A correction to 3/20/2023 East Palestine dioxin post
And more on the dioxin conundrum, as well as why soil levels may not be good predictors of dioxin exposure.
This post serves as a correction and contextualization of the prior post, in which I overlooked some key values provided by the Pace Analytical report, as well as remarks made within The Guardian article. Because there is much to cover this post ended up becoming a much longer elaboration of the soil findings than was initially intended. Here, there still isn’t an answer for “which dioxin”, but provides further information as to why the search for dioxin levels in soil may not provide much with respect to exposure and toxicity risk for residents and those in the nearby area.
I want to elaborate on a needed correction for the post from Monday, 3/20/2023.
In that post I suggested that there were issues in figuring out what dioxin was being referred to in reports- does “dioxin” refer to the class of dioxin-like compounds or does it refer specifically to 2,3,7,8-TCDD specifically as that is considered to be the most toxic of the dioxins.
In reporting on The Guardian I made comments that I was unsure where the “hundreds of times” greater remark was in reference to, as I examined the Pace Analytical data in particular for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, noting that the results from the first sample suggested around 3 ppt of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in sample WS-1 which doesn’t corroborate that magnitude being reported.
However, as Pete Lincoln noted in the comments, the numbers used by The Guardian in their reporting was a number called a dioxin toxic equivalence shortened to TEQ. Because different dioxins show different levels of toxicity each compound is essentially provided a weighted number called a toxic equivalent factor (TEF) that references the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
For instance, 2,3,7,8-TCDD gets a TEF value of 1. Less toxic dioxins will get a value smaller than 1 and more toxic dioxins will get a larger value. The TEQ essentially weighs the dioxin content to provide a measure akin to the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Thus, the TEQ provides a frame of reference for the toxicity of the soil with respect to if it was just pure 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
The EPA provides this example for TEQ calculations and what this value represents:
A TEQ is calculated by multiplying the actual grams weight of each dioxin and dioxin-like compound by its corresponding TEF (e.g., 10 grams X 0.1 TEF = 1 gram TEQ) and then summing the results. The number that results from this calculation is referred to as grams TEQ.
For example, consider the following 60g mixture:
10g of compound A, with a TEF of 1
20g of compound B, with a TEF of 0.5
30g of compound C, with a TEF of 0.2.The TEQ of this mixture would be:
(10g x 1) + (20g x 0.5) + (30g x 0.2) = 26g TEQ,In other words, this mixture of 60g of various compounds would be as toxic as 26g of either of the two most toxic compounds.
In the reports from Pace Analytical the TEQ value is provided is in the bottom-right corner, with an example provided for sample WS-1 below:
Although I reported that the ppt for 2,3,7,8-TCDD was 3 ppt, the TEQ value provided for this sample is 110 ppt, which is a much higher value and infers that this mixture of dioxin is as toxic as 110 ppt of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
To that point, The Guardian provides this context in their reporting (emphasis mine):
Regulators establish the toxicity of dioxins in a soil sample by calculating the “toxicity equivalence” of all dioxins in the soil compared with the most toxic dioxin compound, called 2,3,7,8 TCDD. East Palestine soil showed levels of “2,3,7,8 TCDD toxicity equivalence” of 700 parts per trillion (ppt). The level at which the EPA will initiate cleanup action in residential areas is 1,000 ppt.
However, the cleanup triggers are much lower in many states – 90 ppt in Michigan, and 50 ppt in California.
“So based on this, the concentrations are actually concerning,” said Carsten Prasse, an organic chemist at Johns Hopkins University and scientific adviser for SimpleLab. Federal cleanup standards of 1,000 ppt apply in Ohio.
Moreover, EPA scientists in 2010 put the cancer risk threshold for dioxins in residential soil at 3.7 ppt, and the agency recommended lowering the cleanup trigger to 72 ppt.
Note that the 700 ppt provided above is much higher than the 3 ppt I remarked upon, but whether the “hundreds of times greater” remark is appropriate will be examined further.
However, this value still doesn’t seem appropriate.
In looking at the data I was confused why the second sample was run twice, (WS-2 and WS-2 Dup, respectively).
However, when looking closer the second sample was the one that provided a TEQ of 700 ppt while the duplicate provided a value of 150 ppt- almost 1/5 the initial run value.
There’s not much to go off of here, but I assume that the results for the second sample were much higher than expected, leading to the duplicate run. For instance, there’s a large difference in some of the other dioxins and furans measured between the second sample and the duplicate run even though the values for 2,3,7,8-TCDD seem somewhat comparable:
Given the dates and time provided it does appear that they are from the same sample source, but again there doesn’t appear to be an explanation for this discrepancy (as far as I am aware).
Because of this I find it strange that the value reported by The Guardian (700 ppt) was used when this value has issues of accuracy. Of course, this issue can also explain why such limited sampling really can’t provide much information on the actual level of dioxin.
But what does this comparison of 2,3,7,8-TCDD tell us with respect to the TEQ value?
Well, if we compare the 3 ppt for 2,3,7,8-TCDD from sample WS-1 to the TEQ of 110 ppt that would at least tell us that the contribution of toxicity from 2,3,7,8-TCDD is much lower with respect to the other dioxins and furans, which also appear at much higher levels. Remember that the calculation for TEQ would still put 2,3,7,8-TCDD’s contribution to 3 ppt since it has a TEF value of 1, suggesting that the bulk of the TEQ value is derived from the other dioxins and furans.
This may suggest that other dioxins and furans should be looked at more closely, or it may suggest that the levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD may still be considered low given the limited information. The results are just made ambiguous due to the fact no one involved with the clean-up and testing have come out to explain how to interpret these results leaving us to have to assess the information independently.
Again, which “dioxin”?
It’s clear I overlooked the TEQ values in my reporting and should have payed closer attention, which I apologize for not recognizing earlier as I should have noticed that comment.
However, I still have difficulty in figuring out whether the values used are based solely on TEQ or of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in particular.
For instance, the EPA notice mentioned the following with respect to TEQ values for removal:
Based on this evaluation, OSWER considered EPA's currently recommended PRGs for CERCLA and RCRA sites (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedy/pdf/92-00426-s.pdf), which are 1 ppb (parts per billion) (or 1,000 ppt (parts per trillion)) for dioxin toxicity equivalents (TEQs) [] in residential soil, and a level within the range of 5 ppb (or 5,000 ppt) and 20 ppb (or 20,000 ppt) in commercial/industrial soil, where exposure is due to direct contact. Three key components of EPA's current recommended PRGs were re-evaluated: available toxicity values, generic exposure assumptions and the cancer risk level.
This is where The Guardian received the 1,000 ppt value from, which does use TEQ and would suggest that TEQ rather than values for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in particular should be used.
To this EPA notice, I will concede that it does appear the values used are with respect to TEQ and not 2,3,7,8-TCDD in particular, such as in the excerpt I cited in my previous post which I raised questions about:
Based on a consideration of oral and dermal exposures to dioxin, EPA has developed the following draft recommended interim PRGs for dioxin in soil: 72 ppt for residential soil and 950 ppt for commercial/industrial soil.
Note that the above is based on a carcinogenic risk assessment, which provides a value that assumes a 1 in 100,000 risk of developing cancer with the levels provided above, which is apparently a standard value used across other carcinogenic compounds.
In contrast, The Guardian cites the following numbers which are suggestions for much lower TEQ values:
In addition, consistent with the NCP (40 CFR 300.430(e)(2)(i)(A)), EPA is considering (and requesting comment on) an alternative concentration of 3.7 ppt TEQ in residential soil and 17 ppt TEQ in commercial/industrial soil as draft interim PRGs.
This number appears to be based on a 1 in 1 million carcinogenic risk assessment. However, this value is apparently below background levels of dioxin typically found in urban settings, and thus this lower threshold doesn’t provide much in comparison since the EPA probably won’t do cleanup for TEQ values within the background range, making this more specific number a more precarious one to use as many places would likely surpass that threshold.
Although this all seems technical, it’s important that consistency is deployed so that numbers are matched and compared appropriately.
Thus, should we use the 3.7 ppt and 17 ppt TEQ value even though that may be far below what would be expected in industrial environments such as East Palestine, or do we go with the 72 ppt and 950 ppt value, which would suggest the values in East Palestine are relatively high in comparison but not exactly in the hundreds of times higher?
Again, what exactly do we do with these numbers, and how do we use them in a manner that provides accurate descriptions for the exposure level and threat to the residents of East Palestine?
Since the derailment several meetings have taken place in East Palestine. I’m curious as to how many of these meetings ever bothered to spend time scouring through the results in detail to teach the residents of East Palestine how to look at these results and why the EPA considers them “safe”.
When I first started my Substack I remarked that the AIDS epidemic was met with those in the gay and black community actively spending time to look through the science as it came out, and engaged with scientists and doctors on more than just laymen’s terms to figure out what was going on.
Is this same level of knowledge dissemination and education occurring in East Palestine, or are people left to interpret things how they see fit, filling in gaps with information that may otherwise not be accurate, but done because those in charge don’t seem to be in the business of education those who have been affected.
Are dioxin soil levels good predictors?
Human exposure to dioxins occur predominately through the food chain via bioaccumulation.
Bioaccumulation and biomagnification is the aggregation of pollutants among animals in a food chain, in which animals higher up contain more concentrated levels of pollutants.
For instance, grass may grow in contaminated soils and accumulate some level of toxins from the environment. Animals such as goats and cows who feed on the grass will ingest the contaminated grass, concentrating the pollutants. If humans then eat these animals they will ingest a much more concentrated level than would be found in the grass alone. Thus, a movement up the food chain means a greater risk of consuming more pollutants from animals.
This is why, for the most part, soil levels of pollutants are a main concern for food sources as food production on contaminated soil may work their way up the food chain and become even more concentrated than what is seen in the soil alone.
Right now the focus on this dioxin scare has looked predominately at soil levels to determine exposure to dioxin from the fires. However, these levels only serve as proxy, essentially telling what is there after the dust has settled (literally).
The Guardian article remarks on an incident in Times Beach, Missouri in which dioxin contamination led to evacuation of the region.
In this event dioxin waste from a plant was mixed with used oil and sold to farmers and locals as a dust suppressant, causing the town to be doused in dioxin.
Which dioxin? The EPA website suggests that the dioxin in particular was 2,3,7,8-TCDD that was mixed with the oil:
The production of 2,4,5-T and hexachlorophene generates the hazardous by-product of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (dioxin), which is stored at the facility in tanks. Dioxin is highly toxic and can cause cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, damage to the immune system, and hormone interference.
Early 1970s: Waste oil hauler Russell Bliss is hired to remove dioxin from the tanks
Bliss then mixes the dioxin with waste oil. The mixture is used for dust suppression on dirt roads and horse tracks throughout Missouri. In fact, Bliss sprays more than 25 locations with the dioxin-contaminated mixture, including the town of Times Beach.
And in a 1983 report from the EPA they noted that this town, supposedly doused by 2,3,7,8-TCDD in particular, had levels of dioxin in the ppb range (emphasis mine):
Laboratory analysis of post-flood sampling along roadways (including the shoulders and ditches), houses and yards in Times Beach was completed a few days ago. Of some 255 samples, levels of dioxin in a few yards and in one home show levels of greater than 1 ppb and less than 5 ppb. Sample locations in streets, on shoulders and in ditches show levels from nondetectable up to 100 ppb.
These reports came after a huge flood washed over Times Beach, and so these measures aren’t accurate to what was at the top soil. It’s also worth noting that the evacuation was due to the flood, with concerns over the ensuing dioxin spread leading government officials to deem the community inhabitable.1
Whether looking at TEQ values or 2,3,7,8-TCDD in particular the levels here are considered much higher than was detected in East Palestine. But once again, this doesn’t tell us much about exposure to humans, but that levels were extremely high in the aftermath of the flood.
As noted by the EPA, the contaminated oil was sprayed around Times Beach, resulting in dead animals and an ill child that led to the investigation, suggesting that the exposure to both animals and humans may have been through direct inhalation of contaminated air rather than soil contamination.
A report from Demond, et al.2 published in The American Chemical Society reviewed incidences of dioxin exposure, contaminated soil, and their correlation with serum dioxin levels.
In many of the cases reported, there didn’t appear to be a strong correlation between soil levels and serum dioxin levels.
In citing the Times Beach incident Demond, et al. made the following remarks based on EPA data:
Studies comparing populations potentially exposed only through living on contaminated soil with control groups are relatively few. One such study carried out by Missouri Department of Health9 evaluating the potential exposure at Time Beach, MO, found that there was no statistically significant difference in the concentrations of dioxinlike compounds in the target and comparison groups, except for PCB 126, which was slightly higher in the comparison group. The two major factors explaining the variability of dioxin concentrations in serum appeared to be smoking and age.
Some skepticism should be raised towards correlative data and statistical significance. Ironically, the citation provided above3 actually looked at exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD due to incineration of soil and belongings contaminated by the spraying of the contaminated oil and not exposure to contaminated soil directly.
In fact, several of the accounts provided, such as residents in Paritutu, New Plymouth, New Zealand who lived near agrichemical plants, noted a stronger association with aerial dioxins from these plants than soil levels as predictors of serum levels.
In one large study titled the University of Michigan Dioxin Exposure Study (UMDES)4 nearly 1,000 participants who lived in the vicinity of the Dow Chemical Company had their soil, homes, and serum levels checked for dioxin levels. Participants had to be over the age of 18 and had to have lived in their homes for over 5 years. Questionnaires were also provided asking about lifestyle (occupation, breast-feeding, etc.) and various activities.
Sampling suggested high levels of soil contamination, with over 132 houses with over 72 ppt TEQ levels and 21 with over 1,000 ppt TEQ levels.
However, when data was plotted using a linear regression there didn’t appear to be an association between soil levels and serum blood dioxin measures:
Neither soil nor household dust concentrations were significant predictors in the linear regression models for TEQ, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, OCDD, and 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF. There are some small contributions to the variance in the case of the dioxin-like PCBs; however, this may reflect direct aerial exposure to ongoing sources of PCBs, rather than direct exposure from soil and dust. Many household products such as sealants, caulking materials, carpet pads and household appliances, have been shown to be sources of PCBs in outdoor soil,37 and in indoor air and dust.38,39
Interestingly, one individual with the highest serum TEQ value of 211 ppt was a ceramics hobbyist who had an unvented kiln in her basement. Thus, it appeared that the exposure to dioxins may have come from the unvented space and the firing of clay.
There also appeared to be elevated serum dioxin levels for those who consumed vegetables and meat grown/raised in the Tittabawassee River floodplain. Surveys suggested some individuals consumed food sourced from this region several times a week over a decade. The Dow Chemical Company is located on the Tittabawassee River, and thus was likely the source of pollution.
This is likely an indication of bioaccumulation as the source of elevated serum levels in these individuals rather than the soil.
Although these reports are limited, it appears that most dioxin exposure outside of bioaccumulation in food sources may stem from inhalation and aerial emission rather than direct exposure to contaminated soil.
Thus, in the search for answers in East Palestine the soil, even if it proves to be contaminated, may not provide much meaningful information for human exposure.
As Pete Lincoln noted in the comments the most likely exposure for those within the neighboring regions is likely through aerial emission as the chemicals burned and the smoke engulfed the region.
In Seveso, Italy, the main route of exposure to dioxin was through the gas plume that was caused by the runaway chemical reaction:
There have been some well-publicized incidents of dioxin contamination (reviewed recently in ref 1), such as those in Seveso, Italy, and Times Beach, MO, which resulted in soil concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD as high as 20 000 ppt7 and 1 750 000 ppt,8 respectively. In Seveso, Italy, there was ample evidence of human exposure; however, this exposure was through aerial emissions directly from the chemical manufacturing facility.
As has been repeated many times over, the smoke over East Palestine has cleared, and the dust has literally settled. Any exposure to dioxins and other chemicals in the air has already occurred, and so measures of soil levels rather than serum levels won’t provide much in telling residents whether there is something to be concerned about.
Unless the region has a high level of agriculture then exposure from soil may not be the biggest issue (it also may not be a worthy endeavor to produce agriculture nearby industrial plants).
This makes the situation all the more frustrating, as a search for any evidence of toxicology reports comes up empty even though these would be the most meaningful sources of information for those in East Palestine and those within close proximity to the region.
At this point blood tests, rather than soil tests, should probably be conducted to provide better answers to toxin exposure.
Is it dioxin or digoxin?
Apologies if this series has led to more confusion than information. In collecting sources from online it sometimes becomes hard to parse the information in a meaningful manner.
Some of the details provided here are technical, and some may argue why exactly this level of technicality would be needed. Considering that there’s an argument being made that people may be exposed to highly cancerous compounds and may suffer long-term health consequences as a result, it may be worth considering the more technical aspect of these arguments. If someone were to say that 700 ppt of TEQ is within the East Palestine region, hundreds of times above what is considered normal then it’s worth looking into where these numbers come from, and if they match the proper values one would expect.
Much still remains to be unanswered in East Palestine, and yet information continues to come out that many muddy interpretations of the information. I won’t deny that my prior post, as well as some of my earlier ones on East Palestine also contribute to this muddiness. But it serves as a reminder that we should remain critical thinkers and examine information with more than immediate acceptance.
To that, I’ll end this post with this article I found from Knights of the Republic when trying to look for dioxin testing.
In this article the link provided was to a Tik Tok video from someone who was commenting on another woman’s attempt to get a dioxin test from Lab Corp.
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
In the video she suggests the Lab Corp employee noted that they no longer do dioxin tests and cannot test for those compounds.
Personally, I’ve raised hesitancy against this idea of Lab Corp having the capabilities to test for dioxins given that we’ve previously suggested that dioxin testing is highly sensitive and requires specific instrumentation.
In a CDC document they note that testing for serum dioxin is likely done via high-resolution gas chromatography/isotope-dilution high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/ID-HRMS). This likely won’t be something that any lab would be able to conduct, and even if the instrumentation is available technicians would need to be properly trained to conduct such a test.
Because of this I’m rather skeptical that Lab Corp may have done dioxin testing in the past. What I’m curious of, though, is whether her doctor (or maybe the assistant) mixed up dioxin for digoxin, which I have come across in my search for dioxin serum tests.
Digoxin is a drug used to treat heard conditions such as atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, and heart failure. Blood tests are done to check for blood levels of digoxin to help gauge proper dosing.
There’s no evidence to suggest that the woman’s doctor/assistant may have mixed up digoxin for dioxin aside from a similar name, and unless the testing number is provided it’s hard to corroborate this mix-up, but it appears as one of the only possibilities for this confusion.
But based on this limited information many ideas have come out suggesting that all of this was intentional and done so that no dioxin testing can occur—all brought on by a Tik Tok video which cannot be corroborated.
It’s important to remember that a lot of information is coming out in response to this derailment, and some may not be accurate, including information that I report on.
So always keep in mind that skepticism and critical eyes should be used when looking up information.
Once again, apologies for not realizing I had overlooked that part of The Guardian article, and thank you to Pete Lincoln for pointing it out! Consider checking out his Substack:
Substack is my main source of income and all support helps to support me in my daily life. If you enjoyed this post and other works please consider supporting me through a paid Substack subscription or through my Ko-fi. Any bit helps, and it encourages independent creators and journalists such as myself to provide work outside of the mainstream narrative.
As of now Times Beach has become a state park which can be visited by the public. Not much is left of the community as many of the houses and belongings from the community were, ironically, burned due to the dioxin contamination. It appears that the EPA has deemed the region “safe”.
Demond, A., Franzblau, A., Garabrant, D., Jiang, X., Adriaens, P., Chen, Q., Gillespie, B., Hao, W., Hong, B., Jolliet, O., & Lepkowski, J. (2012). Human exposure from dioxins in soil. Environmental science & technology, 46(3), 1296–1302. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2022363
Evans, R. G., Shadel, B. N., Roberts, D. W., Clardy, S., Jordan-Izaguirre, D., Patterson, D. G., & Needham, L. L. (2000). Dioxin incinerator emissions exposure study Times Beach, Missouri. Chemosphere, 40(9-11), 1063–1074. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0045-6535(99)00354-9
Garabrant, D. H., Franzblau, A., Lepkowski, J., Gillespie, B. W., Adriaens, P., Demond, A., Hedgeman, E., Knutson, K., Zwica, L., Olson, K., Towey, T., Chen, Q., Hong, B., Chang, C. W., Lee, S. Y., Ward, B., Ladronka, K., Luksemburg, W., & Maier, M. (2009). The University of Michigan Dioxin Exposure Study: predictors of human serum dioxin concentrations in Midland and Saginaw, Michigan. Environmental health perspectives, 117(5), 818–824. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11779
smacking my head over tik tok ... my son warned me it should be considered entertainment only. They act like they've just discovered Labcorp and oh my, it's our largest lab!!! Part of a conspiracy just waiting to control us. Be scared, be upset, they're all in on it!!! sheesh.... I doubt Labcorp has ever done that specialized of a test on such a niche instrument - they would send it out or direct to cdc/state lab. The lab worker sounds like they were covering up their mistake in telling them they could do it in the first place. I agree with your digoxin mixup idea. Blackrock/Vanguard?? I'm not on tiktok or I would ask that gal to find me the big company that they do NOT own stock in. Sigh...I stay off social media so I don't despair for our future.