[Dioxin-l] Reply

[Carl Larkins]

Be careful. Under given circumstances, some congeners degrade more
rapidlym than others, plus, we Know nothing about the breakdown
process.  Does a highly chlorinated conger break down to ??

Carl Larkins

----- Original Message -----
From: Henshel, Diane S. <dhenshel@indiana.edu>
To: 'superjicb ' <superjicb@email.msn.com>;
<dioxin-l@lists.essential.org>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 4:49 PM
Subject: RE: [Dioxin-l] Reply


: 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
:
:
: _______________________________________________
: Dioxin-l mailing list
: Dioxin-l@lists.essential.org
: http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/dioxin-l
: