solidsurfacealliance.org Blog

A few weeks ago, we contacted Dr. Chyi, the author of the Marble Institute’s new article on Radon emission from granite. I say article because the work was not peer reviewed or published, the only reliable mark of a truly scientific study.

The study was rushed, started in Feburary after Build Clean started asking questions. Revealed in mid May, two and a half months not a lot of time to test, sort the data out, write a report, find other scientific studies that support your work for footnote use, then submit for peer review and eventual publication.

These scientists live and die by their published works. I can think of little reason not to submit this paper for publication, unless it falls short of scientific journal standards.

I had numerous questions about the study and asked Dr. Chyi for comments on several issues.

Here is my entire email to Dr. Chyi :

“Hello Dr. Chyi,

I am curious about this report that the MIA is circulating. Specifically, is this entire report your work, or did you provide a different version, perhaps more condensed that they added an introduction or conclusion.

I am interested in the Radon/radiation link to granite and have read many of the studies out there on the subject. The MIA report seemed different and I thought I would ask.

Thanks for your work in this area, it is needed.”

I thought it was rather neutral, for me at least. Dr. Chyi did not agree, here is his reply:

“Dear Mr. Gerhart:

I take it from your note that you assume the MIA somehow changed the report. I want to stress that it did NOT. The MIA has been very supportive of appropriate scientific method — and insistent that we use proper protocols for this study. I would not have participated had that not been the case and, frankly, I resent the implication that I would in any way compromise research standards to help anyone achieve a commercial goal.

Sincerely,

L. L. Chyi, Ph.D.
Professor of Geology and Civil Engineering”

Hmmm, this is the first time an author of a scientific report I have contacted had a problem with questions. Others contacted, several dozen, were estatic that people were reading, and answering questions was never a problem. In fact, many of the scientific authors went to considerable effort to provide anwers and assistance. Dr. Chyi’s taking offense, even when a ready excuse was offered, that it was possible that the MIA modified his work, made it even more inexplicable.

The meat of the matter was that the report seemed to differ from some of the published studies on this issue, I had questions. Dr. Chyi’s refusal to consider a simple question as simply that is so out of character for a scientist. Indeed, that is the process by which science advances, you put out a study or theory, others question it mercilessly till the idea is boiled down and striped of any innaccuracies.

So I sent this reply, hoping to draw Dr. Chyi into answering some of my questions on his report to the MIA.

“Dr. Chyi,

Please accept my apologies if I came off as implying that you were implicated in anything unacceptable in this matter.

I was not insinuating that you compromised anything in the report, in fact I was told by two other PhD that your measurements were fine. What I question was some of the language in the introduction and in the conclusion of the report and was wondering if it was your work or was tacked on your finished report by the MIA. The MIA has a history of using unpublished articles such as your own, some of which have been really opposite of what other studies were finding. They are the ones facing scrutiny, not you.

It seems that some of the suspect language is written with a marketing viewpoint, completely unlike the language in the body of the report, thus my curiosity.

I applaud your effort, especially the finding the higher levels in the Crema Bordeaux, ending the MIA’s 14 year claim that no Radon or radiation can be measured from granite. I am currently sending samples to three PhD level scientists, all university professors, one of which has done extensive work for the stone industry. Also measurements by two long time Radon experts found as much as 500 pCi/SF/hr in some of the samples I provided. One Bordeaux was only 50 pCi/Sf/Hr, but it was hotter than much they had tested. These samples results were forwarded on to one of the professors, and both Radon experts have worked with these professors before so their protocols are reliable.

Those two samples tested for Gamma at 180 and 40 uR/hr respectively, but we brought in a full slab last night that hits over 600 uR/hr Gamma. We are using the Gamma as an indicator to show slabs that need further testing. Our scintillator was found accurate by our local state DEQ Radiation dept head, within 25% of their meter, which was said to be in tolerance for hand held meters. The guy actually defended our measurments on a conference call with the regional EPA head.

I also question the samples that they provided to you, if that was the case. No doubt their goal was to show that granite was generally safe. In that I agree somewhat, but it has also been proven that some small percentage is not safe, and that must be removed from the market. Our granite supplier is currently testing for Gamma in an effort to weed out the higher level stones, reports that out of 8 bundles of stone, they are finding 3 that meet his standards of 20 uR/hr (on contact, PM 1703 scintillator, 30% accuracy range).

He sent a meter that I supplied, the same PM 1703, down to Brazil so that his employee could sort out the bundles prior to purchase. The quarries are very proactive in this, welcoming his man in to help them choose blocks of granite that are lower levels as they are purchasing blocks for processing. It is really quick and simple, over a certain level, and they just don’t by that block of stone.

Out of curiosity, they decided to check the sludge from their two saws. The one used for common granites, like most of those you tested, were not to hot, but the gang saw used to process the Bordeauxs was very hot. They decided to check the huge pit that their water and slurry ran off into, a settlement pit about 200 yards square. The meter started alarming 100 yards a way. They are quite concerned on how to dispose of the material, and worse, had used a lot of it as fill under their building foundations. My suggestion was to haul it to the local uranium mine, only a couple miles from the quarry, and see if they could process it into nuclear fuel feed stock.

I understand they wish to speak to me on this issue, and if I can arrange a call, will ask for detailed measurmenst and distances involved.

As you see, there are others in the granite industry that wish to protect their employees, some have generations of families working for them. I represent that side of the industry, the MIA represents the side that wants to squash any testing that it out of their control.

In this spirit, may I forward a copy of the MIA’s version of your report and ask some specific questions on the Introduction and Conclusions?

Thanks for your respose, understand that I repect the work you did, just have some questions.

Respectfully,
Al Gerhart
Granite fabricator ”

It will be interesting to see Dr. Chyi’s response, or lack of same. Next week, I will go over the MIA report and point out some issues that are either fail to meet scientific standards or defy common sense and facts on the issues.