Gill, Kathy wrote:
> > Prior to about 1950, dioxin was rather rare in any form.
> >
> dioxin is just one of a family of chemical compounds known as 'chlorinated
> organics.' some enviros want to "ban" all CO -- which is measured with a
> test called AOZ. the ocean has very high AOX. all chlorinated organics are
> not "bad" just as all cholestrol is not "bad."
>
> > Then we started putting it in things like bleach, paper mill chemicals,
> > fertilizers/herbicides, and just about everything else we could think of
> > that we dumped into rivers.
> >
> we don't "put it" into paper or bleach. it is an unwanted byproduct of
> chlorine bleaching of organic material (wood) in the paper process.
Sorry, let me clarify. Victim of the "rush to do what I should be doing
instead of posting to the list" . . .
I meant to refer to dioxin precursors, as opposed to dioxin specifically
(to me it's largely a fine line, though, as to whether putting the
precursor or precursory chain of events into the system is any different
from putting the direct result into the system). And we did put those
into the ecosystem in quantities that are not naturally occuring,
creating unnnaturally occuring levels of dioxin. Be it from chlorine,
pesticide by-products due to breakdown and production processes, burning
unnatural quantities of anything, etc.
I've always loved the phrase "unwanted by-product". Goes so well in
memos that also employ "cost-benefit analysis" :P
> research outside of pulp mill in sitka alaska - bleached sulphite mill --
> highest concentrations of dioxin in several mile (10?) radius of the plant?
> road-side bar-b-que grills.
Well, this kind of begs the question. I assume there aren't roadside
bar-b-ques randomly scattered all over Alaska? The accumulate around
hungry people. Dioxin is only a problem in the quantities in which it
occurs because of people.
To rephrase my opening line, Dioxin didn't occur in identifiable,
problematic quantities resulting in constantly identified and
threatening forms until the 1950's or so (though there's stuff from the
30's that paved the way for us to eventually notice it more).
> > Dioxin bio-accumulates. A fish eats it today, it's still in the fish in
> > 10 years. A tree absorbs it ten years ago, it's still there today . . .
> >
> lots of things bioaccumulate, b -- the dose makes the poison, for ALL
> poisons.
Yes, but lots of things also aren't directly proportional in their
occurence to the action of human beings. (many are, but we're getting
into subsets here.)
Ozone is good in the stratosphere, but poison at ground level.
Plutonium is minorly harmful in small, naturally occuring quantities,
but quite the problem when we accumulate it.
My primary point wasn't to attack dioxin (or the paper industry, though
they are kind of naughty in my book and should spend more money
researching hemp than fighting it), but the fact that at the base level,
the problem is human decision-making and action (which the original post
seemed to downplay). Trees aren't bad, people are bad ;)
There are very few environmental problems not addressable by changes to
human action.
> > So, given that we polluted the living bejesus out of our environment
> > with dioxin, and then outlawed it in the late 60s, the largest source of
> > dioxin TODAY is from bio-accumulated sources. Tress are the biggest,
> > longest living of such sources, so when they burn, they naturally
> > release the most at once.
> >
> are you confusing dioxin with DDT, perhaps?
Ah, on the law I am. Sorry. Dioxin is addressed in same environmental
acts of the late 60's. Same legislation series to address the same
effect, but you are correct in that I lumped the two together improperly
and confused them a bit.
Handy parallel, though . . . in the end they both have very similar
patterns over time. :p
Nonetheless, dioxin by its nature will grow in occurence over time. The
more we create, through any process, would suggest that more will
bioaccumulate, and then more will be released eventually to add to the
pool.
No?
And hence, trees in areas with high dioxin "by-production" are going to
release more dioxin when burned, and most trees have the tendency due to
natural processes to follow that pattern simply to due
bioaccumulation. Was simply stating that I don't find it hard to
believe someone could have conducted a study to suggest burning trees
produces the "most" dioxin--especially the way people use "studies" to
prove points today.
Right now, somewhere down the street here in washington, I'm sure
someone else is also studying the astonishing fact that humans breathing
are the primary cause of global warming, because the process produces
more CO2 than anything else on the planet. :P
B
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
