While we are on the subject of dangerious substances consider:
DIHYDROGEN MONOOXIDE: The vapor can cause sever burns, the condensate if breathed can cause death by drowning and the solid form can freeze body tissue leading to loss of that tissue.
most radioactive buildings in all of Britain is the Marischal College at University of Aberdeen ( second or third largest granite building on the planet). As I recall G.P. Thompson (JJ Thompson's son) did some of the early quantum mechanical experiements on electrons there.
And back to the original topic: which is more carcinogenic -- the radon coming out of granite or the nasty chemical binders in solid surface or quartz chip like silestone?
The activity varies, a lot. Most granites are somewhat hotter than most sedimentary stone, but the sedimentary stone at the Okla mine is probably hotter than any granite.
University of Akron and Consumer Reports results, and they tested the same granites that were reported on the in NY article, the radon levels in Dr. Sugarman=92s kitchen were incorrectly measured or reported, due to a different source, or her kitchen was extraordinarily poorly vented.
But with at least 900 kinds of granite from 63 countries being available in the US, I expect U of A and CR didn't test them all just yet.
Robatoy wrote in news:49bf588d-fe2b-4be0-9806- snipped-for-privacy@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
I expect that anyone who was alive during the 50's and early 60's is more radioactive than someone who died before 1945 or was born after 196whatever when the test ban treaty went into effect (Google it yourself).
BTW, the fact that the granite under New York is of a type containing rather more radioactivity shold not deter you from subsidizing the subway mode of rapid transit.
NYC Subway works rather well, even for an outsider. It seems like the only choice of getting in and out of Manhattan as parking fees are just insane.
Interesting observation about subway technology. In Montreal, they run on rubber tires, in Toronto, on regular railroad-style wheels. Toronto's are quieter. (From an NRC Canada research finding, something I discovered during my research there.)
I am a huge proponent of hub & spoke subterranean people movers. Attach a subway system to a nuclear power plant, and Bob's your uncle. (Unless you get those horribly out-dated union attitudes in there, then we're all screwed.)
Robatoy wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
Not sure I understand exaactly what you mean with hub and spoke. Everywhere outside to just 1 center goes only so far. Both NY and Paris have what I would consider better systems than that, in that the "center" load is spread out.
Robatoy wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
Yes, I drove in to Manhattan for a while (~30 years ago), but the wear and tear on the system is just too much, even apart from the costs.
The Paris rubber lines do seem quieter than the other lines, but I think that track and equipment tolerances and upkeep are much more important to perceived sound levels.
Hub & Spoke is where major lines cris-cross at several different places. Not in the Purolator model, where is just one hub... I should have said hubS and Spokes. IOW, to be able to change trains at many locations...or stay on to your destination. For instance, you can (in Toronto) get to Bloor & Yonge from Union Station in more ways than one.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.