Anyway, I think the issue is whether the radiation is harmful. Of course the granite people say no. Here is one interesting response:

One would need to read the entire article to determine if those levels would be any sort of health risk. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions without doing so. Its worth noting that we are constantly bombarded by radiation. Perspective matters, ie would it really make a difference or not?

If they're sniffing for radiation, they're not going to track down the small amount of radiation from a piece of granite. As alku points out, it's a very small amount, and radiation falls off according to an inverse-cube law; if I'm standing 1 foot away from a radiation source, and you're standing 2 feet away, I am receiving 8 times the radiation you are. Move 10 feet away and you're getting only 1 thousandth of the radiation that I am. Unless that granite were highly radioactive, by the time you get out to the street, it's lost in the noise of background radiation that's always present.

This is not to say that working at a faintly radioactive countertop (which in my house is at about ovary level for me and uncomfortably close to the jewels for my husband) for long periods of time wouldn't be a concern.

The notions of becquerels and Curies (events per second basically; as alku says a becquerel is teensy and a Curie is huge) aren't very useful in assessing risk. They only tell you how often something decays. That says nothing about the energy of the released radiation, and that's the important thing. (We are rapidly reaching the limits of my knowledge in this area; I teach physics but not nuclear physics and it's been a while since I've studied it.) You have to start looking at absorbed doses, and then what kind of particle made up the dose because you can absorb equal doses of different kinds of radiation and suffer very different effects. Judging from the abstract these researchers compared this kind of information to international standards and found that this red and pink Chinese granite exceeded those standards.

I'd look for something else, myself, but I also wouldn't freak out about it.

Remember anyone can dig anything out of the ground, it can be of any quality, they can call it whatever they want and anyone can fabricate it... and it comes with no warranty. To get the best stone, hire the best stone fabricator, only they can assure you your getting a quality stone. And you will not get an $80 stone for $39.. you will get a $39 stone for $39. It is truely buyer beware with stone. Engineered Stone and Solid Surface are backed by large corporations, with a 10 year warranty and the fabricators have to attend class's every few years to maintain their certification.
All types of products are good, but some may not be the best for certain applications or cercumstances.
Good Luck!

Why not just go to bed (without your pillow!), pull your blanket over your head, turn your face to the wall and lie there trembling in fear. If your granite countertops don't get you -- something else will.

Crossing the street is a lot more dangerous to your health than your granite.

But is the amount of radiation present in a granite countertop a problem? Seems unlikely, but I'm not really qualified to say.

I wish someone who IS qualified could take a look at the numbers and tell us whether the difference in radiation levels is worth considering when choosing stone.

It's maddening that the stone people and solid surface people are acting just like politicians, playing and endless game of 'gotcha', twisting everything to their own agendas.

I wonder if the stone bits mixed into the plastic of Silestone and the like are tested for radiation level. If so, lets see some numbers; if not, they'd better stop pointing fingers...

LOL. I agree with this. I am more concerned about all of the imported foods and items in my house. Antifreeze in the toothpaste. Lead on the toys. Botulism in my chili. E Coli on my spinach.

Many things are radioactive at some level. Beach sand is one of the higher level items you will find in the normal course of life. Depending on where granite comes from, it can likely have the same levels.

Here is my advice: If you have the smallest amount of concern, skip that granite and go for something else. That little bit of concern is going to take away some of the enjoyment, which is ht reason for building / remodeling. For me, I would not worry about it - I get way more exposure at work (still safe levels) than a peice of granite is likely to give off.

If you really want it, get a piece tested (yellow pages under testing labs).

Best of luck.

That being said, IF granite were radioactive, I and our staff would be in trouble. There are over 30,000 granite slabs in our distribution center.

Blessings

Faron

As for the NSF rating, that is just one piece of disinformation the ES guys shove and it pops my gasket.
The seminar you scoffed at Carpenter, was given in Vegas in 2006, my company's owner and our magazine editor were asked to participate as representitives of the stone industry, there were numerous members on the panel including a rep from the NSF. The question was asked why can't stone be certified by the NSF and the answer from him was that it is not necessary. It is my understanding that quite a dialogue followed and the bottom line is that stone is safe in a kitchen, period, industrial or residential. No certification necessary. Now convince the ES guys of that.

As always I send blessings.

One of the issues here is shops that sell only one product. I do both stone and quartz, and don't understand why most stone shops don't, pretty much the same tooling and process, why not give your customers a choice? For some, it makes the best choice, for others solid surface or laminate is better and for some, only granite will do.

Choice is good.

I would like to see some proof about what you said about the NSF and granite. I post links to back up things, easy to do if the data is out there.

Keep in mind that NSF is exactly like Underwriters Labratory, anyone can have their product certified, if it will pass, but it isn't a one time thing, but a continuing process. If quartz can pass this tough standard, you need to certify your product or concede the ground to quartz on this issue.

Sorry, but quoting from a stone show, a stone shop owner and a stone magazine doesn't meet the smell test.

I will get time this weekend and look up the NSF procedure or call one of my peers that has been involved for more info and post what I find.

On the junkscience site report on the radiation, it is about how silly the protesters are, but that doesn't make the data any less valid. This is science, politics has no place in science. If you want to claim they published something innaccuate, flail away, but be specific so your claims can be checked out. Research a way, we know you have the internet available, post some links to proof backing up your claim of bias and let the chips fall where they may.

Or just cast aspersions with out backing them up. Your call...... What I call a big lie is granite only shops naysaying the radiation levels of granite through ignorance or to prevent losing sales. The science is undisputed, and yes granite will go off around granite.

In your post, you state that your link is "to a science site, very reputable". I can give a couple of quick quotes, but all anybody really needs to do is to visit junkscience.com themselves to see what it's about. If it isn't clear to someone from a visit to the site that its purpose is to sway public opinion to the Republican side on certain hot public policy debates, I'm sure that I couldn't add anything to change their mind.

From Milloy himself:
"Junk science" is bad science used to further a special agenda, such as personal injury lawyers extorting deep-pocket businesses; the "food police," environmental Chicken Littles and gun-control extremists advocating wacky social programs; overzealous regulators expanding bureaucratic power/budgets; cut-throat businesses attacking competitors; unethical businesses making bogus product claims; slick politicians; and wannabe scientists seeking fame and fortune.

From the New York Times (Dec. 18, 2005):

After the EPA released a report on the dangers of secondhand smoke in 1992, the Tobacco Institute berated the agency for preferring "political correctness over sound science". Within a year Philip Morris helped to create a group called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), which challenged the risks not only of secondhand smoke but also of pesticides, dioxin and other industrial chemicals. (The executive director of TASSC in the late 1990’s was Steven Milloy, who now "debunks" global warming and other environmental threats in the Foxnews.com column "Junk Science").

So yes, stone isn't certified by the NSF as it's out of their scope for compliance testing.

Right now, with the pits filled in, the surface of our granite is smooth and easy to clean. But how long is that resin going to last? And is it o.k. to have such a large amount of resin on a countertop?

So far, I don't think that even California requires such a label on granite countertops. This despite the fact that restaurants selling French fries, sea food counters in all grocery markets, and cosmetic counters throughout the state must post a warning of the possible risks associated with fries, tuna fish and ordinary lipstick.

Believe me. if the tort lawyers in California haven't already started suing the purveyers of granite countertops -- you're probably in no danger.

The NSF could only declare a stone safe if the precise chemical makeup of every square millimeter could be defined, and every millimeter of every slab coming out of the quarry could be compared to this. Basically impossible.

Worth remembering that the government practically banned wood cutting boards a few years ago [too porous], only to later admit that bacteria actually dies faster on maple than synthetic or glass...

The problem with studies of this sort is that it doesn't allow us to compare the risks [and I'm perfectly willing to admit there could be some]of granite with risks from alternative products. Granite has radition, but presumably so does the stone ground up to make silestone and the like, and for the most part these are the people pushing the radiation story. What about VOC outgassing from the chemicals used for plywood and the adheasives used on a formica type counter? Are the petro chemicals of swanstone or corian really better?

We all know that UV from sunshine causes skin cancer. A lot of people slather on the SPF 50 before leaving the house everyday. But LACK of sunshine also causes MS, colon cancer, a wide range of issues: we didn't evolve in the dark. You wouldn't know it from the evening news: the media turns to dermatoligists for sun info, and the only organ the dermas care about is the skin.

So it becomes a balancing act, choosing risks and degree of exposure.

????

If a strong enough correlation has been found, we would then need to know what it is about granite countertops that causes cancer. Is it in the *nature* of the stone (ie radiation) or is it in some aspect of the *processing* of the stone (ie resin, sealers, etc.) that is to blame?

With the popularity of granite these days, I would actually be surprised if someone *didn't* do a study in this regard.

Just remember uranium comes out of the ground, too...

By the way, I was wrong about those guys being new posters, they have been around a while. My bad....

Being exposed to really low doses gives the cells a chance to repair, as oppposed to high doses in quick succession. The cells can't keep up with the damage it causes.

Still, the link mentioned that the granite in our capitol was so radioactive that it couldn't be used a a nuke site. Either the nuke site rules are too tough, or that is some really radioactive granite.

The junkscience.com used the same unit of measurement, microrems as the PBS site. I see some things on the PBS site that I don't understand. It says that sleeping next to another person gives you a 2 microrem dose, but there are 365 nights a year or a dose of 730 microrems a year, far in excess of what they say is the normal exposure of 250 to 300 (the higher number is from a CDC site ). Which figure is correct? Actually for those of us who have been married quite a while, it might explain
some things...

Still, if the rate of exposure in our capitol buildings is correct, that is 60 Millirem per year, on top of what we get from natural sources. They said that it means a one chance in one thousand of developing a fatal cancer over a lifetime. So depending on the actual dose, expect from one in a thousand to one in two hundred increase in the chance of developing a fatal cancer in your lifetime.

If cancer runs in your familiy, like it does in mine, perhaps it makes you more concerned about this issue.

I have seen speculation by those whose judgments should be taken seriously that the Library of Congress may be the most beautiful building in America. If you go to D.C., don't miss it.

Only to the extent that the reaction goes to completion.
They NEVER do.
The monomers remaining are often relatively hazardous, though in an industrial setting they can be pretty well controlled to low levels.

"…60 Millirem per year…"

Not enough to worry about.
I work at cyclotrons testing devices for use in satellites.
No one would even look twice at 60 mRem.
It is below the allowable exposure limit of 5 mRem, or even the ‘general public’ limit of 0.1 Rem (100 mRem) per year.

I saw uranium content listed from 4 ppm to 100 ppm. I'd wager that most household granites are at the low end. I think sandstone was a little over 2 ppm, for perspective.

Lovely pictures!

One of the most famous companies that tried to pour their own was Jetta corp, a maker of fine hot tubs, but really, really bad countertops. The stuff was porous, would change color and texture as it cured out, in the customers home. What we think of as a solid, hard surface is anything but on the molecular level, and these molecules will eventually find each other, bringing on all sorts of quality issues when they do. Think green or yellow when you bought white..... Durability is an issue as well.

I really don't care what the crap product is made of, I point them out as I see them.

Your point about the monomers being unlinked is valid for some products, including resined stone and quartz, which is about 35% solid surface. The quartz is post cured, while the granite is not, so this is the most likely to be a problem with resined stone that solid surface or quartz.

See, I don't mind when someone comes up with valid points to consider, I respect that very much. It points to missing links in my knowledge, ones that I address quickly. I am as afraid of what I don't know as I am of what I do know on some things.

I am especially glad to see someone with radiation exposure experience to be joining in the discussion, but am a bit confused by one of your sentences

"No one would even look twice at 60 mRem.
It is below the allowable exposure limit of 5 mRem,...."

I am totally confused by that, while I understand the difference between milli and micro, isn't 60 larger than 5? Wouldn't that be 12 times the allowable exposure limit?

Another question, is the remainder of the quote, "or even the ‘general public’ limit of 0.1 Rem (100 mRem) per year." The link at the end of this post shows the natural exposure to be 300 mRem, not 100 mRem. Is there debate on the allowable levels that one is subjected to, and if so, who has the last say on the matter? This would radically change the risk if the allowable level was three times lower as you point out.

Another question is the math involved, never my strong point, so forgive if this is a stupid question, but you state that 0.1 Rem is 100 mRem, but the same CDC site states that the symbol "m" refers to milli and states that is .oo1 or one thousands of a Rem. Is .1 Rem 100 mRem or 1000 mRem

Even if I am ignorant of the math, wouldn't an allowable exposure of 100 mRem that you state, after getting 60 mRem from a granite countertop, leave you with only 40 mRem left for natural occuring radiation? If so, this ties in with what I and others have pointed out, if you are at risk or near the limit because of natural exposure, or employment exposure factors, better that you pick a safer material?

My main expertise is in the bacterial aspect of granite, learning about the more technical aspects of radiation as the need arises, so forgive the questions.

Thanks for the link to exposure levels. I will spend some time there later this week.

I would like to see that link about the ppm of granite, what you have quoted sounds close to what I have on file, and sandstone isn't used much.

Keep in mind that you figures do point out that one type of granite can have 25 times the level of radiation that another type has.

Isn't that what started this entire thread, my saying that some red granites have elevated levels of radioactivity?

I love a good debate, but when you guys prove my point, it makes me wonder why we are still arguing.

Early on, we were pointed to a report on junkscience.com which stated that a person who spent 2000 hours per year just outside the Library of Congress Jefferson Building (photos above) would be exposed to 60 mRem of radiation from the granite contained therein. This page has lots of very interesting information about that building, not least of which is the fact that it is constructed of 409,000 cubic feet of granite. Brickeyee, who appears to have superior experience and knowledge in this area, has stated above that 60 mRem is "Not enough to worry about."

I am prepared to stand by my previous conclusion that granite countertops do not present a clear and present (or even unclear and remote) danger to a homeowner.

God bless us, everyone.

Here is what happens when you work in an uranium mine:

1.56 mSv average exposure for an open pit uranium mine worker according to http://www.wise-uranium.org/ruxfw.html

Here is the annual exposure rate of having granite in your home:

as much as 2.97 mSv according to this Cyprus study:

http://arxiv.org/vc/physics/papers/0212/0212104v1.pdf
look at the end of the Abstract.

One suprise was Cafe Brown was the worst, followed by Rosa Balmoral and Rosa Ghiandone.

What does Rosa mean? Rose, or red. Here is a link to some pictures of Rosa granites

http://www.myluton.co.uk/stonea/granite.html

So hopefully this will end this debate. Red granite has more radioactivity than most, with the exception being Cafe Brown, and it is possible to be exposed to twice the radiation that an open pit uranium mine worker is exposed to. Note also that many of the granites were from Brazil, including cafe brown, the most radioactive granite of those studied.

I wonder what they missed, since they studied only 28 types.

This looked like an interesting site: about mRems

"Here is the annual exposure rate of having granite in your home:

as much as 2.97 mSv according to this Cyprus study:

http://arxiv.org/vc/physics/papers/0212/0212104v1.pdf
look at the end of the Abstract."

I believe this to be a more accurate reprisal of what it says:

Cafe Brown granite was, by far, the most radioactive of any in the study, and was several to many times more radioactive than almost all the rest. If you built a "massive" (their word) home in such a way that 50% of the building materials used were Cafe Brown granite (countertops, floors, walls, etc), and you stayed in that home an average of 19.2 hours per day every day (80% of the time), then the annual radiation exposure would be a little over half of what brickeyee is legally allowed to be exposed to in his job.

I am prepared to stand by my previous conclusion that granite countertops do not present a clear and present (or even unclear and remote) danger to a homeowner.

God bless us, everyone.

So look at it this way, granite could be used for counters, sills, and flooring, and the amount could vary, say granite tile in the kitchen and carpet in the living room and bedrooms. That is what I understood the study to mean as far as utilization rates.

This is in addition to background radiation, and what ever radiation is present in your sheetrock, ceramic tile, brick or any other number of slightly radioactive building materials.

The point is this, red granite has more radioactivity than most, the exception being cafe brown. Even at half the dose that brickeyee is exposed to, it adds to the annual dose and will contibute toward cancer risk later in life.

The point to the orignial poster was, pick another color.....