The MIA Responds to the New York Times Article on Radiation and Granite countertops
The MIA have this on their website expressing their responce to what they claim are inaccuracies in the article. I will link to the entire page at the bottom of this page, pasting in the relevant parts and my comments in bold interspersed.
Quote:
“Typical of stories that seek to excite, rather than inform, the article repeatedly talks about “radiation levels” without explaining what they mean. The article plays to the emotions, rather than basing its focus on scientific fact. Hardly, they interviewed leading scientists in the article.
In short, it follows the playbook used by two of the largest synthetic stone manufacturers who seek to increase their own sales by raising fears about natural stone. One of which is one of the larger granite importers in this country, Cosintino.
For example, the piece fails to point out that repeated studies have found that granite most commonly used in home countertops is safe. But these studies were not published, which makes them useless. Indeed no other scientist will use them as footnotes in their own published studies.
Instead, it vaguely mentions one or two stones that someone deemed to be problematic, then goes on to suggest that the only solution is to remove granite from the home. Sure, the scientists in the article say they would be a concern, just like the MIA’s experts in the past offered opinions claiming some granites were safe. The difference is that these new scientists are doing this unpaid, and will publish their studies after peer review.
We all know that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s solution for radon infiltration is venting. But that fact is also absent from the article. That does work for Radon, but at a high utility cost in most parts of this country. It would be cheaper in the long run to remove the top which also removes the concentrated point source when using the counter. Also, ventilation does nothing to mitigate radiation, which the MIA is adamant in not mentioning.
We are disappointed that the New York Times has compromised the ultimate goal of sharing truth with its readers. But it is precisely because individuals and companies seek to prey on consumer fears and confusion that the Marble Institute of America is working with the independent scientific community to set standards to test granite for radon. Independent means they aren’t on your payroll, independent means the studies are published after completion, before the resulsts are released for use. The MIA has a habit of not publishing their purchased studies. I submit that their studies would most likely not survive peer review, other wise the MIA would have insisted on peer review and publication.
We are spearheading this effort because no other group – not in the scientific community, the university community or in government – has chosen to proceed with such standards. Why? Because they don’t see the risk as being significant. Okay, now that is complete B.S. There are plenty of studies done world wide on these issues, studies that show some granites over the recomended safe level, studies that have lead to many other countries enacting standards for granite countertop regulation.
If these groups believed the issue merited attention, I can assure you they would find the resources to do the testing that only the MIA has been willing to fund. Well, surprise! They already did this years ago. The MIA just isn’t admiting these studies exist.
That is why we created the Truth About Granite Fund. And, unfortunately, this article makes our efforts – and support for that fund – so critical. “No doubt this fund will be needed to pay claims against the MIA. As to it being used for PR purposes, the facts are against the MIA in this issue. Spreading missinformation will just make the fall that much harder.
End quote.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
