solidsurfacealliance.org Blog

The MIA reopened the debate this week, sending a guy that they have used before to blast the competition, Dr. Hans Hensel. Dr. Hans wrote a piece for the MIA back in 2005 that was so one sided that the industry trade journals refused to publish it. This “white paper” on Quartz was full of holes. He took one instance of a marble based engineered stone, and used it to attempt to smear the quartz industry.

In the latest missive, Dr. Hans attacks Dr. Llope for suggesting testing of slabs prior to use. His position seems to be that only he is qualified to test natural stone, that doin a simple survey with a radiation meter is not good enough. His concerns seem to be that, well, no one really knows what he objects to. He just says that nuclear physicts waving meters around won’t do at all. Go figure. I wonder if he has a plumber change his toilet paper roll.

Here is the reply I posted, not sure how long the post will stay up. Garden Web banned me last year for daring to talk about the granite/radiation issues, and though they allowed me to re register tonight, it might be just an oversight.

Forgive the tone I took. I see Dr. Hans as just a shill for the stone industry. I think that most will understand that I believe supressing the testing effort will and has lead to harm to consumers and massive liability to the countertop trade.

The battle for the truth, Garden Web style

Dr Hans,
First off, allow me to concede your expertise in Geology. You are indeed well known in the stone industry, congratulations on your accomplishments in your lifetimes work. That said, after following the previous thread on this issue and reading many posts saying that no one related to either side of the fight should be relied upon, why should consumers look upon your info as unbiased?
If I may, I’d like to go through your post paragraph by paragraph so that others can mark the place in the debate. Your arguments contain many instances of Argumentum ad ignorantiam, Converse accident, Amphiboly, Non sequitur, and Tu quoque arguments. An experienced debator will easily poke holes in your positions. The rest of you, look em up….
First off you wrote:
“In all these responses there was one very conspicuous void – that of a qualified geoscientist who has the scientific and technical background and who has been intimately involved in the stone industry for many years. ”
In light of that, how does your stone expertise allow you to measure the health risks of a very hot granite countertop? Would not someone who has been “intimately involved” in the stone industry bring along a strong bias for those who have paid his salary for many years? Would not a Nuclear Physicist like Dr. Llope, who is relying upon his yearly radiation safety training to determine the health risks of the hot granite countertops, be more unbiased? Not attacking your reputation, just asking you to step back and look at this from the eyes of a consumer. Does your “intimate” relationship with the stone industry barr you from claiming lack of bias or standing to gain personally from knocking down this discussion?
Then you wrote:
“The issue of radiation in granite and the emission of radon from the granite kitchen countertops has been raised a number of times over the last 15 years and there seems little doubt that the issue this time was also prompted by the quartz surfaces and plastic industry who are continually attempting to undermine the qualities/virtues of natural stone by misinformation crusades. ”
Could a consumer also look at your participation here as another “misinformation crusade”?
Then you wrote:
“By publicly suggesting that kitchen countertops might be radioactive invariably elicits a degree of concern and panic among uninformed consumers. Consumers have neither the means to determine the radiation levels in their homes nor any avenue by which they can extract such information from the fabricators or wholesalers of stone. However, they can purchase relatively cheap radon meters and undertake a crude investigation of the radon gas levels in various parts of their homes.”
Are you saying by the first sentence that should a hot granite countertop be discovered (in this case, one of the previous homeowners developed a brain tumor), that this information should be withheld from consumers? Do they not have the right to know of any potential risks? Should we rely upon the stone industry to take care of these problems?
Your second sentence, how refreshing to read that the fabricators and wholesalers of natural stone are not able to inform consumers of the radiation levels in their products. From one with an “intimate” relationship with the stone industry, can you tell me why this is the case? Why are stones not tested for safety prior to bringing them to market? One would think that this would be a nice business opportunity for your company?
Next you wrote:
“Before addressing some of the individual issues let me emphasize that the accurate determinations of radioactivity in a stone, the radiation flux and the concentration of radon in the air are not straight-forward and are prone to large errors and subsequent misinterpretations. The values can also be manipulated and grossly overstated.”
I agree with you completely. However, would you also address the issue of whether or not the values can also be grossly understated? Is not the MIA position of only 5 to 10 uR/hr radiation from granite grossly understated?
Next you wrote:
“One of the most significant misinformed statements that can be made in this debate is to tar all granites with the same brush. There are about 2700 “granites” on the world market coming from dozens of countries. In the international stone trade the term “granite” is used very loosely. It is essentially a mercantile term embracing all those stones that have an igneous mode of formation, a high degree of crystallinity, and interlocking textures which resulted from an elevated thermal history that has approached or exceeded the melting point of the rock. The term includes “black granites”, true granites, the “general” granites, pearl granites, pegmatites, anorthosites, charnockites, gneisses, migmatites and a number of exotic varieties.
For example, the term “black granite” often causes some consternation among purists, academics and those not intimately associated with the stone industry. The two terms, in the strict sense, are contradictory. Granites in the broad sense are dominated mineralogically by subequal amounts of quartz, alkali feldspar, and plagioclase feldspar, which commonly collectively comprise around 90% of the rock and give them a light colour. Relatively small amounts of dark-coloured biotite and/or amphibole provide additional descriptors (e.g. biotite granite). Black granites usually contain little or no quartz, rare alkali feldspar, and typically much more-calcic plagioclase feldspar. Biotite and amphibole are usually present in only small to trace quantities; instead, calcic pyroxene and, less-commonly, Ca-poor pyroxene dominate the ferromagnesian mineral assemblage. Apart from these fundamental mineralogical differences there are many other gross differences between “true” granites and “black” granites, and indeed between any of the broad categories named above.”
Excellent information, but perhaps you wrote this for the Regency Web site on granite some time back, it seems to be copied and pasted directly from that page, with the exception of the first few lines. Excellent example for the green movement, save those 1 and 0’s. Digital waste is growing….
But I digress.
Now, your first line claims that all granites are being tarred with the same brush. Yet Dr. Llope was on record specifically not revealing the name of the stone in the story, to prevent the stone from getting a bad reputation. Nor has anyone to my knowledge ever said that all granite were bad, indeed the consensus from the Chinese scientific community seems to be that only 20% of the stones tested fail the Class A standard. That is hardly “tarring” all granite, is it? Others like myself hold the position that less than 20% are of concern.
Would you care to defend that claim, that all stones are being “tarred with the same brush”?
Perhaps the passion to defend your product lead to over exuberance on that one sentence?
Next you wrote:
“Basically every occurrence of granite (used from here in the broad sense of the word) is unique. The uniqueness stems back to its mode of formation including the history of the original source material, the chemistry of the magma, the oxidation state, temperature, and both the intrusive and post-intrusive histories of the magma. Once intruded and emplaced numerous geological and chemical processes can subsequently modify the original composition, mineralogy and texture of every granite. Much of the modification is a function of temperature and fluid activity, both of which have naturally occurring gradients. These variations lead to a range of different stones even over the scale of tens of meters. Geologically, young granites tend to be fairly simple mineralogically and texturally compared to many granites that are an order of magnitude older. It is worth noting that most unusual or “different” granitic rock types available on the world market (in terms of colour and texture) are at least Proterozoic or older (generally older than 1.5 billion years).”
Excellent, the first sentence shows the need to test ALL slabs of granite. I agree that a few meters will lead to a different variation. I have seen sister slabs in bundles vary remarkably from other slabs, despite being less than 2″ away when sawn from the stone block. I appreciate the info on the young granite, perhaps that is why we are finding that stones like Uba Tuba are more consistent in radioactive content. I would like to mark your statement that says the most unusual or “different” granites are indeed of the older variety.
Will you concede that due to the variation, all slabs would need testing?
Next :
“The idea of conducting tests on a single piece of granite countertop that might have been quarried several years ago from an area in the quarry or other location long abandoned is naïve at best. A value obtained from a test done on one slab does not necessarily become a characteristic of that granite. If a testing regime for radiation on a particular granite type is to ever be conceived it must be done with a rigorous geoscientific control of the granite pluton, its mineralogy and chemistry, and its setting. Without this fundamental geological information the value of any testing is next to meaningless. Even then, any testing that is done might still only be valid for that small section of the quarry.”
Again you make the case for testing each and every single slab, or each block at the minimum. However, you must admit that testing the slab about to go into a new granite countertop would eliminate any hot spots or hot granites from being used, must you not? And, as in this Houston case, a homeowner may well have developed a brain tumor partially because of the radiation from this unusually hot granite countertop, would not a homeowner benefit from knowing the level of radiation from THEIR granite countertop? I do agree that that doesn’t mean that the neighbors granite of the same type is guaranteed to be unsafe, but would you say that it means that that neighbor’s granite countertop should be tested?
The rest of that paragraph has me thinking that your opinion is that unless rigorous geoscientific control of the testing of the granite slabs is done, no granite can be proven safe for use. If so, I applaud you for your honesty.
Next:
“Another elementary omission from the debate has been any discussion of the mineralogy of the different granites and how this has a bearing on the radiation issues. Reference was made to uranium ore being the cause of elevated readings of radioactivity. Although there was no intention to mislead the suggestion that there is uranium “ore” in a commercially available granite kitchentop is nonsense. If the granite body contained uranium ore it would not be a commercial dimension stone operation. Elevated concentrations of uranium in granite sufficient to be termed “ore” result in very unusual colours and textures (such as those at Roxby Downs, South Australia) in which the radiation has resulted in feldspar that has become almost black.”
Dr Llope posted a Gamma spectrometry graph of one of his granite samples, it showed Uranium, Thorium, and Potassium as being the sources of radioactivity of the stone. Are you saying that none of these elements are present in Uranium ore? I’ve seen the license maps of both granite quarries and Uranium mines, they overlap in many cases…. From reading Uranium mine reports, they are mining as low as 80 ppm Uranium ores these days, stating that 25 x background levels are particularly lucrative for mining. They mention 80 to 100 uR/hr granite being a cash cow, although they don’t specifically say what type of radiation, they mention Gamma Spectrometry which leads me to believe they are talking about Gamma only. Please correct me if I am wrong.
http://youtube.com/user/TCSRock78
If one is to believe their eyes, some of these granite slabs waiting to be sold for granite countertops, are way over that 80 to 100 uR/hr floor for economically Uranium mining. Would it not follow that these slabs contain “Uranium ore” in at least small quanities? Were you to see a slab that emitted over 100 uR/hr consistently throughout the majority of the slab, would you say that that slab contained Uranium ore?
Your last sentence, about the radiation resulting in very unusual colors and textures, and that the feldspar has become almost black. Is not the goal of new mines to bring to market those very same “very unusual colors and textures”? You mention of the black color being indicative of high levels of Uranium is exactly what we are finding in granite slabs in slab yards in our area. More on this issue a bit later.
Next:
“High localized readings of radioactivity in granite are the result of several possible geological processes. One is from the presence of sparsely scattered accessory minerals such as zircon, allanite, sphene and monazite that are intrinsic to granites. These minerals incorporate small to trace amounts of lanthanide and actinide elements into their lattices. Gradually, the uranium and thorium in these typically sparse minerals decay by various mechanisms and release tiny amounts of radon and thoron. Minerals that constitute uranium ore (mainly pitchblende, uraninite, torbernite) are exceedingly rare in commercial granites”
This site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monazite
says that monazite contains Uranium as well as Lanthanide, but also Thorium and Cerium which also has many radioactive isotopes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerium
Allanite has been reported to have Thorium content and other radioactive elements present, indeed the a halo of radiation damage in the minerals immediately adjacent has been reported as you brought up on other minerals.
It seems that you might be parsing words here, saying that zircon, allanite, sphene and monazite contain only trace amounts of lanthanide and actinide, then bringing up their Uranium and Thorium content as an afterthought. Perhaps it is not coyness, but the scientist in you being specific, yet I find it less than reassuring. Could you not just say that they all contained Uranuim and Thorium and be done with it? And if they are currently mining granite at 80 ppm of Uranium, would it not be safe to say that some granites contain Uranium ore or that some Uranium ores are found in granite?
Next:
“In both these geological situations there is always the possibility for some localized concentration of the accessory minerals. In particular, the way some granites are formed involves the natural concentration of restite (residual) minerals. Where this occurs there could be localized elevated readings of radioactivity. Contamination from and/or partial assimilation of argillaceous country rock (such as mudstone and shale) by the intrusive granite as it forces its way to higher crustal levels can also lead to localized higher readings.”
Why not just agree with us that there are indeed hot spots in granite? I could care less how they got there, I just want them cut out.
Next:
“Uranium minerals can also form as a result of fluid activity within or associated with a granite body. It can happen during the formation of the granite, during emplacement of the granite or post-emplacement from external sources. High-level felsic granites may generate fluid activity that is able to scavenge uranium and thorium from the breakdown of some of the actinide-bearing accessory minerals and/or their hosts. Under certain conditions these fluids can permeate through the granite (mainly along grain boundaries) causing alteration of the feldspar to mostly kaolinitic clay and sericitic mica. The uranium and thorium can be adsorbed onto the clays and mica. As emphasized above, where such a geological process can be readily identified, the resulting granite type has become structurally weakened and is no longer a viable commodity for construction or use in the countertop industry. ”
I agree that the radioactivity can run in veins and we have found that the hottest spots are very weak, many have been repaired at the slab processing plant, resined so that the slab can be sold. One would not know these spots were epoxied in, they look just like the other black spots. One of the dangers of these hot spots is their fragility that you mentioned. Some consumers have remarked on “grainy” residue on new tops and even old tops that a thick sealing can stop, could well be that these tiny particles are indeed the weakened minerals you mentioned.
On that note, the practice of resining and mesh backing many stones that are otherwise too weak to process and transport. Certainly these processes that add plenty to the costs of production are used to bring to market stones that you say are ” structurally weakened and is no longer a viable commodity for construction or use in the countertop industry “. And add your comments on the unusual colors and textures, and BANG, Bob’s your uncle. Premium slabs for sale…
Would you not concede that resining and mesh backed stones would be indicative of a “structurally weakened” granite and that after resining and mesh backing, that stone can be brought to market profitably for the granite countertop industry?
Next you write:
“High levels of fluid can also result in some localized geological “oddities” such as pegmatite. The huge grainsize and spectacular textures are in high demand because of their rarity. Their formation can involve the concentration of rare elements which either become incorporated into the structures of other minerals or, where sufficient, can form large and exotic minerals. If the fluids have scavenged some lanthanide and actinide elements there is a likelihood of creating sparsely occurring minerals containing elevated concentrations that lead to spikes in the level of radioactivity. ”
Dr Hans, respectfully, you make our case that the higher cost granites are the most risky. And can we stop with the “lanthanide and actinide” and just use Uranium and Thorium? Incidently, how can you be so sure they are “sparse”? Are not most Uranium deposits leached from granite, as your mention of “high levels of fluid” seem to indicate? And again, the Pegmatites are in great demand for their uniqueness, thus the high prices.
Next:
“The fact that there is a localized high concentration of uranium sufficient to mine in proximity to a granite does not mean that the granite must also be high in uranium.”
Would you not agree that the proximity of a Uranium mine to a granite quarry does not mean that the granite does not have high levels of Uranium as well? We both know that they core drill the sites to map out the concentrations. Is it not feasible that a dyke of these same pegmatites that you said were in such high demand might well surface in the granite quarry?
Then:
“If you are concerned at all about radioactivity and radon in your home coming from your kitchen countertop think BLACK.”
I agree 100%, most of the black types of “granite” are low level.
Next:
“Because the majority of radiation emitted from felsic granites is from potassium (40K) and not from the uranium (238U) series as suggested by the physics researcher (commonly by a factor of 10) it follows that granites with an abundance of alkali feldspar are generally more radioactive and greater radon emitters than granites poor in this mineral. ”
I agree again that much of the radiation is coming from the Potassium (40K), but according to this site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium#Isotopes
Potassium 40K decays by Beta decay, Positron emission, and electron capture, no where do I see any mention of Gamma being produced. So, if a scintillator is used to measure the radiation, and by design that scintillator can only measure Gamma not Beta, any Beta radiation is not counted any way. All the radiation is Gamma, is it not? How is it relevant that Potassium accounts for most of the radiation when we aren’t counting that type of radiation? This seems to be a red herring thrown in to confuse the readers, perhaps it is not….
Next:
“It must be emphasized that in most radon measurements the 220thoron contribution is generally neglected because it is more difficult to measure accurately with common instrumentation, because there is a difficulty in obtaining representative mean values due to as yet poorly understood short and long-term concentration fluctuations, and because of its shorter half-life (about 55 seconds). However, what has been established is that thoron is ubiquitous in our environment and typically contributes to about 25% of the total signal. In some places it may be present in much higher concentrations than radon. Because its presence affects the radon measurement it also affects the dose evaluation.
I agree that Thoron can interfere with Radon measurements, but due to it’s short 55 second half life, would you not agree that there is a very strong likely hood of breathing quantities of Thoron and having it decay inside your lungs while using a granite countertop? The half life doesn’t mean it is all gone at 55 seconds, only have of it is gone. At 110 seconds, 25% is still undecayed, at 165 seconds, 12.5 % is still undecayed, at 220 seconds 6.25% is still undecayed, and so on. I argue that the greatest risk of a granite countertop is using it, not the effect it has on the rest of the homes Radon levels. The Houston report validated this, the rest of the home was al low levels, but the kitchen had over 14 pCi/L of Radon present!
And since the Thoron and Radon is continually produced, there is a never ending supply of these gases for the occupants of the home to breath….
Would you not agree that standing over a countertop, or a child doing homework or coloring a color book is at more risk from breathing the Radon or Thoron than Dad in his easy chair in the living room? Just your personal opinion, as you are not a health physicist.
Next:
“Given these imposing collective factors how much reliance can be placed on the accuracy of domestic “radon” readings carried out by untrained people with $5-$10 radon meters whose activated films require mailing to a laboratory within a short time? The frenzy to purchase radon meters in Houston and other parts of the US as a result of the initial radio announcement is similar in a way to a clever and successful media stunt in Australia to ban the often deadly chemical dihydrogen monoxide. Dihydrogen monoxide can be highly dangerous in its natural form and is a common component of many dangerous toxins. It is responsible for thousands of deaths each year. ”
So, if the public can not depend on their fabricators, the wholesalers or the MIA to test their granite, are you suggesting that they just not test their tops? Those cheap Radon meters are usually sponsored by the state Radon office, so someone must have some faith in their accuracy, indeed those tests must meet EPA standards for accuracy. It sounds more like you are afraid of what the $5.00 meters might find.
Save the Dihydrogen monoxide, BS. Other stoners have used that one. Water…..
Then:
“• 30,000 atoms disintegrate every hour in our lungs from the air we breathe giving off mainly α and β particles”
You are referring to the usual Radon in the air we breath. Are you advocating we add more? I understand that a quart of air at 1 pCi/L will have 12,000 atom decays per hour. Your figure is much higher. Would you mind if I use that figure and quote you on it? Since you are not a health physicist, you might not be up to date on the latest info, but would you comment on the bystander effect of a single Alpha or Beta particle on lung tissue?
“Also of relevance to this debate of naturally occurring radiation is the fact that radiological/epidemiological effects that can be directly attributable to continuous low level radiation are poorly understood because of the infinite other possible interactions in our complex environment and the intrinsic chemical and physical properties of the numerous relative daughter products of the 238U, 235U, and 232Th decay chains. ”
Are you saying that the ALARA doctrine, As Low As Reasonably Achievable, is to be dismissed as sound advice? Did not BEIR and the ICRP endorse this doctrine? Since we can’t be 100% certain, can you explain why we would err on the side of danger, not safety? Would it not be better to purchase a lower level stone than a higher level stone? Doesn’t that require testing of every slab?
Next:
“It may be of interest to potential consumers of stone that certain varieties of engineered stone (quartz surfaces) consist of a framework of crushed granite particles. Boasting around 93% (by weight) of framework particles, petrographic analysis revealed the presence of the usual radioactive accessories, such as zircon, allanite, sphene and apatite, as well secondary clays and micas. If any studies are to be undertaken they should also include the altered and weathered brownish, granite-based synthetic products which would be expected to yield similar results to most common granites. Any testing authority must be aware that it is important to avoid being presented with only the relatively “clean” quartz pebble based engineered stone because of the inherently low level of radioactivity in quartz. ”
I agree 100% that quartz should be tested as well. In fact, I sent both Staron and Hanstone quartz samples, brand new expensive sample boxes, to Dr. Llope for that purpose. I can tell you that it is a fools errand but to head off those like yourself that will cast suspicions on Quartz materials to take the heat off your product. I have measured quarz, entire lines of three companies so far. At background levels or slightly above, maybe 1 to 2 uR/hr, so after you subtract the background radiation from the test result, zero to 1 or 2 uR/hr radiation. A factor of 4 times less radiation than the quietest granite we have found to date. I tested an entire warehouse of Hanstone. Not a single beep, not a single instance of radiation over background. In fact, there was less radiation present than in the Importers offices.
Attempting to cast suspicion on quartz is desperate behavior, completely out of tune with the rest of your post. I would ask that you retract that attack unless you have proof to back your suspicions. If though, you have proof of engineered stones that do contain radioactivity, I would also ask to be given their names so I can procure samples and send them for testing.
All the bad products must be taken off the market no matter who sells them…..
Oh, and this one….:
“The synthetic surfaces industry has had a history of advertising misinformation verbally and in their written presentations regarding their own products and their natural stone competitors. An article written in 2005 entitled “Some aspects of engineered stone that are not usually advertised” could not get published in its long version by stone magazines because of the ostensibly potential litigious effects but, more honestly, the potential damage to the hip pocket in terms of advertising. The link below might be of interest. Some aspects might now be out of date because of new (Asian) producers and the inability to obtain samples from other suppliers – especially from the US. A condensed version of the article was released by the MIA as a newsletter. Although it faithfully portrayed the gist of the paper most of the details were omitted.”
Pray tell, Dr. Hans, who wrote that White Paper?
In that article, which you say faithfully portrayed the gist, there are several problems. For starters, you mix engineered stone with Quartz, while not pointing out that a quartz based product has only quartz as the filler, not the marble that you rightly claim degrades the marble based engineered stones performance. Will you admit that lumping the two while knowing that quartz specifically does not have marble content is misleading? Seems quite a slip for such a smart guy. Then again, if Marble is so bad, why did you help The Marble Institute with that white paper?
Next you claim in that paper that “engineered stone” has radioactivity. Again, please separate Quartz from marble based engineered stone and provide proof that the marble based products contain radioactivity. Were you to do so, expect the level you show to be the new level at which granite should be rejected as being too high.
Your next claim in that white paper is that quartz claims 1610 degrees heat resistance. Clever, or maybe not. It is obvious that you are referring to the quartz content, not the resin content.
Here is the Silestone MSDS sheet with no mention of the info you are claiming.
http://www.sterling-mfg.com/pdf/SilestoneMSDS.pdf
All quartz products are sold as not heat proof, but heat resistant. All carry warnings not to place hot pots directly on the surface. Granite on the other hand, claims heat resistance without saying that thermal expansion can crack the granite, if it doesn’t crack from the cabinets settling. Completely unacceptable to bring up these red herrings while hiding your own products issues.
Notice the only hazardous substance listed? Quartz dust for its silica content. You saying that granite has none?
And it just gets better, don’t it?
“Another aspect that might be of interest is the movement in about 1985 in Australia to undertake studies of radiation levels and associated radon/thoron gas emissions from both domestic and imported stone. This follows the reported monitoring of stone for these products in Sweden and Canada. The movement fell through because of funding difficulties, because it was deemed unimportant in terms of health issues, and because there was a perception that it might adversely affect a small and fragile, domestic granite industry. ”
So, it seems that the funds couldn’t be raised and there was a perception that testing might adversely affect the granite industry… Now we are getting somewhere.
Tell me this, Dr. Hans, are we to sacrifice safety for the financial interests of the stone industry? Since twenty years have passed, has not the industry had time to test products and bring only safe products to the market? Since we now know that high level radioactive granite is being sold, doesn’t that knock the third leg off that 1985 argument?
And:
“A final note is necessary on the rather ludicrous notion that regular maintenance of granite kitchen countertops (including sealing the surface annually) will in some way influence the radiation flux and radon emissions from that surface.”
Are you going to address that issue? One sealer company has approached us for help in testing just that, does sealing lock in the Alpha if nothing else. You position please?
And then:
“As for the ill-conceived and impractical idea on the testing of every slab, tile and block of stone that enters into the US and is produced in the US clearly the Rice University particle physicist has little knowledge of the diverse stone industry. All slate would require testing, all sandstone products (because of the possibility of thin beds of natural heavy mineral concentrations), all sand used for construction, the gypsum used to make plaster for walls and ceilings, and every aggregate source that uses its product to make concrete. In almost all dwellings these other construction products far exceed the amount of granite that is used.”
Is your argument that because other products might be a problem, that your product shouldn’t be tested? How many slate countertops are used? Sandstone? Is sand normally present inside homes? Is the Gypsum drywall normally coated with heavy paper and then coats of paint? Will these not block Alpha and most Beta? Aggregate in concrete, well that makes sense for a concrete countertop, but is the floor not covered in some manner with material that will block Alpha and most Beta? Even stained concrete floors have a coating….
In all dwellings, these other construction products aren’t used in the raw form, sitting two feet away from your nose while being used, nor is the mass of a slate backsplash near the mass of a granite countertop.
And finally:
“A commonly encountered and quite serious problem these days is the function of the testing laboratory and laboratory personnel not only in the testing but also in the interpretation of the data. Laboratories (and that includes many university departments where instrumental testing is carried out) employ technicians who are trained in most aspects of instrumentation and in the conduction of certain tests. They are generally not trained in the understanding of the materials they are testing nor in the interpretation or significance of the results. Instrumentation specialists should limit themselves to the understanding of the instruments that they are using for testing and engage a suitably qualified scientist to assess and interpret the results, even when the testing appears to be straight-forward.”
Using your own arguments above, would you not also admit that you personally do not have the qualifications to judge the health risks of the radiation in high level granites? Would it not be better to rely on EPA standards, ICRP standards, than your own guesses? Should not Geo chemists also be limited to their fields of expertise?
I appreciate your joining the fray. I would also think it would be a good idea to tell the readers of any paid work you have done for the MIA in the past, any white papers you might have written, and whether or not you are currently working on projects for the natural stone industry.
Oh, and about that white paper that got rejected by Surface Fabrication, who did you say wrote that article?
Respectfully,
Al Gerhart