/PRNewswire/ -- After nearly 100,000 members of the public called for protecting the Grand Canyon from mining, a Pew Environment Group ad (http://www.pewminingreform.org/pdf/WishAd.pdf) today urged Congress to support legislation that would permanently ban new mining claims on public lands surrounding the park. Under the antiquated mining law of 1872, more than one thousand uranium mining claims have been staked just outside park boundaries.
H.R. 644, authored by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), chair of the House National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee, would protect approximately one million acres of U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands surrounding Grand Canyon National Park from new mining claims. The bill would make permanent a moratorium on claim staking called for in July by U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
As the initial public comment period for the Department of Interior's environmental review of the withdrawal proposal ended October 30, 98,355 messages had been received in support. Called for by Grijalva and Representative Nick Rahall (D-WVA), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, along with Pew and other conservation groups, the withdrawal is a response to federal data that show thousands of mining claims within five miles of Grand Canyon, Death Valley, Arches and other national parks.
"Presidents since Theodore Roosevelt have recognized that the Grand Canyon, America's national icon, must be preserved for future generations to enjoy," said Jane Danowitz, director of Pew Environment Group's public lands program. "Now it's time for Congress to safeguard the Grand Canyon from threats posed by the 1872 mining law and permanently protect this natural wonder."
Roughly five million people from around the world visit the Grand Canyon each year. The Colorado River, which has shaped the canyon's dramatic twists and turns, is an important source of water for more than 25 million people downstream. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Southern Nevada Water Authority have both raised concerns about uranium mining near the Grand Canyon.
Hardrock mining is responsible for the largest toxic releases in the United States, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The 1872 law allows corporations and individuals "free and open access" to more than 350 million acres of public lands across the West, resulting in $1 billion annually of gold, uranium and other metals mined from public lands without payment of a royalty, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Monday, December 22, 2008
Concerned for Your Child's Asthma? Pollution Near Schools May Be the Problem
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The nation's focus has returned to the safety of our schools with the second article by USA TODAY in a series on school siting. Working closely with the Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ), USA TODAY examined the environmental danger of a school located in the shadow of one of our nation's largest oil refineries. Wyandotte Early Education Center serves local 4 year-olds, whose developing lungs are particularly susceptible to the sulfuric acid, naphthalene, ammonia and benzene that the ExxonMobil plant belches into the surrounding air.
The refinery has already been fined by the EPA for failing to monitor and control sulfur gasses that can cause respiratory illness as part of $6.1 million dollars in penalties levied against ExxonMobil last week. Meanwhile, local doctors take note of unusually high rates of asthma and respiratory illness among students.
"Asthma is a direct result of air pollution and asthma is the number one reason for school absences," said Lois Gibbs, Executive Director of CHEJ. "Industries that are permitted to release toxics into the air must be monitored very carefully and, if in violation, brought into compliance immediately. Too often the industry gets away with violations over and over again without serious penalties. We protect our children by law with seat belts, car seats, bike helmets, and from negligent and abusive parents - toxic pollution should be no different." CHEJ recommends adopting the following model laws for states and as guidelines for the EPA http://www.childproofing.org/school_siting_model_legislation.htm
In December 2007, President Bush signed Subtitle E of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, instructing the EPA to develop the nation's first-ever school siting guidelines to give state legislatures direction in where schools may be physically located in relationship to toxic contamination sites. The EPA has been given a deadline of June, 2009. Nothing has been done since congress passed this directive. No one has even been given the responsibility for this task.
Meanwhile, communities struggle to relocate schools away from industrial plants emitting toxic levels of air pollutants. USA Today had identified over 20,000 of these schools located within a half mile of a major industrial plant.
"No one should have to file a lawsuit to ensure that their kids go to school on sites that are weren't used for the disposal of hazardous waste," says Steve Fischbach of Rhode Island Legal Services who has fought legal battles to pass rudimentary school siting guidelines in Rhode Island.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The refinery has already been fined by the EPA for failing to monitor and control sulfur gasses that can cause respiratory illness as part of $6.1 million dollars in penalties levied against ExxonMobil last week. Meanwhile, local doctors take note of unusually high rates of asthma and respiratory illness among students.
"Asthma is a direct result of air pollution and asthma is the number one reason for school absences," said Lois Gibbs, Executive Director of CHEJ. "Industries that are permitted to release toxics into the air must be monitored very carefully and, if in violation, brought into compliance immediately. Too often the industry gets away with violations over and over again without serious penalties. We protect our children by law with seat belts, car seats, bike helmets, and from negligent and abusive parents - toxic pollution should be no different." CHEJ recommends adopting the following model laws for states and as guidelines for the EPA http://www.childproofing.org/school_siting_model_legislation.htm
In December 2007, President Bush signed Subtitle E of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, instructing the EPA to develop the nation's first-ever school siting guidelines to give state legislatures direction in where schools may be physically located in relationship to toxic contamination sites. The EPA has been given a deadline of June, 2009. Nothing has been done since congress passed this directive. No one has even been given the responsibility for this task.
Meanwhile, communities struggle to relocate schools away from industrial plants emitting toxic levels of air pollutants. USA Today had identified over 20,000 of these schools located within a half mile of a major industrial plant.
"No one should have to file a lawsuit to ensure that their kids go to school on sites that are weren't used for the disposal of hazardous waste," says Steve Fischbach of Rhode Island Legal Services who has fought legal battles to pass rudimentary school siting guidelines in Rhode Island.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
FDA, EPA and USDA Conclude That Accidental Release of Genetically Engineered Cotton Poses No Safety Risk to Humans or Animals
The U.S. government announced today that there is no food or feed safety concern from an incident in which a small portion of an unauthorized genetically engineered (GE) cotton variety was harvested along with commercially available GE cotton.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) are working together following notification by the Monsanto Company that a small amount--less than an acre--of an unauthorized GE cotton variety was harvested along with 54 acres of a commercially available GE cotton variety. This unauthorized GE cotton variety produces a pesticide that is a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) nearly identical to a registered product already in a marketed corn variety. EPA and FDA have concluded that there are no food or feed safety concerns related to this incident. Also, if animals had consumed meal made from the unauthorized GE cotton variety, there would be no residues in the meat, milk or eggs. Additionally, USDA has determined that the unauthorized GE cotton poses no plant pest concerns.
According to Monsanto, an estimated 60 tons of cottonseed was harvested, of which less than 0.5 percent was from the unauthorized GE cotton variety. Government policies for handling low-level presence (LLP) of unauthorized materials are applicable to incidents in which unauthorized materials become inadvertently mixed with commercial grain or seed. FDA, EPA and USDA are working together to investigate the matter.
The U.S. government is investigating whether a small amount of meal from the unauthorized GE cotton variety may have been inadvertently released into the animal feed supply. It is important to note that it has not been determined whether unauthorized cottonseed meal actually entered the feed supply. The processor is holding potentially affected material (both processed and unprocessed) pending further investigation.
Based on additional data provided by Monsanto on the protein produced in the GE cotton--a variant of Cry 1A 105 that acts as a pesticide against cotton insect pests--EPA has concluded that there would be no risk to animals consuming small amounts of feed from the unauthorized cotton, nor to humans from consuming meat or milk from these animals. While EPA has concluded that consuming small amounts of the cottonseed poses no food or animal feed safety risks, under that Agency’s LLP policy, the presence of this material in food or feed would be illegal.
FDA, USDA and EPA are the three government entities primarily responsible for regulatory oversight of GE crop plants and their products. Their responsibilities are complementary. FDA has jurisdiction over food and feed uses of all foods from plants. USDA has jurisdiction over the introduction into the environment of GE plants which may be plant pests. EPA regulates pesticides produced by GE plants such as the pesticidal protein produced by the cotton in this case. These pesticides are called PIPs.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) are working together following notification by the Monsanto Company that a small amount--less than an acre--of an unauthorized GE cotton variety was harvested along with 54 acres of a commercially available GE cotton variety. This unauthorized GE cotton variety produces a pesticide that is a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) nearly identical to a registered product already in a marketed corn variety. EPA and FDA have concluded that there are no food or feed safety concerns related to this incident. Also, if animals had consumed meal made from the unauthorized GE cotton variety, there would be no residues in the meat, milk or eggs. Additionally, USDA has determined that the unauthorized GE cotton poses no plant pest concerns.
According to Monsanto, an estimated 60 tons of cottonseed was harvested, of which less than 0.5 percent was from the unauthorized GE cotton variety. Government policies for handling low-level presence (LLP) of unauthorized materials are applicable to incidents in which unauthorized materials become inadvertently mixed with commercial grain or seed. FDA, EPA and USDA are working together to investigate the matter.
The U.S. government is investigating whether a small amount of meal from the unauthorized GE cotton variety may have been inadvertently released into the animal feed supply. It is important to note that it has not been determined whether unauthorized cottonseed meal actually entered the feed supply. The processor is holding potentially affected material (both processed and unprocessed) pending further investigation.
Based on additional data provided by Monsanto on the protein produced in the GE cotton--a variant of Cry 1A 105 that acts as a pesticide against cotton insect pests--EPA has concluded that there would be no risk to animals consuming small amounts of feed from the unauthorized cotton, nor to humans from consuming meat or milk from these animals. While EPA has concluded that consuming small amounts of the cottonseed poses no food or animal feed safety risks, under that Agency’s LLP policy, the presence of this material in food or feed would be illegal.
FDA, USDA and EPA are the three government entities primarily responsible for regulatory oversight of GE crop plants and their products. Their responsibilities are complementary. FDA has jurisdiction over food and feed uses of all foods from plants. USDA has jurisdiction over the introduction into the environment of GE plants which may be plant pests. EPA regulates pesticides produced by GE plants such as the pesticidal protein produced by the cotton in this case. These pesticides are called PIPs.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Plantation Pipe Line Will Pay Penalty for Fuel Spills in Va., N.C., Ga.
PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Plantation Pipe Line Company, Alpharetta, Ga., has agreed to pay a civil penalty and implement safeguards in order to resolve a Clean Water Act lawsuit over fuel pipeline spills in three states, the Justice Department, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state of North Carolina announced.
The company has agreed to pay a $725,000 penalty for discharges of jet fuel and gasoline in Virginia, Georgia and North Carolina, and for inadequate spill prevention safeguards at a Virginia facility. The company also has agreed to implement $1.3 million in new spill prevention safeguards.
"Companies like Plantation Pipe Line that operate oil production infrastructure have a responsibility to ensure the safety and integrity of their operations," said Ronald J. Tenpas, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. "We continue to work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce this nation's environmental laws."
"Federal oil pollution prevention requirements, along with regular pipeline upgrades, are designed to prevent the kinds of oil spills that have occurred on Plantation's pipeline system," said Donald Welsh, administrator for EPA's mid-Atlantic region. "The pipeline upgrades required in this settlement will help protect the environment by preventing future spills."
"Oil spills can cause significant harm to the environment," said Jimmy Palmer, EPA Regional Administrator in Atlanta. "EPA will continue to ensure that facilities handling oils follow established procedures to minimize risk to our water and sensitive ecosystems."
The lawsuit cited Plantation for four separate fuel spills from 2000 to 2006, totaling 1,005 barrels (or 42,210 gallons):
-- On Nov. 27, 2006, at least 97 barrels of gasoline leaked from a
Plantation pipeline in Mecklenburg County, N.C., some flowing into Paw
Creek.
-- On Feb. 22, 2003, at least 788 barrels of gasoline spilled from a
pipeline in Hull, Ga., some entering a tributary of East Sandy Creek.
-- On Mar. 13, 2002, at least 20 barrels of jet fuel were discharged from
a pipeline in Alexandria, Va., some flowing to a tributary of Hooff
Run.
-- On Jan. 10, 2000, at least 100 barrels of jet fuel leaked from a
pipeline in Newington, Va., some of which spilled into Accotink Creek.
The lawsuit also cited Plantation Pipe Line for failing to prepare and implement a required spill prevention, control and countermeasure plan for a 420,000-gallon oil storage tank at its Newington, Va., facility.
The settlement requires Plantation to pay a $715,000 penalty to the federal government's Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and $10,000 to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. In addition, the company will implement $1.3 million in spill prevention safeguards, including upgrades to pipelines and excavating buried valves to improve regular inspection capabilities.
The Clean Water Act prohibits discharges of oil into waterways and coastal areas in quantities that may be harmful to the environment or public health. Oil spills threaten both fresh water and marine environments, harming plant and animal life through physical damage and the toxicity of the oil itself, which may poison exposed organisms. For more information on the effects and cleanups of oil spills, visit: http://www.epa.gov/oilspill.
The proposed consent decree, filed by the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of EPA and North Carolina, is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval. A copy of the proposed consent decree is available on the Justice Department Web site at www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.
-----
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
The company has agreed to pay a $725,000 penalty for discharges of jet fuel and gasoline in Virginia, Georgia and North Carolina, and for inadequate spill prevention safeguards at a Virginia facility. The company also has agreed to implement $1.3 million in new spill prevention safeguards.
"Companies like Plantation Pipe Line that operate oil production infrastructure have a responsibility to ensure the safety and integrity of their operations," said Ronald J. Tenpas, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. "We continue to work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce this nation's environmental laws."
"Federal oil pollution prevention requirements, along with regular pipeline upgrades, are designed to prevent the kinds of oil spills that have occurred on Plantation's pipeline system," said Donald Welsh, administrator for EPA's mid-Atlantic region. "The pipeline upgrades required in this settlement will help protect the environment by preventing future spills."
"Oil spills can cause significant harm to the environment," said Jimmy Palmer, EPA Regional Administrator in Atlanta. "EPA will continue to ensure that facilities handling oils follow established procedures to minimize risk to our water and sensitive ecosystems."
The lawsuit cited Plantation for four separate fuel spills from 2000 to 2006, totaling 1,005 barrels (or 42,210 gallons):
-- On Nov. 27, 2006, at least 97 barrels of gasoline leaked from a
Plantation pipeline in Mecklenburg County, N.C., some flowing into Paw
Creek.
-- On Feb. 22, 2003, at least 788 barrels of gasoline spilled from a
pipeline in Hull, Ga., some entering a tributary of East Sandy Creek.
-- On Mar. 13, 2002, at least 20 barrels of jet fuel were discharged from
a pipeline in Alexandria, Va., some flowing to a tributary of Hooff
Run.
-- On Jan. 10, 2000, at least 100 barrels of jet fuel leaked from a
pipeline in Newington, Va., some of which spilled into Accotink Creek.
The lawsuit also cited Plantation Pipe Line for failing to prepare and implement a required spill prevention, control and countermeasure plan for a 420,000-gallon oil storage tank at its Newington, Va., facility.
The settlement requires Plantation to pay a $715,000 penalty to the federal government's Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and $10,000 to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. In addition, the company will implement $1.3 million in spill prevention safeguards, including upgrades to pipelines and excavating buried valves to improve regular inspection capabilities.
The Clean Water Act prohibits discharges of oil into waterways and coastal areas in quantities that may be harmful to the environment or public health. Oil spills threaten both fresh water and marine environments, harming plant and animal life through physical damage and the toxicity of the oil itself, which may poison exposed organisms. For more information on the effects and cleanups of oil spills, visit: http://www.epa.gov/oilspill.
The proposed consent decree, filed by the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of EPA and North Carolina, is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval. A copy of the proposed consent decree is available on the Justice Department Web site at www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.
-----
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
What's Lurking in Your Granite Countertop Can Kill You!
TT Note: Whoa, Nelly. What's this? Slick marketing or is it more? Funny how there appears to be no "solid" evidence of the claims made by the nonprofit that appears to be funded by someone who benefits. Oh the other hand..........I guess perhaps they can't bite the hand that feeds them.
But then again, those of us who live anywhere near "radon central - big granite outcrop" most likely don't have to worry about a few extra linear feet in our homes. Gee, I wonder who wrote this story?? Must have been someone who is between a rock and a hard place.
24-7 - When marketing a product, one expects a bit of hype. The idea is to show that the product is the best over the competitor's line of product. That is the trade of advertisers and the history of marketing. Some tactics used to sell can be humorous or as serious as the competition between manufacturers. Marketing tactics that play on fears of the general public can be a very powerful tool.
In the present day, there's a very popular angle of "green." This is prevalent everywhere in the media. So what happens when you mix a scare tactic under the guise of environmental concern?
Buildclean found the answer to that question. The premise seems of the nonprofit organization seems to be admirable but the fact that the "awareness campaign" that Buildclean is currently using seems to be curiously slanted. In fact, the target seems to be the natural stone industry.
When Sara Selber of BuildClean was asked how she got involved in natural stone and radon, she explained how she was approached by the owner of C&C North America, a company that produces two products - granite and a quartz product called Silestone.
"C&C North America then recruited a quartz company called Cambria, after they learned quartz was an issue, she further explained that the two companies hired her to test quartz, granite and other surfaces for radon emission. Both companies are testing their products through BuildClean, and they contracted two labs - one in New York and one in Israel.
We have looked all over the C&C website but cannot find any mention of natural stone.
When ask what granites emit radon, Sara Selber said; "Not all granites emit radon or radiation. There are some that clearly do. There are some that absolutely don't. We don't know," she said.
They're being set up as a non-profit, and they're funded with two large donations.
The first is $250,000 from the makers of 'Silestone.' They manufacture quartz countertops, which is a direct competitor to granite. Silestone finance records show that they started out in April of 1998 with a an initial investment of $410K, made there first million in 1998, sales in 2002 was over $70M, and sales in 2006 was well over $260M. it is not hard to see that they have the money to invest $250,000 in a new advertising campaign.
BuildClean is also getting money from Cambria, another quartz manufacturer. In fact, Cambria's marketing director is on BuildClean's board of directors.
When asked about the funding Sara responds: I don't believe the issue is who our founders are. And I'm not going to have that debate." That answer seems to be clear enough.
In a recent interview Mrs. Selber mentions teaming up with Al Gerhart who has some interest in the granite radon scare.
Al Gerhart is a carpenter who happens to own a website called the Solid Surface Alliance .org. He educated himself, regarding materials he works with that may expose him to harmful elements.
Upon further review it seems this "personality" is well known for his view of natural stone. All one has to do is look at the website to get the gist of his viewpoint. Coincidentally, there also seems to be a new business venture for Solid Surface Alliance as the website now sells Geiger counters to detect radiation...
His debates have earned him quite a place online in forums discussing the subject.
After a certain debate on a well known residential forum, a renowned geoscientist in the industry concluded:
"Al attempts to hijack debates by choking the system with verbal diarrhea. The problem appears to be that he has a bit of knowledge about some things but not enough sense and understanding of the subjects. In that debate on the Garden Forum he threw in so many fabrications (plain made up lies) that his credibility just plummeted to zero.
Anyone who operates this way (by including a number of facts to gain an element of credibility in the eyes of a generally uninformed audience, twisting facts deliberately or because of his lack of understanding, and then throwing in a number of lies) does not deserve extended airtime. Many years ago when doing science psychology I still remember my professor giving the advice to his students that you should never engage a nutter in debate. You can never win an argument with such people. I recognized this early in the forum and that is why I would not engage him in "debate".
One of his major problems is that he does not know what the numbers mean and how they are derived."
In response to the BuildClean(TM) tactics, The Marble Institute of America is in the process of doing their own independent study:
"The Marble Institute of America (MIA) is grateful for the preliminary response from the members to the newly established Truth About Granite Fund. Based on this positive response, it's clear that their colleagues share their commitment to protect consumers from needless fear mongering by establishing standards for the testing of granite so consumers can safely and comfortably enjoy the beauty, durability and practicality of this natural stone."
When we asked the MIA why Sara Speer Selber consider The Truth About Granite Fund as a draconian move that is being waged against BuildClean(TM), they simple responded:
"The Truth About Granite Fund was established to help raise funds to develop unbiased, scientific standards for the granite industry, including the testing of granite for radon. No such standards currently exist in the natural stone industry. Previous tests of granite samples have found they are safe. However, the Truth in Granite Fund aims to take advantage of new, advanced scientific instruments that make testing both more practical and more accurate. Our goal is to make sure testing follows consistent protocols, so that future studies are meaningful and based on consistent, approved science - not isolated methodologies or unapproved instruments. Ultimately, our goal is to make sure the granite we sell is safe."
This latest sales tactic received the attention of an independent group called the Natural Stone Restoration Alliance (NSRA). The NSRA saw Radon testing as an added service that their members could provide to the homeowners along with all their other services for natural stone. Josveek Huligar, one of the lead testers and trainer for the NSRA , invited times Members of the Solid Surface Alliance dot org to discuss and provide proof of this threat to the home owners.
The Solid Surface Alliance dot org agreed to provide an alleged radiation producing granite sample that they claim to have in their possession to do independent testing. After an initial agreement between the two groups it seems the Solid Surface Alliance dot org has reneged on the delivery of the alleged material. Mr Huligar was disappointed of the outcome. The NSRA than requested the name of the company that Mr. Gerhart claimed to just have rejected over 10k worth of radon producing granite. When the information was not provided, Huligar ask if he could purchase the next slab that Mr. Gerhart rejected. But for some reason Mr. Gerhart could no longer find a sample for testing. Mr. Huligar went on to say: "All we care about at this point. As for whether are not Stone adds a measurable amount of "radon" in a home, Mr. Gerhart had agreed to come to NY and pick out a hot slab that I would place in my own home after testing my home for radon. Once the granite was installed I would test my home again as described by the EPA and have it tested by someone approved by the EPA. Not only would we do the short and long term test, we would also video tape the whole event, the selection, the creation, the install, and than setting up cameras for anyone to view the stone and meters on the net. I was looking forward to do this, but at this time it appears that Mr. Gerhart has no plans on doing as he said which is a big disappointment."
The NSRA plans to push for this simple test, they feel that the consumers only care about one thing; "whether or not adding granite in your home would significantly change the radon levels in a home". At present, the most prudent consumer should watch the outcome of this debate and make an informed decision, not taken in by a scare tactic by advertisers.
EPA Confirms That Granite Countertops Pose No Significant Health Risk. Click here to read their story.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
But then again, those of us who live anywhere near "radon central - big granite outcrop" most likely don't have to worry about a few extra linear feet in our homes. Gee, I wonder who wrote this story?? Must have been someone who is between a rock and a hard place.
24-7 - When marketing a product, one expects a bit of hype. The idea is to show that the product is the best over the competitor's line of product. That is the trade of advertisers and the history of marketing. Some tactics used to sell can be humorous or as serious as the competition between manufacturers. Marketing tactics that play on fears of the general public can be a very powerful tool.
In the present day, there's a very popular angle of "green." This is prevalent everywhere in the media. So what happens when you mix a scare tactic under the guise of environmental concern?
Buildclean found the answer to that question. The premise seems of the nonprofit organization seems to be admirable but the fact that the "awareness campaign" that Buildclean is currently using seems to be curiously slanted. In fact, the target seems to be the natural stone industry.
When Sara Selber of BuildClean was asked how she got involved in natural stone and radon, she explained how she was approached by the owner of C&C North America, a company that produces two products - granite and a quartz product called Silestone.
"C&C North America then recruited a quartz company called Cambria, after they learned quartz was an issue, she further explained that the two companies hired her to test quartz, granite and other surfaces for radon emission. Both companies are testing their products through BuildClean, and they contracted two labs - one in New York and one in Israel.
We have looked all over the C&C website but cannot find any mention of natural stone.
When ask what granites emit radon, Sara Selber said; "Not all granites emit radon or radiation. There are some that clearly do. There are some that absolutely don't. We don't know," she said.
They're being set up as a non-profit, and they're funded with two large donations.
The first is $250,000 from the makers of 'Silestone.' They manufacture quartz countertops, which is a direct competitor to granite. Silestone finance records show that they started out in April of 1998 with a an initial investment of $410K, made there first million in 1998, sales in 2002 was over $70M, and sales in 2006 was well over $260M. it is not hard to see that they have the money to invest $250,000 in a new advertising campaign.
BuildClean is also getting money from Cambria, another quartz manufacturer. In fact, Cambria's marketing director is on BuildClean's board of directors.
When asked about the funding Sara responds: I don't believe the issue is who our founders are. And I'm not going to have that debate." That answer seems to be clear enough.
In a recent interview Mrs. Selber mentions teaming up with Al Gerhart who has some interest in the granite radon scare.
Al Gerhart is a carpenter who happens to own a website called the Solid Surface Alliance .org. He educated himself, regarding materials he works with that may expose him to harmful elements.
Upon further review it seems this "personality" is well known for his view of natural stone. All one has to do is look at the website to get the gist of his viewpoint. Coincidentally, there also seems to be a new business venture for Solid Surface Alliance as the website now sells Geiger counters to detect radiation...
His debates have earned him quite a place online in forums discussing the subject.
After a certain debate on a well known residential forum, a renowned geoscientist in the industry concluded:
"Al attempts to hijack debates by choking the system with verbal diarrhea. The problem appears to be that he has a bit of knowledge about some things but not enough sense and understanding of the subjects. In that debate on the Garden Forum he threw in so many fabrications (plain made up lies) that his credibility just plummeted to zero.
Anyone who operates this way (by including a number of facts to gain an element of credibility in the eyes of a generally uninformed audience, twisting facts deliberately or because of his lack of understanding, and then throwing in a number of lies) does not deserve extended airtime. Many years ago when doing science psychology I still remember my professor giving the advice to his students that you should never engage a nutter in debate. You can never win an argument with such people. I recognized this early in the forum and that is why I would not engage him in "debate".
One of his major problems is that he does not know what the numbers mean and how they are derived."
In response to the BuildClean(TM) tactics, The Marble Institute of America is in the process of doing their own independent study:
"The Marble Institute of America (MIA) is grateful for the preliminary response from the members to the newly established Truth About Granite Fund. Based on this positive response, it's clear that their colleagues share their commitment to protect consumers from needless fear mongering by establishing standards for the testing of granite so consumers can safely and comfortably enjoy the beauty, durability and practicality of this natural stone."
When we asked the MIA why Sara Speer Selber consider The Truth About Granite Fund as a draconian move that is being waged against BuildClean(TM), they simple responded:
"The Truth About Granite Fund was established to help raise funds to develop unbiased, scientific standards for the granite industry, including the testing of granite for radon. No such standards currently exist in the natural stone industry. Previous tests of granite samples have found they are safe. However, the Truth in Granite Fund aims to take advantage of new, advanced scientific instruments that make testing both more practical and more accurate. Our goal is to make sure testing follows consistent protocols, so that future studies are meaningful and based on consistent, approved science - not isolated methodologies or unapproved instruments. Ultimately, our goal is to make sure the granite we sell is safe."
This latest sales tactic received the attention of an independent group called the Natural Stone Restoration Alliance (NSRA). The NSRA saw Radon testing as an added service that their members could provide to the homeowners along with all their other services for natural stone. Josveek Huligar, one of the lead testers and trainer for the NSRA , invited times Members of the Solid Surface Alliance dot org to discuss and provide proof of this threat to the home owners.
The Solid Surface Alliance dot org agreed to provide an alleged radiation producing granite sample that they claim to have in their possession to do independent testing. After an initial agreement between the two groups it seems the Solid Surface Alliance dot org has reneged on the delivery of the alleged material. Mr Huligar was disappointed of the outcome. The NSRA than requested the name of the company that Mr. Gerhart claimed to just have rejected over 10k worth of radon producing granite. When the information was not provided, Huligar ask if he could purchase the next slab that Mr. Gerhart rejected. But for some reason Mr. Gerhart could no longer find a sample for testing. Mr. Huligar went on to say: "All we care about at this point. As for whether are not Stone adds a measurable amount of "radon" in a home, Mr. Gerhart had agreed to come to NY and pick out a hot slab that I would place in my own home after testing my home for radon. Once the granite was installed I would test my home again as described by the EPA and have it tested by someone approved by the EPA. Not only would we do the short and long term test, we would also video tape the whole event, the selection, the creation, the install, and than setting up cameras for anyone to view the stone and meters on the net. I was looking forward to do this, but at this time it appears that Mr. Gerhart has no plans on doing as he said which is a big disappointment."
The NSRA plans to push for this simple test, they feel that the consumers only care about one thing; "whether or not adding granite in your home would significantly change the radon levels in a home". At present, the most prudent consumer should watch the outcome of this debate and make an informed decision, not taken in by a scare tactic by advertisers.
EPA Confirms That Granite Countertops Pose No Significant Health Risk. Click here to read their story.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
