[Dioxin-l] Reply

[Henshel, Diane S.]

It seems to me the argument below could be settled with congener analysis.
Since incineration produces primarily the PCDFs and relatively little TCDD,
it should have a clear chemical signature very distinct from the chemical
signature released by kraft pulp bleaching processes, in which there is a
high percentage of TCDD contamination.
Has anyone got the congener data?

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 
> precious little in America. Compare with hundreds of millions of tons
of 
> organochlorines produced in the 60s; as far as I am aware, there
wasn't the 
> technology to make, transport or a market to sell a million tons of 
> organochlorine compound in the 1800s. So where did the environmental
dioxin 
> 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 
> 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