Excellent post Gary.
There is the opportunity, using the granite controversy to educate the public on Radon in general. Rather than dismiss the possibility of risk, i.e., laying on top of a countertop for 70 years as the one group put it, embrace the chance to get consumers to listen. People are motivated, they have invested or are thinking about investing some serious cash into a product, so many will pay attention if a balanced position is taken.
There are so many Radon professionals researching this topic, highly respected members of AARST, HPS, and CRCPD. Taking a position that more research needs done is fine, just understand that Radon emanation levels of concern have already been reported, so the cautious position is to encourage consumer testing in a manner that doesn't cause a panic. Your last paragraph about the Radon industry dealing with an invisible threat is the crux of the problem. But all I can say is that a lot more people have a little more info on Radon than they did prior to mid May when this story made it's way into mainstream media.
This isn't about stealing attention away from soil based Radon, soil based IS the largest source in most homes. This isn't about making people afraid of nuclear power, nuclear medicine, or nuclear waste storage. It is simply about a consumer's right to know that there is a chance that their $10,000 countertop could possibly have elevated levels of radiation and that it might contribute to increased Radon levels in their home.
And I keep circling back to the root cause, the stone industry's refusal to deal with this 14 years ago. Now some stone companies are addressing this, some are continuing to dismiss or ridicule the research. How about supporting the companies that have unilaterally started measuring their stone? Let the market show the recalcitrant ones the errors of their ways.
Thanks for the civil discussion on the issues.
AL
--- On Fri, 12/5/08, Gary Hodgden wrote:
From: Gary Hodgden Subject: Re: [RADONPROFESSIONALS] Granite Countertop ReportTo: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDUDate: Friday, December 5, 2008, 7:39 AM
Linda,
I believe you have just clearly illustrated the problem that this community is grappling with.
The exposures you describe relate to coming in contact with close proximity discharge of beta, gamma and alpha radiation. Meanwhile, radon exposure is a concern mostly limited to alpha radiation being delivered via the air one breathes.
For both, risk calculation is based upon time length of exposure and intensity of exposure.
For radon, calculations based upon a measurement of air for intensity (pCi/L) have been applied to an expected length of exposure (i.e. 18 hours a day for 70 years - as may be applicable to a home maker or home office - male or female). Extrapolating from other known data, the EPA action level and risk charts were thereby derived (in general).
For radon (or both), the value of an established action level should not be underestimated.
This tool allows simplicity for: reasonable guidance and policy from government; reasonable guidance from private sector health professionals including radon or radiation specialists; and ....... protection for both citizens and professional consultants who seek to base actions upon reasonable guidance. Action levels for building materials have not been set in the U.S.
In lieu of an action level, the only way to responsibly make a decision or provide guidance is to run the calculation on time length of exposure and intensity of exposure to all of the close proximity beta, gamma and alpha radiation. If you had the result of that calculation, you could then compare it to other exposure concerns for comparative guidance.
(A comparison reference on my shelf is "Radiation Protection-a guide for scientists, regulators and physicians" - Jacob Shapiro-Harvard Books.)
But therein lies the dilemma.
1) Measurement of intensity: Is the gadget providing an accurate measurement of all close proximity beta, gamma and alpha radiation? How many measurements across the surface will it take to quantify potential exposure (averaged or with a weighted average)?
2) Time length of exposure: How do you estimate the yearly hours of close proximity contact?
We do not have a published bullet list of rules for procedure on any of those questions. Without answering each of those questions responsibly, you have no risk assessment.
Work is being started on such procedures, however: Be it statements of highlighting or downplaying fear, such statements only play out what happens in the field (or in court) when the risk is left only to the imagination. I'm quite certain that any question of esteemed "gentleman" or "ladies" has nothing to do with it.
In the radon community, we've for 20 years been challenged that we are selling an imaginary concern about a risk that does not exist. The risk calculations from the scientific community have been made and suggest it rivals the combined deaths from all indoor causes of untimely death. This is also part of the equation we grapple with as we wonder if we can pay the rent this month.
Gary Hodgden
President: AAIR Professionals, Inc.
913-780-2000 800-364-7155
Fax 913-780-0139
25005 W. 129th Terr.
Olathe, KS. 66061
On Dec 4, 2008, at 8:55 PM, Linda Kincaid wrote:
If I may present a female perspective on use of a kitchen... I have heard many men say "no one actually touches the granite". Not a single woman has expressed that opinion. Anyone who spends much time in a kitchen knows that cooks are indeed in regular contact with their counter tops.
This morning I was in the kitchen of a woman that was concerned about her granite. The hottest spot was near the edge of a granite table top where she anticipated spending several hours a day. She indicated she would be seated very near the granite, abdomen possibly touching the edge, often leaning over the top of the granite. Her breasts and internal organs would be exposed to gamma radiation for several hours each day. Most women would not consider that situation acceptable.
I surveyed another home where a 15-year old boy spent several hours a day sitting on the granite island. One of the hotter spots in that home was where the young man spent much of his time. Daily exposure to gamma radiation does not seem a good thing for his future progeny.
In yet another home I saw elementary age children seated at a granite bar for extended periods of time, doing their homework and playing games. Fortunately, the granite in that home was not particularly radioactive. The mom decided to have her children do their homework at a wooden table, just to minimize any small risk.
This forum has been consistently hostile toward persons taking field measurements. There has been little assistance to those of us trying to develop a standard protocol and collect data according to that protocol. Before the "esteemed gentlemen" of the forum tell me yet again that I am not bright enough to determine whether 500 is greater than 10, please consider whether you would wish your wives or grandchildren to be the guinea pigs in this experiment.
Linda Kincaid
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:41 PM, al gerhart wrote:
Mr Johnson,I don't know of anyone using a pancake probe for measuring granite and claiming major hazards. We are using scintillators, and on the occasions we do use a pancake, we offer shielded measurements along with the raw readings. The Gamma spectrum readings can't be tarred with that brush either. And a strong enough Beta source has it's own set of potential problems.The PM 1703 is completely capable of being used as a trip wire for granite fabricators and consumers. We are running Arrow Tech dosimeter readings on the slab we are using for the full scale Radon test and if anything, the results are mostly conservative. Here is the latest readings, in urem/hr.http://forum.solidsurfacealliance.org/download/file.php?id=237&mode=viewor for the entire thread, here http://forum.solidsurfacealliance.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=56&p=338#p338I appreciate the expert advice, but sometimes what is needed is a close answer NOW rather than an accurate quantitative measure that might be 30% lower. No one is ripping out thousands of dollars of granite on the say so of a quick test, but having the Radon guys doing a quick scan that homeowners can afford is better than knowing nothing, if only for the reduction in stress.And yes, calibration is important along with the over response of the PM 1703, but factoring in the small amount of the total radiation that the PM 1703 is capable of reading and the readings are still very conservative.
A ten minute gamma spectrometry run will hit a half million counts, sometimes over a million counts in ten minutes, or 50 to 100 thousand counts per minute. compared to eight thousand counts off a pancake probe. Slice it anyway you want, the meter over responds to what it measures by some percentage, but it isn't coming close to counting more than 8 to 16% of the total radiation that a small crystal gamma spec can pick up. Dr. Llope says we could be reading far less, from 2 to 3% of the total radiation.As to the geometry of the measurements, countertops are in close contact to the genital regions when used, or right over your lap if sitting. I would think that the protocols for radiation work will need rethinking before applying to this topic. Or are the nuclear plants making workbenches and desk tops out of their extra waste? As for distance and dose, our pancake can read radiation out to six feet and more,
from a 200 uR/hr granite hot spot. And the scintilator is sensitive enough to hit 30 uR/hr walking around some slab yards. If there is any Bordeaux within twenty feet, forget about measuring other stones nearby unless you isolate.Here are some distance readings. Niagra Gold, around 200 uR/hr on contact4 inches 2280 cpm12inches 840 cpm24 inches 600 cpm36inches 480 cpm60 inches 180 cpm72 inches 120 cpmBackground during tests was 60 cpm.And if I hear the phrase "lay on a granite countertop" again, I'm gonna start screaming. It is one thing to ridicule something when you have all the data, it is another to measure a handful of stones, even a handful of slab yards, and base one's opinion on such limited data.And there are guidelines for building materials including granite countertops. China has them, so does most of the EU. One
can argue that the US doesn't have any guidlines, but for the clean up requirements for industry or the nuclear power industry to have any integrity, they should be applied to granite countertops as well. Do that or raise the clean up levels. Just don't continue the hypocrisy. If the granite industry is advocating 30 mrem yearly maximum, as they did in the latest MIA study, a granite countertop at 50 uR/hr will get you there in 150 days. ALARA and plain old common sense says that selling radioactive consumer products is not a good thing.Fiesta ware and lanterna mantles are poor arguements as well unless you have several tons of the darned things in your home. I've done four slab countertop jobs before (4,000 pounds), but I've seen floors, showers, vanities, window sills, even entire rooms covered with stone. I suggest that despite good intentions, the risks are being minimized by those without knowing the extent of
the problem. At AARST, Air Chek had a small core sample, maybe 2" in diameter, putting out 1 mrem. What else is out there?Radiation safety measurements should be regulated by the state, but meters aren't. If someone is willing to do a survey, then call an expert if something concerning is found, how is the public harmed in anyway? Should we then take the alarm meters from our first responders? They might start a panic with them after all. Good lord, if you can read a digital clock, you can understand what the meter is telling you.All I am saying is measuring one granite yard doesn't qualify you as an expert. No one is agains nuclear power, everyone advocates measuring whole house Radon when checking granite countertops, so why not use this controversy to educate people about ALARA and show that you just might get more exposure from your granite countertop than you will get from living next door to
a power plant.Respectfull, unless I hear "lay on a granite countertop" again.AL
--------------------------- RADONPROFESSIONALS - http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html ----------------------------- ________________________Linda Kincaid, MPH, CIH Industrial Hygiene Services20255 Glasgow DriveSaratoga, CA 95070(408) 998-4642--------------------------- RADONPROFESSIONALS - http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html ------------------------------------------------------ RADONPROFESSIONALS - http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html ---------------------------
--------------------------- RADONPROFESSIONALS - http://list.uiowa.edu/archives/radonprofessionals.html ---------------------------
From Name
al gerhart
From Address
al@SOLIDSURFACEALLIANCE.ORG