Slate countertops are starting to sound like a better idea than granite

[dianeduane]

The uranium content of granite has always been somewhat in our radar since we moved to Ireland, since there’s a lot of granite in Wicklow;  and where there’s granite, because of the decay of the tiny amounts of uranium it often contains, sometimes there’s radon as well. But here’s a side effect I hadn’t given that much thought to.

As the popularity of granite countertops has grown in the last decade — demand for them has increased tenfold, according to the Marble Institute of America, a trade group representing granite fabricators — so have the types of granite available. For example, one source, Graniteland (graniteland.com) offers more than 900 kinds of granite from 63 countries. And with increased sales volume and variety, there have been more reports of [radioactive] or potentially hazardous countertops, particularly among the more exotic and striated varieties from Brazil and Namibia.

“It’s not that all granite is dangerous,” said Stanley Liebert, the quality assurance director at CMT Laboratories in Clifton Park, N.Y., who took radiation measurements at Dr. Sugarman’s house. “But I’ve seen a few that might heat up your Cheerios a little.”

Eek. I do not want my Cheerios heated up. Not even slightly!

One more thing to think about for when we redo the kitchen…

Tags: uranium, radon, kitchen, counter, countertop, granite, decay, radiation, radioactive

Comments

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Or just choose your granite carefully. I even know where I could borrow a Geiger counter.

The combination of granite countertops with the more sealed (for energy efficiency) houses also seems like it could be an issue.

[jaxomsride.livejournal.com]

Oops! I bet that is one aspect that hasn't occurred to most people.
I'd go with slate too.

[iamfiction.livejournal.com]

Slate would be nice for a countertop. I always like marble too.

[lady-autumnstar.livejournal.com]

When we built our house we got a man-made composite similar to Corian that looks just like granite but costs less. And, we don't have to worry about that pesky radiation.

[heliona.livejournal.com]

You can get fake granite workstops, which I believe are made mostly of quartz and then resin, which have the advantage of being stain resistent, so you don't have to worry about spilling lemon juice or other things on it.

When my parents were doing their kitchen they looked into the stuff. You can get any number of colours and it's really tough stuff. It's very heavy, and has quite a few advantages over straight stone, from what I can tell. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of it!

Good luck - I remember how much hmming and hawing my parents did over choosing a worktop! (They eventually got a wooden one.)

[liadan-m.livejournal.com]

silestone.

[liadan-m.livejournal.com]

I'll also plug silestone (that's the brand name, iirc, with the technical name being pressed silica stone). It wears like iron, is pretty, and comes in as wide or wider selection of colors and patterns as the real stuff. We have it in our kitchen.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Living in rockbound Maine, a little *added* radon from the countertop would be the least of my worries . . .

[alitalf.livejournal.com]

I would not worry too much. Although radon levels in the (probably few) almost hermetically sealed houses in Cornwall have occasionally been measured at higher then recommended safe levels, just having a counter top would not seem likely to result in anything like as much radon being put into your environment. Don't forget that you need to have some ventilation to avoid suffocation, so that a tiny amount of radon emitted per day will not build up to a great extent.

I don't believe there is any obvious statistical evidence of increased mortality in Cornwall.

Also, though the evidence (last time I looked) falls short of copper bottomed proof, it appears that low levels of radiation improve health slightly, perhaps by stimulating the repair mechanisms, even though larger levels are, of course, harmful.

...I’ve seen a few that might heat up your Cheerios a little. I suspect he was joking!

[particle-person.livejournal.com]

The article claims "there is no known safe level of radon or radiation," so I guess the conventional wisdom is still that radiation is always harmful. Truthfully, I find it kind of hard to believe that shooting tiny particles at your cells at high speed could do anything good for them.

[liadan-m.livejournal.com]

We haven't been studying the effects of radon long enough to know certainly where the safe range is. However, above 4 picaCuries/Litre of air is what the EPA considers dangerous in the long term...but we don't know what the "safe" levels are. It is extremely hard to do studies on levels of radon v. cancer rates - we know that higher levels seeping through the soils do cause lung cancers, but I've never seen any evidence for or against the 4pCi/L line other than the EPA's say so.

But, if the granite countertops are emitting that much radon? There are much bigger issues...because that's not a whole lot of volume of stone in comparison to the normal routes of the gas into the home.

[alitalf.livejournal.com]

Intuitively it doesn't make sense, but a number of things that turn out to be fact, when you look at all the details, don't seem to make sense intuitively. I have encountered enough that I would suggest trying to find actual evidence if at all possible, and relying on what obviously ought to be true only if no evidence is available.

I was only writing about radiation. Radon may be a chemical poison, or carcinogen, separately from any radiation effects. However, the best evidence I have seen presented shows no detectable statistical harm from low levels of radiation - I can't remember how low, and some evidence of slight protective effects at half the (very low) level at which no harm was evident.

Either way, if a granite counter top emits enough to be a statistically detectable problem, surprise will no longer be sufficient; I will be astonished.

[particle-person.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on following the evidence, but I thought the article was saying the evidence points the other way.

The other thing is to take account of how much evidence there is, especially when something counter-intuitive is being proposed. Start with the most likely hypothesis, and then shift to stranger ones as evidence builds that the most likely thing isn't what really happens.

[alitalf.livejournal.com]

Well, on the danger level of the very lowest levels of radiation, the article reports somebody as saying that scientists say that...etc. That is a view that had been widely accepted for a long time, and is probably still held by a number of people.

It is still the case that (according to a presentation I was at a few years back) epidemiological studies seem to show a slight beneficial effect at very low levels - but as I say, I can't remember enough detail to say what level. At the very least, the graph of statistical reduction of lifetime versus radiation crossed the axis at non-zero radiation levels.

The concept of a tiny amount of damage stimulating a repair mechanism also makes intuitive sense. Something vaguely parallel happened to me in another context, when a severe knee injury received good medical treatment and the knee ended stronger than before (because previously it had been slightly injured, too slightly to seem to need treatment). I've been skiing on it for 30 years since then...

Interestingly there is also some suggestion now that extreme cleanliness, and extermination of bacteria, seems to be bad for the development of children's immune systems. It might eventually turn out that too drastic reduction of something else that is generally harmful could be bad. If so, it will probably be a long while before new conventional wisdom arises.

[particle-person.livejournal.com]

It is still the case that (according to a presentation I was at a few years back) epidemiological studies seem to show a slight beneficial effect at very low levels - but as I say, I can't remember enough detail to say what level. At the very least, the graph of statistical reduction of lifetime versus radiation crossed the axis at non-zero radiation levels.

See, I would interpret that as a case of the signal-to-noise ratio being bad in that area of the graph. In other words, the levels of radiation are very low so any noise in the data from random experimental error might overwhelm the negligible damage caused by those low levels of radiation. The other hypothesis, that the radiation is helpful, is distantly plausible but needs a whole lot of separate investigation to back it up before I would call it likely.

[alitalf.livejournal.com]

I don't think I would be convinced, were I in your position. I formed an opinion that, at the very least the line crossed the axis before zero radiation, based on a presentation of a data, analysis, questions and answers, and on that basis reckoned that the protective effect of very low radiation levels was a real possibility. I don't believe that is a proven fact. For such a surprising conclusion, exceptional proof would be needed.

However, I can't remember anywhere near all the information that was presented, and even if I could, someone else's recollection, without the means to question the presenter, is, at best, less than convincing.

You might be able to accept that, at the least, the risks due to low radiation levels are so small as not to be worth considering, unless you already have a fairly paranoid lifestyle, with every risk minimised. Remember Cornwall. It would not be legally possible to build a nuclear power station in that part of the UK, because it is already more radioactive than a nuclear power station is permitted to be (except, obviously, in the reactor). However, there doesn't seem to be any deleterious effect picked up by statistics, at least so far.

I have been described as a "belt and braces" sort of person often enough by those who know me, and would not worry about a granite counter top, on my present understanding. Any view I hold could, of course, change, as a result of compelling evidence;-)

[antikythera.livejournal.com]

But... there's radiation everywhere.

I remember a story once where a UFO hunter published a paper including radiation levels at a site where he believed a spacecraft had landed. It turned out later that all he was measuring was the normal background radiation in the soil. He didn't bother to check if the radiation he found was actually greater than normal for the area.

Granite is a naturally-occuring substance, and if you live near it, it isn't exactly something you can eradicate from your environment. Yeah, there's always a chance that an emitted particle could hit a living cell and damage it, but the fewer particles there are, the lower the probability.

The bit about personal injury lawyers is the scariest. :P How will they ever prove that the fraction of a millirad per hour added by the countertop was the cause of someone's cancer, when the patient comes into contact with plenty of other radioactive things every day? Should mountain climbers and geologists consider this an occupational hazard?

[particle-person.livejournal.com]

But... there's radiation everywhere.

Well yeah, and there's cancer everywhere too (for a variety of reasons, of course, not just background radiation). I'm not being alarmist, and I don't think anyone needs to be. Testing for radon now and then is something to consider, but I think that's done anyway. On the list of things to worry about, this is probably worth more serious concern than cellphone radiation, which isn't even ionizing, and less than crossing busy streets at night.

ETA: It also occurs to me that people are misinterpreting my original comment. I was taking issue with the idea that low levels of radiation might be good for you (as opposed to "not that bad for you"), not saying we should be terrified of background radiation from kitchen counters.

[alitalf.livejournal.com]

Though, as a side issue, I prefer to use hands free rather than holding a cellphone right next to my head if I am going to have a long conversation (though I don't bother for a minute or three). I know a couple of other people who do or have worked on radio design and take minimal precautions, because evidence shows that there is at least a slight biological effect for long term exposure to the levels of radio waves you get within a few inches of a cellphone. Cells express heat-shock proteins to a greater extent than explained by the actual heating effect.

Significant unprotected exposure to the sun is likely much more dangerous than any of what we have been discussing.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

Weird coincidence: I'm in Charlottetown at the moment, and one of the monuments hereabouts includes a large rock from each of the provinces as well as the federal government's contribution.

The contribution of my birth province of Saskatchewan?

Granite.

Thankfully, whatever radiation it's putting out is overwhelmed by its own exposure to the elements of wind, rain and shine.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

Meh... so long as the exposure is less than the equivalent ionizing dose from direct sunlight or atmospheric carbon-14, I'm not going to worry about radon from granite.

-- Steve's thinking that a countertop would have to be cut from a high-grade uranium ore-bearing slab of granite to be a serious threat... and you're not going to see much of that on the market.

PS: If you really are worried, the article said the "high"-level measurements came from exotic and therefor expensive samples. That means going for the bog-standard stuff should be fine.

[kallisti.livejournal.com]

I remember an article saying that most New Yorkers get a larger radiation dosage from Grand Central Station, which is mostly made of Granite, than the average worker in a Canadian nuclear plant.

ttyl

[allasomething.livejournal.com]

What kind of granite were you thinking of? Cos a darker "granite" - a gabbro, diorite or granodiorite, say - would be much safer radioactivity wise than your lighter ones (i.e. anything with pink/potassium feldspar in it). Slate is very pretty as a bench top though. I want a really interesting lacquered sandstone/shale with fossils when I do up a kitchen...

Graniteland has some pretty things... though I cringe at the allocation of some of the stone types as "granite"; Conglomerate is not a granite... is it really that hard?...