C-A226-C840F91330CC)

    Paulines, that is where the bacterial study started. Thank you for posting it. Notice that I brought up the ethics right off the bat and the entire discussion centered on making it a bullet proof study. The last guy was a chemist by the way. Doesn't it seem that linking to my previous posts just makes your arguments lose credibility?
    By the way Pauline, you claimed I said I was "scaring consumers" and "solid surface was a lot more profitable", claiming that these statements showed I was lying. I asked for you to provide a link to support your claim, you have not despite numerous occasions. I still maintain that on this issue, you are a liar. Tell me why anyone should continue to give you a shred of doubt till you prove your claims....
    And Randy, or Revans1, what every you want to be called. Let's drop the B.S. You apolgized to me on Fabnet for your behaviour on Garden web last year, went so far to say that you believed that I was really trying to find the truth. You came to Fabnet looking for info to use against me, instead you became convinced I was bringing an important issue to light.
    Now you are bashing away at me so as too keep a few fools listening. Sure, as soon as they read this they will turn on you, were it working I would stay silent, but it isn't. You know what? It doesn't matter what Sue, Paulines, vrjames, or Bill Vincent think or do. No one believes a word they say by now. I understand that you wished to keep a discussion going on this matter and I was supportive by allowing you to bash away to see if these fools would listen to you. They won't, ever. They have their reputation at stake, plus liablitiy for recomending or installing potentially hazardous products.
    Drop it, if it can't be done honestly, it doesn't deserve doing. You had good intentions, I'll give you that. Your intentions are to lead the conversation to a comparison of facts, but forget trying to convince the obtuse or those with major bucks at risk and just support a fair, civil, scientific debate on the issues. As it is, you are doing the wrong thing for the right reason.
    Bill,
    I have never asked you to swallow anything, just read it with an open mind. Not what I say, but what I link to. And no it the slabs won't pick up any more uranium on the way, but tripple checking shows how important the granite importer thinks this issue is.
    As to signing a waiver, your argument lacks substance. Were you right, doctors wouldn't have you sign waivers for treatment, nor would lawyers have you sign waivers. How about those signs posted at rodeo arenas or sports complexes, play at your own risk. Not sure about your state, but it stands up here. How about all the warnings on prescriptions, stickers on ladders, or warnings on commercials? Sorry Bill, you are grasping at straws here.
    And ignorance doesn't protect you in court, what is the old saying ? Ignorance of the law is no excuse?
    And plenty of people are jumping on any who support my position, to test before purchase. And you guys are about to pound Randy into the dirt.
    I found and posted the link to Keith's comments above, click on the "comments" link in blue for the complete list.
    As to this being used as a marketing effort, why not? My competitors are providing toxic materials, I have no compunction about clubbing them over the head with this. They have lied to hundreds of thousands of consumers, maybe millions, for the last 14 years. If a rabid dog was attacking your family, would you be fair? How about an car jacker with a knife? Are you going to drop your gun and pull out a pocket knife? Give him three stabs before shooting? What? The people in the stone industry have gotten filthy rich selling toxic materials, time for that to stop.

    Randy,
    you are describing the meters we use. And they work on a crude scale, sorting high from low, but you will not get 100% accurate numbers. They will measure low in most cases, better than nothing, but set your acceptable radiation limits six times what you consider safe if you want to stay out of trouble.

    Sue wrote:
    "Not one published article in a professional journal has been found, in my opinion because there is not sufficient reason to believe the issue would even justify the time or expense it would take to complete a formal study, even a small one, in a scientifically valid way. "
    Now Sue, that is complete ignorance or a complete lie. I don't think it is ignorance because you seem capable of googling to find info. Here is a link to the SSA Radon and radiation page where plenty of studies are LINKED to, not copied and pasted.
    http://solidsurfacealliance.org/G-radioactivity-radon-issues.html
    Then here is page two with links to the Cyprus study, the Egyptian study, a Chinese Study, and the Saudia Arabian study. There are plenty more, all over the middle east, even poor old Africa has some Radon studies. Many of these studies concentrated on granite countertop and tile.
    Sue, this is why there can not be a civil debate. You make senseless claims that are easily proven false, yet you try to hammer home that I am dishonest.
    "That is why they can't do an advertising campaign that says solid surface countertops are safer for your health or talks about radon in granite." Wrong, advertisers do this all day long, WilsonArt did just that a few years ago, the Quartz companies are doing it right now. Remember the Paul Harvey adds that said granite emitted Radon? Again Sue, you write things that a five year old could shoot down, but you rail against me for providing proof.
    Now everyone reading this take a deep breath and see what is wrong with this picture. Why are they fighting so hard?
    Ahhh, Sue. You wrote:
    "However, as long as they can keep the claims to internet boards and add words he frequently uses like "maybe", "could", "might", "appears" and I "believe" or "think", he tries to do what he cannot do in a more legitimate and above board way. It is a new and sleezy way of trying to damage the competition without being held legally responsible for what you say. "
    You accuse me of slander, deciet, defamation, stopping short of using the word you are inferring, "Liar". Then you go on to accuse me of using qualifiers "maybe, could, might, appears and I believe". Here is the huge difference between me and the entire line up of posters trying to shout down the discussion, I allways do my best to qualify anything that is not 100% proven. So I call Paulines a liar for making claims she won't back up, but I also state that I remain open minded and would love to see a link to the forum she quoted from. I give you an out by inserting ignorance, giving you the benefit of the doubt, you may truly be ignorant and not know it. I don't think you are, I think you are quite intelligent. Guess what that leaves?
    I see you using the same words, plus "if, would, might, however, could" but you have no qualms about being positive on my motives. Randy was positive too untill he took the time to read what I had written and studied the issues sufficiently to understand the science. Despite Randy being converted, he knew you all too well to be able to admit it here. Look around on Fabnet, look up his posts like you did mine. I got em copied and saved.
    "That however, would require such researchers to feel that there is actually a legitimate reason to be concerned, and clearly that has not happened yet."
    So one day, a scientist decided to go start testing Love Canal? Lead paint? Asbestos? I guess we will have to wait till a scientist gets bored and puts a Geiger Counter to his granite countertop and goes "Oh my!" And do they have to "feel" it? Or can they reasonable deduct that since granite comes from the same ground as uranium ore, that it is radioactive by nature, that all uranium deposits were leached out of granite by water, so they can consider the possibility that some granites have high radiation levels?
    Sue, tell me what is wrong with showing that there is an issue that needs looking into scientifically? Who has the money to waste on looking at issues that haven't been shown to be an issue? Are we to put Chevy Corvairs back on the road? How about some of those drugs in the 50's that caused birth defects? Was smoking "proven" before it was studies or did people put two and two together? I suppose Phillip Morris coined the phrase "coffin nails"?
    Randy is trying to do a good thing here, get people to find someone with a meter and just take a look. I went to a new supplier in town today, plenty of slabs above 10 times over background, some 40 times over background. Maybe every tenth or eight slab set the meter buzzing on my belt. Found a Bordeaux that was over 200 uR/hr, the previoius record was a little over 100 uR/hr. Who is to say that there is a 1,000 uR/hr Bordeaux out there?
    And yes everyone here is capable of operating a meter, especially the digital ones like we use for prospecting.
    I'll tell you what. No doubt someone here is from Oklahoma or knows someone from here.. Come down to the shop, we will look at four or five samples to show the truth, then go looking at slab yards. Give an hour of your time, I'll give an hour of mine and drive our car if need be. That person can report back on the truth. If in doubt, we can take a sample down to the DEQ radiation dept and get them to check our results on some samples.

    "I don't believe anything because of Al, and I'm not going to disbelieve anything because of Al. He really should be irrelevant, at this point." Randy, by now any who have read 10% of what I have posted or linked to knows the truth. I should be illrelevant, but that would leave the other side without as single thing to attack. I have to be the issue in their eyes, the facts are against them. They would have you walk away and allow more radioactive material to be sold, they don't care about any pregnant women that might misscarry, they don't care about the development of infants or children that might be affected, they could care less if one more contractor named John develops lung cancer and dies an agonizing death.
    They care about their reputation and their pocket book.
    Sue wrote:
    "However, there was some indication that the person doing some of the "readings" was Al and/or his wife."
    And it was video taped. Are we to believe you or our lying eyes?
    " Also, the fact that those researchers are not willing to pursue a formal peer reviewed study, gives me pause."
    A complete lie. Both Dr. Kitto and Dr. Llope are publishing. That has been repeated over and over. Sue is either not reading the posts or is lying about the facts. Pick one, I don't know. However, she like all the others on the opposite side, swallows the MIA studies despite the lack of publication, despite the authors unwillingness to answer questions. Talk about double standards!!!!!!
    "You will not find a researcher who is likely to talk in absolutes."
    Yet Sue hammers me for using "could, might, possible.....". Again a huge honking double standard from Sue. But Sue likes to talk in absolutes. Shall we call it a tripple standard?
    "Al has accomplished his goal just by getting you to run a geiger counter over your stone and talk about it."
    OMG!!!!! Al got you to find out for yourself! Then you talked about it! What if Al is right!!!!!!
    "The idea that he might be able to convince a person to collect data informally and post it on the internet even if they don't believe the issue is substantive enough to rate a formal study, means nothing to me."
    Uh, Sue, if enought people did this, it might prove that the issue is substantive enough for a formal study. That is what Build Clean's 300 home survey is all about. I assume you think we should do nothing till it is proved by those who don't know about the issue?
    "Research data is always kept private until all data is collected in large part to prevent erroneous and skewed conclusions from being drawn."
    Dr. Llope is keeping it secret, he won't tell me squat except for one set of geiger counter readings so I could compare my Geiger counter to his. I wanted to be sure mine was accurate. Kitto hasn't given out much either, except a tease to one reporter. He said one of the samples showed significant Radon contrabution to home levels, but it was after his work was submitted for peer review.
    "I assure you those who stand to have their livelihood impacted by fear campaigns do not."
    So, Sue, on the recent tomato scare, would you have warned no one till the jalapeno peppers were found to match? Are the profits of the tomato industry more important than saving a few lives? Were they wrong about the tomatos? Sure, but were they wrong to warn us about tomatoes, peppers, and salsa? Again you side with industry over the public while accusing me of doing this 100% for business reasons.
    "My point of view was developed as result of working closely with medical researchers from Yale, Harvard, the Mayo Clinic and other places over 15 years in product liability, personal injury and toxic tort litigation."
    And yet you can't find Sam Keith's comment on a simple document, accuse me of using quaifiers then say that no repected scientist would speak in absolutes while doing so yourself.
    "But I can say that if they really are experts and researchers in the field, they would not be doing the readings as hobbies or posting them on forums."
    Lord no, don't warn people. Dr. Llope is a Nuclear Physicist, a PhD, a university professor that is doing this on his own time with not one single dime of assistance with one exception. Al is spending hundreds of dollars on purchasing slabs and shipping to send him samples to test. A few Garden Web readers provided samples as well, a granite shop used their water jet to cut the samples into the correct size, that is all the help Dr. Llope got. The Department of Energy and Rice University pay his salary.
    This is the crux of the issue, an expert is brought in by a TV station, one that is connected with no one, but once he starts testing samples he gets attacked by the likes of Paulines and Sue. Talk about a bankrupt line of logic. Were he to find this a hoax, he would be hailed by the duo.

    Karencon,
    "3.The amount of radon added by building materials is in the range of .04 to .07pCi/L ( this includes granite countertops)"

    That is the problem, they just don't know the truth. Even the MIA admitted .27 pCi/L from the Crema Bordeaux. You know the agonzied over that one, but had to admit it or lose all credibility. So the local Radon guys are off by 6.75 to 3.85 times according to the MIA. I tell you that Crema Bordeaux is a lot hotter than that.
    "Standard testing of the whole home just doesn't seem to cover it if there's a chance the gas is coming from the top of the place where we eat and cook and the room where we spend most of our time."
    Exactly..... a concentrated dose being emitted a foot from your nose, less than that for a child. Three feet out, four, and I might make less difference, but one thing is completely clear. All Radon carries a death rate, even .27 pCi/L. I foget the exact amout and am too lazy to look it up, but it is around 4 per 100,000 or .4 per 10,000 people exposed. How many tops are that hot? I don't know, but I know that is an unacceptable death rate for any consumer product.
    Chipshot,
    no studies showing the Radon kills the mold, but there is one granite shop called Premier that is claiming that granite is too toxic to allow the growth of bacteria! I kid you not! LMAO Google it!
    "I refer to the "readings" done by Al and a video he posted of himself doing them, and a subsequent statement by Dr Llope that he was not aware of any reason to suspect Als readings and so he was willing to give them credence."
    Again Al is wrong because Sue hates Al. What was worse was that Al documented the reading with a video cameral. What earned Dr. Llope a cussing was not finding any reason to doubt the readings. Sue starts off by thinking everything I say or do is a lie, Dr. Llope looks at the data, with his education and training he sees it is entirely possible, so withholds judgement till he tests himself.
    "If they do, and there is a legitimate issue found, subsequent studies will need to be done to verify the results, and steps taken to based on the findings."

    Allow me to paraphrase Sue's entire argument. Sue, this is sarcam, okay? Not really you speaking, got it?
    In the mean time, you suckers keep on buying $10,000 and $20,000 granite countertops. Can't hurt the families or Hummer dealers of those selling these toxic countertop materials. Sure they can sell you the same color with lower radiation if they care to test with a simple Geiger counter, but hey, if you can afford a granite countertop, you can afford those lung cancer treatments for the little ones. Besides, lung transplants are done all the time, if not, well the little one's organs can be donated.
    Randy wrote:
    "I can go further, since Al seems to have succeeded at placing himself and his ego at the center of this."
    No, anyone with an ego wouldn't subject themselves to this abuse, even from you after your time on Fabnet. Yes I saved the threads. I fight this fight because no one else has the b*lls to do it. You keep trying to keep it alive for the same reasons, you see plenty of evidence that I am more right than wrong. You just can't say it because the others will turn on you. Bottom line, these people are defending those who sell toxic products or have been involved with selling them themselves.
    The moderator understands this or I would have been kicked off long ago. Anyone doubt that I haven't been reported a dozen times in the last month?

    Bill,
    Did you read the links to the stories about the child labor in the Indian and African granite quarries? I know you saw the story by the New York Times about the terrorist opening up the Pakastani marble mine. Like the way it ends? A terrorist saying that if they keep on collecting taxes from the mine they will be able to take on America in two years? I supposed I made that up, dressed up in robes, went to Pakistan and convinced the NY Times reporters that it was all true.
    Again, you guys link to something I wrote that seems unreal only to find facts backing the story.
    Bill, tell the truth, did you read the entire short story and follow the link? If so, you have used facts to attempt to smear me. You would be misrepresenting the truth, which most people call lying. If this is the case, why should anyone believe a word you say?
    Here is the NY Times link about the Taliban benefiting from stone sales.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/world/asia/14taliban.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    Paulines,
    you throw out the canard that I sell granite. I sell the safe granites, after testing. You would have Karencon buy from one that denies the issue, one that does not test.
    I see that you have seen Revans1 on Fabnet, or Randy. Not going to out him for supporting me over there? Did you see the one where he told one of the Kevins to shut up if he had nothing to add to the conversation?
    Dan Duchess is a granite fabricator, I pinned his ears back on HGTV last year and he tried again on Fabnet. He didn't stick around after that exchange and you omit where I showed him he was wrong on his facts. He did quote the facts that 3 out of 28 granites failed the exemption levels.
    Randy, I had nothing to do with your bike or Hoffa, but I keep saying if they don't bash me, they have nothing to say.
    Bill Vincent wrote:
    "Al has made it very clear that he's not above twisting things for the sake of marketing,"
    Bill, that is an absolute, bald face lie.
    You are counting on people being too lazy to find that thread and read the entire exchange where I argued both sides of the issue in public, stating that we could do as the MIA does and load the testing, or we could take the high road.
    Here is what they are counting on you not reading:
    "Need to get the pulse of the group here. On the ethics of choosing the methods of the bacteria study in particular.
    Say we have limited means for future testing, want to do it in depth and properly done, so have to limit the number of samples used in said test. We will have knowledge of several types of granite, quartz but only one solid surface by then. Do we pick stones and quartzes that do poorly and pit them against our "best", or do we pick the strongest to pit against our strongest.
    Here are some arguements for either way."
    I go on to state the benefits of doing it both ways.
    "So on this round of testing, we have six granite with half sealed, but no wear on them. The quartz has three, and the solid surface is two C-1s and four K-3s. I will make some acrylics samples tomorrow to add to the mix, say two of each type, K-3, C-1 and F-1.
    Andy has suggested before that we run the first round of tests without wear, then re run just those granites samples with some wear and tear.
    I agree on the steel and tile, leave them out, but it might open a crack for critics to say we were afraid steel would win. Maybe one sample since most of it is the same alloy for the most part."
    See the effort going into this? We are including their products when they left our's out.
    "One thing is for certain, we are going to need more test kits. AK David is sending us two sets of the type recomended by the PhD guy on the test kit mfg, lets wait and try them out, then we need some guys to help out if possible."
    "My view is that although they used the vinegar solution in the test, it is fair game for the real test, which will strip the seale quite well and voila, bug hotel. Hoist them with their own petard as they say. Or just use their recomended method of soap and water and leaving the bacteria high."
    See? We use their methods against them. Ironic isn't it? Copying their test protocol, including our material, and making the truth known.

    I doubt there are few left that believe a word that Sue, Paulines, Kevin, or Bill Vincient says, but reading the thread that Paulines posted and a few others on Fabnet will remove all doubt.

    Vics,
    Sorry about your laid off guys and their families. But the stone industry has relied on lies to sell it's product for years. There was a guy the other day on Garden web that remarked about all the issues with granite. Perhaps the reputation of natural stone is just catching up. Perhaps greed demanded that the old reliable and suitable stones be replaced by exotics from around the world. Child labor, strip mining, radiation or heavy metal content need not be addressed, it is pretty and I can make a buck off it.
    But, when others spread these lies, did they worry about the families of the laminate workers, the solid surface workers, or the cultured marble workers? Of course not.
    Let's look at the lies told.
    Granite doesn't need sealing Granite doesn't stain Granite doesn't need rodding at cutouts Granite doesn't ever crack, it was a fissure!
    Granite doesn't emitt Radon Granite doesn't emit radiation Granite doesn't harbor bacteria Granite is anti bacterial
    Will that do for now??
    Now, Vic, let's talk about the impact of your words tonight. Will anyone buy a hot granite top tomorrow? How about till this stone expo thing? Are you capable of stopping the sale of hot granite till we get to meet and hash this out? If the scientists are right and there is a health concern, will waiting and selling more hot tops be a good thing?
    "Stop giving scientific examples, or getting 3rd parties involved on these forums, and use that energy to give conclusive evidence."
    Vics, you are about to lose me. How in the hell can someone give conslusive evidence without scientific proof in the form of studies or trusted authorities on the issues? Why are third parties not to be involved? Sue and Bill are suing each other in court, is not a third party needed or do we just let them argue till one of them gets hungry and goes home?
    Sorry dude, your argument is more about stopping the flow of info than solving the problem.
    "If you leave a cigarette box on your table will it create enough agents to cause you cancer?"
    No, Vic, you usually have to smoke them. Might try eating them, you never know.
    "I always come forward with the solution first"
    Yes, we have one. Test before buying granite. You guys have had notice of this issue for about 14 years. Your going to tell me you don't have a $382.00 geiger counter? Why not?
    "It would be good if we could put together all the facts, in order to find solutions that will benefit us all, because if there's anything that can be done to improve our work environment and customer's peace of mind, I know we would do it."
    Vics, I assume you support the MIA on this. They said in their news letter that no further testing is needed. They said they needed cash for lawyes, PR firms and such. I have yet to get an email or phone call from you asking for explanations of the facts I have brought up the last few years. I said I would answer questions despite Dr. Chyi and Dr. Hans Henson refusing to answer questions. I am better than they are, I can support my positions.
    My shop is waiting for the state to test our air while working. We finially found the HEPA filters, half mask respirators that were recomended. We stopped granite work after the state radiation dept head said our NIOSH respirators might not be enough. I would strongly urge you to take the ARS report on Juparana Bordeaux from our website, call the ARS lab listed on the report and ask questions like I did today. Then show that to your state OSHA compliance office at the labor board. Once they see the amout of radiation in granite dust, they will have some recomendations for you. You aren't going to like the cost, your workes aren't going to like wearing respirators, but it will save their lives if they work with the exotic granites.
    "It just seems that you are taking the wrong steps or incorrect approach toward those goals. "
    I say you have had 14 years to take the right steps. Dr. Hans said you have had 20 years notice. Now you want more time?
    "Is the SSA website exclusively made to defame natural stone? YES, that is my impression."
    The SSA site addresses the lies told by the granite community. No doubt you don't like it. Prove a single thing I wrote inaccurate and I will change it. I expect the same to be done on your website as well. Tell us the name of your site, you make a list and I'll make a list.
    "Bring your results to qualified personnel, let's review it and make verifiable conclusions."
    Vics, it is posted. Copy and paste, show it to anyone you wish, ask any questions that you wish. Send someone down to OKC and I will show you personaly if you don't believe the videos. Find a local guy you trust, we will tape the measurements and put an end to this entire debate.
    Sue, I could care less where they buy their meters. We get a discount, we check the meters for damage and compare them against several other meters of the same type. The cases are sealed, we have no way of tampering with them. After checking for damage and that they read the same as ours, we ship them back out. So far, only members have bought meters from us. That is all we care about. Let the stoners pay more for them if they wish.
    Lisagraz is exactly right, the workers were licking their brush tips to point the bristles, ingested radium and died horrible deaths.
    Dr. Nussbaum emailed us today, saying that we really needed to take a paper towel, wet it with cleaning solution (windex or vinegar would do) and rub the granite tops, then test them with our pancake probe Geiger counters. He said the granite will leach the uranium when wet or slightly acidic. In this manner, consumers do ingest radioactive elements from their tops, kids touching their face or lips, then licking their lips, all manners of ingestion. Fabricators have the dust to contend with, not what you think dust is like, the minute dust that takes overnight to settle out. Supposedly the HEPA filters will catch it.

  • paulines

    Al, you didn't tell us you were permanently banned from several other sites. They must have had loads of stoners and liars shouting you down too, huh?

    (Can't do a link - had to c & p)
    Letter to Ms. Selber

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    March 17, 2008

    Joseph Corlett
    1187 Heights Road
    Lake Orion, Michigan 48362
    248-842-5693
    loosedeckcannon@comcast.net

    Ms. Sara Speer Selber
    President
    BuildClean
    3015 Richmond
    Suite 120
    Houston, Texas 77098

    Dear Ms. Selber:

    I applaud your efforts as the President of BuildClean to further the knowledge of builders and consumers as to safe indoor building products.

    From the information on your website, www.buildclean.org, it appears that your organization is making an honest effort to find and disseminate unbiased scientific information as to whether or not the radon levels of granite countertops pose a risk to human health. Your organizations credibility is indelibly linked to those with whom you associate.

    Mr. Al Gerhart, owner of The Carpenter Shop in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, has been preaching the dangers of granite as a countertop on www.thefabricatornetwork.com as well as his website www.solidsurfacealliance.org.

    Here are some quotes from Mr. Gerhart from those sites:

    "For the multi-material shops like mine, we can learn the safe types of granite and quartz to recommend and sell."

    Notice that Mr. Gerhart said "can learn" not "have learned", which shows that even though he believes granite to be a dangerous product, he continues to sell and fabricate it, presumably endangering the lives of his employees, his customers and their children.

    "Despite the controversies, there are enough facts available to cause concern when using granite inside a home. With this in mind, it makes little sense to add even a small amount of Radon from a granite countertop to a familys exposure."

    There is no controversy that Mr. Gerharts accountant has made enough facts available to cause concern to The Carpenter Shops bottom line. With this in mind, it makes little economic sense for Mr. Gerhart to reduce even a small amount of Granite from his product line, despite his exposure.

    I find Mr. Gerharts linking Granite and terrorism an incredible stretch:

    "Strangely enough, there is even a terrorist connection with the granite industry. Osama Bin Ladens family have extensive holdings in the granite industry(consumers) money might become available to terror groups or those funding roadside bombs in Iraq."

    As if bashing the product which provides your livelihood isnt hypocritical enough, Mr. Gerhart, a "FabNet Expert", posted:

    "I love the idea of seeing garrote ( a method of execution by strangulation) and Joe Cs name in the same post."

    The FabNet Forum Rule #7, Be respectful of others. The Goals of the Solid Surface Alliance: "Partnership without intimidation" and "Debate without rancor."

    While Mr. Gerhart has called me names and threatened me with physical violence in writing previously, this is his first death threat.

    Ms. Selber, you and your organization are free to associate with whomever you wish. If you would like to associate with a person who believes he is exposing his employees, his customers and their children to a dangerous product without remorse, who believes the purchase of granite funds terrorists, is unable to obey the rules of the websites he frequents as well as his own, has been permanently disbarred from the HGTV forum and is unable to see the hypocrisy of bashing the product which puts food on his table, then Mr. Gerhart is your man.

    Sincerely,

    Joseph Corlett

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All:

    I just received a telephone call from Ms. Selber, acknowledging receipt of my letter. She is a delightful Texan and I'm envious. I've always wanted to be a Texan, but I've always wanted to be Italian, too. Oh well, I digress.

    She is pleased at the response that BuildClean is getting. She said she was going to call Al and ask him if he fabricates granite and if so, does he see any duplicity in making a living from a product which he apparently despises?

    He never seems to answer when I ask, I hope she has better luck.

    All hat and no cattle,

    Joe

  • paulines

    REvans, I wanted to add that I sense the frustration in your posts. I agree with you in that, if there is a radon/stone issue, it's an important one. There seems to be bonafide testing going on on that front, so we'll see.

    Most of my frustration on the other hand, is when you have clowns jumping on a bandwagon (some folks want to hear the music, ya know?). Maybe it makes them feel important?

  • revans1

    Thanks to Sue for helping me understand...I think my stay at the Holiday Inn Express had the opposite of the advertised effect!

    And paulines, I understand your point. I really do. It just seems to me so unlikely that anyone could possibly take Al seriously now, about anything, that acknowledging his posts is sort of a waste of time. I've come to the conclusion that, for Al, this has really become all about being the center of attention on these threads. The subject matter is secondary, which wouldn't matter except that (in my opinion) there is a shred of POSSIBLE truth in one small corner of it.

  • bill_vincent

    As to signing a waiver, your argument lacks substance.

    As to what you think it lacks, I don't give a crap what you think. This is what IS, coming from someone who's been there, more times than you've posted in this forum.

    Tom, under AIA201, the GC is employed by the owner who is under supervision of the Architect. The tile guy is an employee of the GC. An employee cannot waive liability to the owner, as he is not signatory to the owner. There can be some modification contractually, but it is rare. Some guys write notes on their bid, that don't hold up either unless noted by the GC in his bid. He wants the job, so that is not happening. Even if it goes up the chain of command and the Architect signs off as owners representative, it can still go sour. The tile person is hired as a specialist and has a legal and moral obligation to protect the owner from damages. Though these rarely end up going all the way through the court in the cases I have been involved in, it was determined that the tile contractor was liable because he chose to ask for a waiver as an expedient way to avoid ill (i.e. loss of future business) will by pressing the issue which is to say did not have the owners best interest at heart. The tile person is considered to be an expert on the issue and that was the reason for his employment. Most see the writing on the wall before it gets to court and just get it over with to avoid additional fees. In answer to Bill's question, these types of failures occur every week based on phone traffic, sometimes more. Only a very small percentage ever get as far as an attorney much less court. Those are the big ones you tend to hear about because the cost makes it worth the effort.

    Assuming you have no contract, you would still be liable because you failed to follow manufacturers instructions, which call for movement joints in every installation and you sure are not getting a waiver from them.
    __________________
    Dave Gobis, Technical Director, Ceramic Tile Education Foundation
    http://www.tileschool.org

    http://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=30627&page=4&pp=15

    Post #55

    You have alot to learn, Al.

    As to this being used as a marketing effort, why not? My competitors are providing toxic materials,

    EXCUSE ME??? I thought YOU were a granite fabricator, too!! Atleast that's been your claim in the last several THREADS!!

    I know you saw the story by the New York Times about the terrorist opening up the Pakastani marble mine. Like the way it ends?

    Hey Al-- do you buy gas, or do you ride a horse?

    "Al has made it very clear that he's not above twisting things for the sake of marketing,"
    Bill, that is an absolute, bald face lie.

    The hell it is. Your own words, and YOU even quoted them yourself:

    We are paying for the test, and putting out the effort.

    We are a small group and have fewer resources to bring to the fray.

    Life ain't fair, neither is love or war, why should a marketing effort be so?

  • paulines

    REvans, maybe it's a waste of time, maybe not. Most folks do quite a bit of googling prior to undertaking a remodel. That's how I wound up here. Perhaps it will save someone some heartache if the character of a potential vendor becomes evident before commitment. Al's his own worst advertising nightmare, lol In any event, it's kinda fun watching Al stutter & stammer ;)

    Bill, you know, I had the same thought. I wondered if Al was being so cavalier about the waiver/liability issue because he has nothing to worry about - he's never done a stone job. According to his own posts, as of the end of '07 he hadn't. Stone pro, my arse!!!

  • hotgranitekills

    Hey Paulines,

    I see you have been digging up the dirt as usual, or so you think. Here is a response that I posted in rebuttal to Joe Corlet's post. I copied this off stoneadvie.com.

    "
    Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mark:

    Initially, I wasnt going to dignify this post with a response, however, readers may misinterpret silence as agreement and that is not the case.

    You say Im "identical to carpenter Al" but you do not follow through with your point by demonstrating a single instance of our similarities. At first I denied your allegation to myself, but as I thought about it, Al and I do share some characteristics. Let me help you out:

    Unlike my mother-in-law, you, and some others on stoneadvice, Al doesnt show up at an argument without ammunition. If you engage him, you had better be prepared, he will be. He rarely talks through his hat and has third-party information to make his case.

    It takes time and effort to get that information, Al spends both liberally.

    Al is relentless and does not easily give up when faced with adversity or holding a minority opinion. He is sincere.

    I am not ashamed or apologetic for sharing these traits with Al. I am glad I do not name-call as he and others here do and I do not share his penchant for hyperbole as when he equates selling granite with supporting Osama Bin Laden and terrorism.

    END QUOTE:

    As you can see, Joe tends to have good days and bad days. Joe would be an asset to any forum were he able to remain civil, alas he seldom does. A quick look at the Surface Fabrication forum he posts on will show few if any other posters, such is the power of association. Recently Joe has been much improved, even defended my right to ask questions to Dr. Hansen on the NSRA site:
    "Quote:
    Originally Posted by Huligar FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=View Post"
    This post is been set up for all open minded people to ask the Doc question about radon.

    Al, this post is not for you. Any and all post made by you will be removed because we feel you will do what you have done time and time, which is attack anyone that knows more than you; and all you are going to do is cut and paste the same stuff you did before which just dilute the quality of the post.

    I will keep a close eye on this post, and so will the other moderators.
    have fun and keep it clean.
    Jo:

    As a victim of unjustifiable censorship, I strongly urge you to reconsider your pre-banning of Al.

    After reading the banter between Al and me, no one could honestly say he and I see things eye-to-eye. However, it is simply indisputable that Al has spent more time on this issue and has done more research than anyone else that I know of. Does he tell you things that you don't want to hear? Yes. Does that mean you should stop listening? Absolutely not.

    Of all the questioners of the Dr., I am most interested in those posed by Al. Why? They will be the most difficult for the Dr. to answer.

    It is like an Olympic Gold medal winner having his victory seem hollow because the country of his best competitor has boycotted the games. How can he really ever know he is the champ if he never faced his toughest opponent?

    Let the Dr. face his toughest opponent, I'm sure he can take care of himself quite nicely.

    Readers deserve nothing less.

    Please,

    Joe
    END QUOTE.
    As you can see, Joe, who calls me his "Nemeisis" understands that I alone in the countertop world have the experience to take on a B.S. spewing "expert" like Dr. Hans Henson. It was interesting to see Huligar (the aurthor of the cut and past article that started this thread) claim that I am cutting and pasting. You guys know better than that, I have no problem slapping the other side down with fresh ideas and words day after day.

    For the record, I got on Joe's bad side after defending the Christians, Jews, and Mormons on Fabnet. Joe would post some truly repulsive links and info from anti religion sites, turn of the century stuff, extremely racist at times. Joe loves to stir the pot, or he did till he got baned from Issfa bulletin board, Fabnet, even Surface Farbrication for a three month period.

    Stoneadvice.com banned him recently, not sure if he had that one coming, mostly for telling them they should look past the hate and listen to what I was saying. Joe has been acting quite civil the last few months, I am hoping this is the new Joe. He would be an asset to any forum if he behaves.

    So Paulines, once again you think you have something till it bites you in the tail. Better luck next time.

  • hotgranitekills

    Sure did get banned off another forum, HGTV.com. Shortly after Garden web banned me last year. There, like here, there were a dozen stoners slamming away. Bad thing was they had the tendency to go away after a few exchanges, caught one of them using info that I used against him. He must have thought me to be right since he started saying it himself.

    One of the favored tactics then, and now, is for the stoners to continue the personal attacks till the thread starts getting offensive, then they would run to the moderator to get the post deleted. Paulines, Sue, and Bill are using this tactic on this thread, no new tricks at all.

    And Paulines, it seems you are running for cover now on this Radon/radiation issue. As to the bandwagon, I started it. Ask any stoner, they think I am ten feet tall and eat babies. I was blamed for both Build Clean and the Paul Harvey advertisements when they came out.

    As to the studies ongoing, I supplied the best samples found so far, right from stone yards and fabricator scrap piles. So I am the bandwagon,*****.

    Randy, now you have gone and done it. I guess I'll just have to quote you off other sites.

    Revans1 wrote in this thread:

    "It just seems to me so unlikely that anyone could possibly take Al seriously now, about anything, that acknowledging his posts is sort of a waste of time."

    Revans1 wrote on Fabnet a while back:

    "I have become convinced that Al is seeking the truth on this issue, and I respect that. "

    http://thefabricatornetwork.com/Forum/tabid/164/forumid/145/tpage/11/view/Topic/postid/239958/Default.aspx

    Now here is the thing, Randy is truly interested in seeing this issue discussed and studied, but in public he MUST bash me as he does in a sorid attempt to keep Paulines, Bill, and Sue happy.

    Does that not speak entire volumes about the three? That the only way they can be lead to the truth is if the truth is wrapped in a series of hate filled lies?

  • hotgranitekills

    Bill,
    Waiver law varies state to state. Here are some general rules though.
    1. Is the waiver clear and unambiguous?

    2. Does the waiver contain clear, explicit language waiving a person or entitys liability?

    3. Is the waiver language conspicuous within the document or hidden in fine print?

    4. Is the parties intent to "waive negligence" clearly and expressly stated in the agreement?

    5. Were the parties sufficiently informed about the potential risks in order to permit a "knowing" waiver of those risks and attendant liabilities?

    If any of these questions are answered "No", the waiver may be unenforceable.

    http://www.eqgroup.com/Library/eqlegal18.htm

    As you can clearly see, we are specificaly warning about a particular risk and fully informing the customers, including having the visit the SSA site for info.

    And Bill, you know I fabricate granite. The difference is is that I test before purchasing slabs, avoiding the most toxic ones. You know this Bill, like avoiding the Paki terror connection by asking if I use gas. No one said I didn't use gas, but you posted info about the terror connection without mentioning that I backed it up with a New York Times article. Oh, look at the latest MIA newsletter, they say the Pakis are shipping something like 15 billion this year in stone. That will buy a lot of car bombs mr bill.

    And Bill, as usual, cherry picks his quotes. I presented both sides of the issue as I was asking the group about the ethics of choosing a study protocol.

    "Now on the other side.

    We should take the high road.

    Our test will be harder to dispute by keeping it on a level playing feild.

    Give them as few weak points to take advantage of.

    Some of us sell all types of materials.

    We are better than they are.

    Our product will stand up regardless.

    So what do we do should this issue rear it's ugly head?"

    END QUOTE.

    So once again, mr bill misrepresents the truth of the matter, cherry picking words, disregarding the context. Anyone with half a brain that reads that thread will understand that every single man in that discussion wanted to make the testing as bullet proof as possible.

    At this point, I have proven beyond doubt that Bill, Sue, and Paulines have no regard for the truth in this matter. I truly see little reason to respond to their continued personal attacks. Doing so wastes time and energy better suited providing info to Garden Web readers on this issue.

    As to Randy, well, he did the wrong thing for the right reason. I know he is convinced of the merit in supporting the testing effort. I'll not hammer him further for trying to get the three stooges to contribute to the discussion instead of inhibiting it.

    Tomorrow is a big day, got disapointed last week with the delay, but hopefully there will be some red faces around here this time tomorrow.

  • bill_vincent

    Bill are using this tactic on this thread, no new tricks at all.

    Keep goin, Al. ANYONE who reads my replies to you can see it's not you I'm attacking, but rather, what you're saying. There's a difference, mister, and people can now see for themselves that you're blowing smoke. I don't have to do a thing. You're doing it all FOR me, now!

    As to the studies ongoing, I supplied the best samples found so far, right from stone yards and fabricator scrap piles. So I am the bandwagon,*****.

    Like the saying goes, ya throw enough of it against the wall, sooner or later some of it'll start to stick.

    Randy, now you have gone and done it. I guess I'll just have to quote you off other sites.

    Revans1 wrote in this thread:

    "It just seems to me so unlikely that anyone could possibly take Al seriously now, about anything, that acknowledging his posts is sort of a waste of time."

    Revans1 wrote on Fabnet a while back:

    "I have become convinced that Al is seeking the truth on this issue, and I respect that. "

    It's called giving you enough rope to hang yourself. Let me clue you in Al-- ALL of us want to see this issue resolved, EITHER WAY!! We just want it done by someone we can trust, and believe me-- you ain't it!! You've proved time and time again, that you want nothing other than to sink all natural stone, and don't go trying to deny it. There are too many places where I can pull quotes directly from you and reference every last one of them. You've been a pretty busy boy around the web for quite a while.

    You're not the only one who can follow people around.

  • hotgranitekills

    Bill,
    and you wanted to sink stand and seal because you thought it was dangerous. How is this different?

    Now don't go off on the proof thing, plenty of that has been provided already.

    And to trust someone means having the intelligence to understand what the studies say, as well as being disiplined enough to actually read them. Like Dr. Llope said, you don't start by assuming they are lying. You read with an open mind while questioning any weak points or unsupported points.

    BIll you can pull quotes and misrepresent them all you want. Just provide the link so I can prove that you misrepresented the quote.

    You are too easy of a target, Bill. Try reading the entire thread before jumping to conclusions. Give me a challenge here, I get bored very easily.

  • bill_vincent

    Now don't go off on the proof thing, plenty of that has been provided already.

    none of them unbiased.

    Like Dr. Llope said, you don't start by assuming they are lying.

    Agreed. But you DO keep in mind where the information is coming from, just as YOU do, yourself, with the MIA reports. Say it ain't so!

    BIll you can pull quotes and misrepresent them all you want. Just provide the link so I can prove that you misrepresented the quote.

    Al, remember your personal attack in the other thread. WERE YOU BORN NUMB, OR DID YOU HAVE TO WORK AT IT???? I've ALREADY provided links for everything I've said above, including proof that you had no idea what you were talking about when you tried to knock me down. Speaking of easy targets!!

    As for getting bored, trust me-- I'm about to start making your life a whole lot more interesting. before you even ask, no, it's not a threat. It's a promise. If you really looked into the way I chased down Stand N Seal threads (heck, that's how I got started here!), then you should know what I'm talking about, especially once you start getting topic notifications. You n me're about to get to be best buds!! :-)

  • hotgranitekills

    Hey Bill,
    ready to eat those words?

    Blast away Bill. No one will believe you from this day forward.

    Hey, you have Paulines and Sue to keep you company. Chin up old boy.

  • bill_vincent

    I already answered you in the thread you started in order to pronounce your grand news. But just to make sure you saw it, here goes:

    Like I said in another forum, there's got to be an ounce of truth to the mountain you're making. But Al, you've so over blown it trying to put down all granite that your entire credibility is gone. Even now in the face of irrefutable evidence, you could tell me the sky's blue, and I'd have to look to check before I'd believe it. I mean, the words of one of your own experts says it all:

    David J. Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University in New York, said 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.

    Now, I'd like to look into the sludge that comes from fabricating solid surface countertops.

    ----------------------------------

    Now, later in that thread you go onto say that he's not one of your experts. So let me ask you-- are you discrediting the article?

  • luvmyguys

    bill_vincent-
    I find it curious you left off the rest of David Brenner's quote:

    Nonetheless, Dr. Brenner said, "It makes sense. If you can choose another counter that doesnt elevate your risk, however slightly, why wouldnt you?"

  • bill_vincent

    I was WAITING for someone to pick that up..

    Because I love granite, and in spite of the treehuggers giving solid surface their seal of approval, I don't believe it's NEARLY as green as they make it out to be, and I won't use plastic countertops in my house.

  • bill_vincent

    I'm actually surprised it wasn't Al that picked up on it immediately. I was kinda waiting on it.

  • hotgranitekills

    Sorry Bill, you have done this too many times before, selectively quoting bits of sentences.

    Please answer Luvmyguys question, I am curious why you wouldn't lower your risk.

  • miles661

    Wow. This board is WAY to smart for this GED, college drop-out. I don't have the patience nor the "give-a-d amn" to read through all that stuff above. Honestly, if it can't be posted and read in less than 30 seconds, it doesn't warrant my time.
    Besides, I'll die from scirrosis of the liver WELL before any granite could have it's way with me.
    Looks like us po' folk are gonna get another laugh at the rich peeps freaking out over their 5k countertops. Ha Ha!

  • sue_ct

    Hey Al, first of all, if you are going to alter a quote, don't provide an easy link to it. I beileve it says 1/2 ppd NOT 12 1/2ppd and it says the 1/2ppd is what the action level for radon in the home provided by the EPA is equivalen to, not exposure from granite countertops. I consider any study you or the SSFA provided samples to, or in any way contributed to, to not be reliable due to your bias. Nor do I believe the MIA should be funding or contributing to a study if it is to be considered unbiased and reliable. WITHIN the scientic community, readings are sometimes taken at face value until proven otherwise, because reputable scientists should adhere to professional standards. You are in no way a part of the scientific community and about as biased as they come. Your readings carry no weight with me. Neither would the MIAs. Even within the scientific community, results must be reproducable before they are give too much weight. Those scientists have said they WILL publish. The thing about peer review journals, though, is that it not just up to the person who does the study. It has to have been conducted in a reliable enough way to pass scrutiny by the peer review board and accepted for publication. Saying you are going to publish doesn't make it so. I hope they do, though. That would mean at lest that others in THEIR scientific field feel that the study was significant enough to share. Then, if others in that field desire, they will conduct their own studies to determine if the results are reproducable. If not, the entire debate starts again. If they are, then we have a starting point. That is a long way from you shouting from the roof tops in forums that Shivakashi should be banned or that one guy with Lung Cancer of unkown type and medical history got it from his countertop.
    I certainly don't have any reason to believe you would find a single hot stone and submit as many elevated samples as you could get from it that would make it seem like you were right in your calls of the sky falling, any more than I would have reason to believe the MIA or others in the industry would hide hot stones. But it really is better if you guys have no connections to the studies at all.
    I am sorry Al, this may be your bread and butter, but I don't plan to make it my profession. I left that one and have made NO to attempts to go back. I disliked working with and against biased people who only want to promote their own interests. I do not sell, fabricate, mine or do anything else having to do with rock, granite, solid surface or any other type of countertop. I am a nurse. I refuse to spend my day following links from the SSFA or the MIA. If there were any independent studies from peer reviewed scientific journals linking granite countertops with cancer, I am sure you would have posted to them directly by now. I did do a quick search at one time from Pub Med and could find no studies linking granite countertops to radiation or specifically to radon exposure. I did find articles noting that radon can come from building materials in general, including cement, drywall and granites, but I mentioned that myself at one time. My impression from your reaction then was the same as it is now, that your only interest in radon or radiation exposure and health risks are if it is in granite countertops. Do you also warn your customers that most elevated radon levels come from the soil, not countertops, and that radon can also come from other building materials, and that they should test their homes and act if they find elevated levels even if they purchase solid surface countertops from you? Do you only sell and install "no VOC" cabinets and carpets and adhesives?
    If you have a direct link to one or more scientific journals that report on radon measurements from granite countertops in buidlings, or exposure to radon or radation from granite countertops, please provide links and I will be happy to look at a couple (not even 10 so please don't provide 50 and expect me to wade through and find a few lines that you can extrapolate into something). These are specifically studies in peer reviewed scientific journals that AT LEAST test granites of the types being used AS COUNTERTOPS.
    Please don't waste my time by linking to articles in publications by the SSFA or MIA or any other trade journals. In my opinion, relying on studies about granite funded by the SSFA are akin to relying on cancer studies funded by tobacco companies.
    I have called you strongly biased, I don't recall calling you a liar.
    I do have some ignorance about radiation reading and testing, it simply isn't my area of expertise any more than it is yours. However, I don't consider you any more of an expert on it and I do tend to be choosy about who I let "teach me" about any subject. No insult intended but I wouldn't consider letting a guy with a kitchen business teach me about the measuring of radon or radiation or the health effects of radon or radiation any more than you would let me teach you about how to install cabinets. I want information without the "spin". I really don't expect to ever get it from you.

    Sue

  • igloochic

    I just wanted to be the last...to kill this thread :oP

    Now I"m gonna make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on my burgundy granite (which is always warm, even when we turn off the heat and it's -50 outside....) but that just makes it easier to toast the bread.....

  • igloochic

    Poof! (my service to mankind is now done) So tell me...is the black granite safer :?)

Need help with an existing Houzz order? Call 1-800-368-4268