[Dioxin-l] Reply

Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:22:03 -0800

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BF5B4C.28327220
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

David,
Your comment:

> One of the interesting things is that erring on the side of caution =
can have its costs. So currently, the US EPA estimates daily intake of =
dioxin TEQs as 1-4 ng/kg, or 100-400 times greater than the EPA =
recommended intake. It is not clear how one would get the level of =
dioxin TEQ intake down by 400 fold; it would certainly be an expensive =
undertaking. Some estimates are that it would cost in excess of the US =
GNP to reduce dioxin intakes to the US EPA=20
recommended levels; clearly you would only want to spend that money if =
there were to be a tangible benefit.

My reply:

One of the interesting things is that erring on the side of risk can =
have is costs, both to human health, shorter life spans, and to the =
economy in the form of high medical bills, lost productivity, etc.  I =
cannot comment on the validity of the EPAs numbers but plain old common =
sense tells me that here we are not even talking about erring on the =
side of risk.  If scientists already think our dioxin intake is too =
high, then we are talking about blatent disregard. This only makes it =
more urgent that we move quickly to do what we can to stop from =
increasing dioxin levels even further.  The answer is not to throw up =
our hands and give up. =20

Your comment:
> > > Given the recent postings about production of dioxins from =
uncontrolled burning, it may well be that the level of dioxin in the =
1800s largely stemmed from the incineration that the local populace =
undertook. It clearly wasn't the chemical industry.

 My initial reply:
> >Why is it clear chemicals were not implicated?

 Your reply:
> There was next to no organochlorine chemical industry in the late =
1800s, and=20
> precious little in America. Compare with hundreds of millions of tons =
of=20
> organochlorines produced in the 60s; as far as I am aware, there =
wasn't the=20
> technology to make, transport or a market to sell a million tons of=20
> organochlorine compound in the 1800s. So where did the environmental =
dioxin=20
> production come from in the 1800s? It still amounted to 10% of current =

> levels. I guess I can only think of uncontrolled burning; all =
suggestions=20
> welcome.

My reply:

I can come up with a reason other than uncontrolled burning that would =
implicate chlorine.  When we talked about dioxin in the late 1800s it =
was related to the Beaver Lake dioxin in sludge study that you brought =
to our attention.  We all know chemical pulping occurs on large bodies =
of water.  I think we both agreed that the mid 1950s dioxin =
contamination of this lake likely came from chlorine bleaching of pulp.  =
 What is in contention is what occurred early on.  Successful chemical =
pulping began in about 1851 and to the best of my knowledge, pulp was =
bleached with chlorine even before chemical pulping became the standard. =
 In the early 1800s British scientists already knew how to produce =
chlorine electrochemically, but because electricity was so expensive =
electrochemical chlorine production did not occur until the 1900s, and =
in the 1800s commercial chloirne was produced by oxidation of HCl with =
manganese dioxide or air.  I expect we'd all agree that early pulping =
and bleaching was done with nearly total disregard for the environment =
(not intentional disregard, but because industry was likely unaware of =
the problem brewing).   I don't know the size of Beaver Lake, or how =
many if any mills it supported, or if there was a chlorine plant on site =
to support pulp bleaching, but logic suggests the whole thing is related =
to pulp bleaching.  You brought up this study as evidence of some point. =
 Would you please let us know what industry was on this lake and when, =
so we can draw some intelligent conclusion from the data?

Connie

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BF5B4C.28327220
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#fffff0>
<DIV>David,
Your comment:
&gt; One of the interesting things is that erring =
on the side=20
of caution can have its costs. So currently, the US EPA estimates daily =
intake=20
of dioxin TEQs as 1-4 ng/kg, or 100-400 times greater than the EPA =
recommended=20
intake. It is not clear how one would get the level of dioxin TEQ intake =
down by=20
400 fold; it would certainly be an expensive undertaking. Some estimates =
are=20
that it would cost in excess of the US GNP to reduce dioxin intakes to =
the US=20
EPA recommended levels; clearly you would only want to spend that =
money if=20
there were to be a tangible benefit.
My reply:
One of the interesting things is that erring on the =
side of=20
risk can have is costs, both to human health, shorter life spans, and to =
the=20
economy in the form of high medical bills, lost productivity, etc.&nbsp; =
I=20
cannot comment on the validity of the EPAs numbers but plain old common =
sense=20
tells me that here we are not even talking about erring on the side of=20
risk.&nbsp; If scientists already think our dioxin intake is too high, =
then we=20
are talking about blatent disregard.&nbsp;This only makes it more urgent =
that we=20
move quickly to do what we can to stop from increasing dioxin levels =
even=20
further.&nbsp; The answer is not to throw up our hands and give =
up.&nbsp; 
 Your comment: &gt; &gt; &gt; Given the =
recent postings=20
about production of dioxins from uncontrolled burning, it may well be =
that the=20
level of dioxin in the 1800s largely stemmed from the incineration that =
the=20
local populace undertook. It clearly wasn't the chemical industry.
&nbsp;My initial reply: &gt; &gt;Why is it clear =
chemicals=20
were not implicated?
&nbsp;Your reply: &gt; There was next to no =
organochlorine=20
chemical industry in the late 1800s, and &gt; precious little in =
America.=20
Compare with hundreds of millions of tons of &gt; organochlorines =
produced=20
in the 60s; as far as I am aware, there wasn't the &gt; technology =
to make,=20
transport or a market to sell a million tons of &gt; organochlorine =
compound=20
in the 1800s. So where did the environmental dioxin &gt; production =
come=20
from in the 1800s? It still amounted to 10% of current &gt; levels. =
I guess=20
I can only think of uncontrolled burning; all suggestions &gt; =
welcome.
My reply:
I can come up with a reason other than uncontrolled =
burning=20
that would implicate chlorine.&nbsp; When we talked about dioxin in the =
late=20
1800s it was related to the Beaver Lake dioxin in sludge study that you =
brought=20
to our attention.&nbsp; We all know chemical pulping occurs on large =
bodies of=20
water.&nbsp; I think we both =
agreed that=20
the mid 1950s dioxin contamination of this lake likely came from =
chlorine=20
bleaching of pulp.&nbsp;&nbsp; What is in contention is what occurred =
early=20
on.&nbsp; Successful chemical pulping began in about 1851 and to the =
best of my=20
knowledge, pulp was bleached with chlorine even before chemical pulping =
became=20
the standard.&nbsp; In the early 1800s =
British=20
scientists already knew how to produce chlorine electrochemically, but =
because=20
electricity was so expensive electrochemical chlorine production did not =
occur=20
until the 1900s, and in the 1800s commercial chloirne was produced by =
oxidation=20
of HCl with manganese dioxide or air.&nbsp; I expect we'd all agree that =

early pulping and bleaching was done with nearly total disregard =
for the=20
environment (not intentional disregard, but because industry was likely =
unaware=20
of the problem brewing). &nbsp;&nbsp;I=20
don't know the size of Beaver Lake, or how many if any mills it =
supported, or if=20
there was a chlorine plant on site to support pulp bleaching, but logic =
suggests=20
the whole thing is related to pulp bleaching.&nbsp; You brought up this =
study as=20
evidence of some point.&nbsp; Would you please let us know what industry =
was on=20
this lake and when, so we can draw some intelligent conclusion from the=20
data?<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; =
mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; =
mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: =
AR-SA">Connie</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BF5B4C.28327220--