To be fair, when I sometimes speak ambiguously it's because I sometimes have trouble parsing what I am reading. I am generally curious when journalist/news outlets are ambiguous because they aren't sure what they are covering or it's done in a way that intentionally hides the information. Unsurprisingly, I sometimes lean towards the latter given that most outlets are HORRIBLE at citing information. They rarely cite what they refer to specifically and it usually leads to some random link.
You have to use the TCFD equivalence calculated from TEF . Thats how they get 110, 150, 700 ppt. Bottom right of each page.
They actually should be doing blood draws to check serum levels. Most of the exposure would have been inhalation as in Italy. Remember, they had solid PVC pellets burning as well Vinyl Chloride, i suspect most of the localized dioxin was from this and not the liquid vinyl chloride that was burned off.
Remember as well, this is soil that was at Ground Zero. Dioxin levels likely lower the further removed from Ground Zero
Thanks for pointing that out! I really overlooked that 🤦♂️. I'll place a correction in my next post as well as in this one. I really should have noticed that.
You're right about the exposure. At the point that it is in the soil the risk wouldn't be the same as any inhaled. I've tried looking to see if any blood tests have been done but I really can't find any information so that has made it hard to figure out.
Excellent article during this fear mongering era we live in. People tend to believe toward their biases but I wonder why people who are so willing to believe the govt lies about positive news (this thing isn't bad for you) will whole heartedly believe negative news (this thing can cause cancer). question everything means just that - everything. And especially when it's in print. I wouldn't compare anything to CA standards - they're the ones who warn against bbq, coffee, frying, roasting etc.... because acrylamide can cause cancer and can occur when cooking at high heat. Might as well stop living right now.
I haven't made sense towards whether these values really are dangerous. If anything, it may suggest that more samples should probably be checked. At the same time, it reminds us that we should check the sources of news outlets and figure out the context in which they are being reported. Again, I'm not sure how dioxin are used in these articles, but we can see how this can really confuse matters. Either the 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels are what the EPA notice references, in which case the values found are much lower than that limit, or it refers to the total dioxin levels, which are only 2-3 times higher and not hundreds.
I wish journalists put more effort into showing their work.
To CA they're prop (Prop 65 is it?) seems to be based off of any bit of information that comes out. It's like if a hypochondriac was put into the position to warn everyone about what's in their food. I've heard, but haven't checked, that even potato chips get a warning label because frying potatoes develops the natural acrylamides in the spuds. It's that serious lack of context with just labeling things frivolously that really doesn't help consumers make proper choices.
Hypochondriac is one of a few good words for CA... lol... I heard that coffee shops were finally allowed to remove the prop 65 warning sign from their store windows but can't verify that as I haven't been in a coffee shop in a few yrs.When pushed about it some of the researchers said they think that eating fried things may take 3 months off your life.... hilarious! I sure don't want to give up yrs and yrs of wonderful taste for maybe possibly 3 extra months of old age.
One takeaway from my college toxicology course was that essentially you can find anything to be protective in one way and harmful in another. It's kind of hilarious when some compound can reduce one form of cancer and elevate the risk of another. At that point you just have to realize that things are more complex than we make it out to be and go on living life. 🤷♂️
"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"
I find this highlighted section interesting: why the higher rate fur "commercial/Industrial soil"
I'm thinking with industrial exposure most people may be wearing PPE and that falls under OSHA standards, so they may allow for a higher level. It's also likely that manufacturing just releases more dioxin than normal into the local environment. Large sources of exposure appear to come from manufacturing plants as well as even things such as recycling plants.
With commercial it's probably based on plastics and other things that we are exposed to daily. That's at least my speculation. 🤷♂️
I'm thinking that if I work at an office of a machine shop in commercial property, I'm not wearing hazmat or PPE. To hell with climate change, plastics are gonna do us all in.
I worked with TCDD in my other life. TCDD bioaccumulates in fish in what can be very high concentrations. People eat those fish and then bioaccumulate. We know TCDD has teratogenic effects. So even what might be considered acceptable exposure short term has serious consequences ling term. Just thinking out loud
I've mentioned that in my post from several weeks back on dioxin. There was the incident in Italy in which a reaction run amok led to a large release of 2,3,7,8-TCDD into the neighboring region and many animals had to be put down in order to prevent it getting into the food supply.
So there's definitely a bioaccumulation issue, and that's generally how most of this gets into our food source. I think this heavily depends on whether East Palestine and the neighboring region has a lot of livestock, but even then it's probably worth checking animals to get serum levels, which doesn't seem to be happening.
like mercury, aluminum and numerous other things.... we now live in a chemical soup. I guess we have to choose which ones to limit. I've found there are a lot of people worried about these things and yet when I go in their house, there they are, cooking with teflon or aluminum, microwaving food in plastic... and have no idea that their water comes to them in plastic pipes. Still, isn't it something that we have a longer life expectancy than 100 yrs ago in spite of these chemicals they've made?
It's sort of the strange paradox where many concerns were raised about these side products being released acting as endocrine disruptors, yet many people were drinking out of plastic bottles. We're exposed to many things but when we can limit them down we should try. I've been hesitant with nonstick pans since they can go south very quickly.
I think the experiment for these endocrine disruptors hasn't had time to really be examined, yet at the same time I do wonder if we are much more resilient than we give ourselves and nature credit for. It's easy to look at everything with such doom and gloom lenses when sometimes things are more nuanced than we give credit for.
“There is no greater impediment to the advancement of knowledge (or truth) than the ambiguity of words.”-Thomas Reid
Ambiguity is purposeful
To be fair, when I sometimes speak ambiguously it's because I sometimes have trouble parsing what I am reading. I am generally curious when journalist/news outlets are ambiguous because they aren't sure what they are covering or it's done in a way that intentionally hides the information. Unsurprisingly, I sometimes lean towards the latter given that most outlets are HORRIBLE at citing information. They rarely cite what they refer to specifically and it usually leads to some random link.
You have to use the TCFD equivalence calculated from TEF . Thats how they get 110, 150, 700 ppt. Bottom right of each page.
They actually should be doing blood draws to check serum levels. Most of the exposure would have been inhalation as in Italy. Remember, they had solid PVC pellets burning as well Vinyl Chloride, i suspect most of the localized dioxin was from this and not the liquid vinyl chloride that was burned off.
Remember as well, this is soil that was at Ground Zero. Dioxin levels likely lower the further removed from Ground Zero
Thanks for pointing that out! I really overlooked that 🤦♂️. I'll place a correction in my next post as well as in this one. I really should have noticed that.
You're right about the exposure. At the point that it is in the soil the risk wouldn't be the same as any inhaled. I've tried looking to see if any blood tests have been done but I really can't find any information so that has made it hard to figure out.
Excellent article during this fear mongering era we live in. People tend to believe toward their biases but I wonder why people who are so willing to believe the govt lies about positive news (this thing isn't bad for you) will whole heartedly believe negative news (this thing can cause cancer). question everything means just that - everything. And especially when it's in print. I wouldn't compare anything to CA standards - they're the ones who warn against bbq, coffee, frying, roasting etc.... because acrylamide can cause cancer and can occur when cooking at high heat. Might as well stop living right now.
I haven't made sense towards whether these values really are dangerous. If anything, it may suggest that more samples should probably be checked. At the same time, it reminds us that we should check the sources of news outlets and figure out the context in which they are being reported. Again, I'm not sure how dioxin are used in these articles, but we can see how this can really confuse matters. Either the 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels are what the EPA notice references, in which case the values found are much lower than that limit, or it refers to the total dioxin levels, which are only 2-3 times higher and not hundreds.
I wish journalists put more effort into showing their work.
To CA they're prop (Prop 65 is it?) seems to be based off of any bit of information that comes out. It's like if a hypochondriac was put into the position to warn everyone about what's in their food. I've heard, but haven't checked, that even potato chips get a warning label because frying potatoes develops the natural acrylamides in the spuds. It's that serious lack of context with just labeling things frivolously that really doesn't help consumers make proper choices.
Hypochondriac is one of a few good words for CA... lol... I heard that coffee shops were finally allowed to remove the prop 65 warning sign from their store windows but can't verify that as I haven't been in a coffee shop in a few yrs.When pushed about it some of the researchers said they think that eating fried things may take 3 months off your life.... hilarious! I sure don't want to give up yrs and yrs of wonderful taste for maybe possibly 3 extra months of old age.
One takeaway from my college toxicology course was that essentially you can find anything to be protective in one way and harmful in another. It's kind of hilarious when some compound can reduce one form of cancer and elevate the risk of another. At that point you just have to realize that things are more complex than we make it out to be and go on living life. 🤷♂️
Yes! Don't sweat the small stuff.
"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"
I find this highlighted section interesting: why the higher rate fur "commercial/Industrial soil"
Both wash in to waterways
I'm thinking with industrial exposure most people may be wearing PPE and that falls under OSHA standards, so they may allow for a higher level. It's also likely that manufacturing just releases more dioxin than normal into the local environment. Large sources of exposure appear to come from manufacturing plants as well as even things such as recycling plants.
With commercial it's probably based on plastics and other things that we are exposed to daily. That's at least my speculation. 🤷♂️
https://www.osha.gov/annotated-pels/table-z-1 Acrolein is also what you all need to look at, an where that is coming from. burning of natural gas? Each truck should have been tested, going into the facilitys, for dioxins. that report says, it " appears ".....It appears....?:) we want, this is what it is, not it " appears". That whole town an vacinity, got to be covered, just from the dust being kicked up, if they dont have 100 percent dust control, but, you dont know until you test, an if they drag their feet on testing, they don't have to be accountable for it. Only two samples....that is soul ending .... with that decision. Its ugly........ https://www.michigan.gov/egle/-/media/Project/Websites/egle/Documents/Programs/MMD/Hazardous-Waste/2016-8-25-Chicken-Egg-TSD.pdf?rev=b3e5830208024a59903105b4203a1c0e
https://www.osha.gov/annotated-pels/table-z-1 https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5155table_ac1.html#_blank https://www.osha.gov/annotated-pels
I'm thinking that if I work at an office of a machine shop in commercial property, I'm not wearing hazmat or PPE. To hell with climate change, plastics are gonna do us all in.
I worked with TCDD in my other life. TCDD bioaccumulates in fish in what can be very high concentrations. People eat those fish and then bioaccumulate. We know TCDD has teratogenic effects. So even what might be considered acceptable exposure short term has serious consequences ling term. Just thinking out loud
I've mentioned that in my post from several weeks back on dioxin. There was the incident in Italy in which a reaction run amok led to a large release of 2,3,7,8-TCDD into the neighboring region and many animals had to be put down in order to prevent it getting into the food supply.
So there's definitely a bioaccumulation issue, and that's generally how most of this gets into our food source. I think this heavily depends on whether East Palestine and the neighboring region has a lot of livestock, but even then it's probably worth checking animals to get serum levels, which doesn't seem to be happening.
like mercury, aluminum and numerous other things.... we now live in a chemical soup. I guess we have to choose which ones to limit. I've found there are a lot of people worried about these things and yet when I go in their house, there they are, cooking with teflon or aluminum, microwaving food in plastic... and have no idea that their water comes to them in plastic pipes. Still, isn't it something that we have a longer life expectancy than 100 yrs ago in spite of these chemicals they've made?
It's sort of the strange paradox where many concerns were raised about these side products being released acting as endocrine disruptors, yet many people were drinking out of plastic bottles. We're exposed to many things but when we can limit them down we should try. I've been hesitant with nonstick pans since they can go south very quickly.
I think the experiment for these endocrine disruptors hasn't had time to really be examined, yet at the same time I do wonder if we are much more resilient than we give ourselves and nature credit for. It's easy to look at everything with such doom and gloom lenses when sometimes things are more nuanced than we give credit for.
Yep