ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Enviroblog is a project of EWG Action Fund.
FEED
An EWG podcast for environmental health news on the go.
TIPS
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblg.
BLOGROLL
STAY CONNECTED
Get our monthly eNewsletter, action alerts, & environmental tips. [Privacy policy, About EWG]
Eco-nomics, the new kind of economics
Please don't disrupt my endocrines!
FEATURED
Please don't disrupt my endocrines!
Consumers to FDA: Be there or be square
Lead: Celebrate its ban, but don't cross it off your list
7 ways to reduce your exposure to PBDEs
Ask EWG
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
SEARCH
« PB&J for a better world | Main | Oil spill in the sky »
An ounce of prevention is worth more than a granite countertop
So I was reading this New York Times article on radon off-gassing from granite countertops, and I was intrigued by this passage:
The E.P.A. recommends taking action if radon gas levels in the home exceeds 4 picocuries per liter of air (a measure of radioactive emission); about the same risk for cancer as smoking a half a pack of cigarettes per day.
Now, I'm not a smoker. In fact, I'm asthmatic, and people I love have been killed by smoking-related cancers. There's no doubt about it: I'm biased against cigarette smoking. So maybe it's unrealistic of me to think that if someone I loved was smoking -- even less than half a pack a day -- and all I had to do to get them to stop was take away the cigarettes. . . does this seem obvious to anyone else?
But maybe that confuses the issue. After all, there are complex politics around cigarettes, but I don't think many people would argue over their right to have radioactive granite countertops in their houses, when there are safer options (including safer granite options) available. Which is what Dr. David J. Brenner of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University was getting at when he said
“It makes sense. If you can choose another counter that doesn’t elevate your risk, however slightly, why wouldn’t you?”
And you know, I think that's true of most of the toxic exposures we talk about in this neck of the blogosphere. I'm always puzzled by the people who want to wait until there's conclusive evidence of extensive harm to human health before making changes to their lifestyles or the law. By then, the damage is already done. If we can prevent it from happening, shouldn't we?
Need to get your counter tested?
For radon testing, the Times recommends contacting the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists or ordering a kit from the EPA or your local indoor air environment office.
Photo by dotpolka.
Comments
I agree! This is something I cannot understand either - why do people wait; how many should die until we learn? Another thing I cannot understand is the lack of care from our government institutions. Why not applying the rule "better safe than sorry" (as the E.U. does). Does the "cruelty free" slogan applies only to animals?
Posted by: Lucia | August 1, 2008 4:59 PM
We understand why people are alarmed by this story, but the Marble Institute of America wants to assure people that the granite most commonly used in U.S. countertops is safe. In fact, the highest radon emissions ever reported in scientific studies are still lower than the EPA’s guidelines. The MIA recognizes that radon and radiation may vary by sample, but studies have yet to find any stone that poses any significant health risk. Unfortunately, much of the confusion is being created by inconsistent methodologies used in measuring radon emissions from granite countertops. The MIA is working to help develop testing standards to eliminate the inconsistencies.
Benson Kelsey, Cohn & Wolfe on behalf of the Marble Institute of America
Posted by: Benson Kelsey | August 4, 2008 6:13 PM