Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Infants Ingest 77 Times the Safe Level of Dioxin

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the adults-got-no-walk-in-the-park-either dept.

Medicine 343

An anonymous reader writes "The Environmental Protection Agency is holding public hearings beginning today to review a proposed safe exposure limit for dioxin, a known carcinogen and endocrine disruptor produced as a common industrial byproduct. It's all but impossible to avoid exposure to dioxin. Women exposed to it pass it on to fetuses in the womb, and both breast milk and formula have been shown to contain the stuff. Research done by the Environmental Working Group has shown that a nursing infant ingests an amount 77 times higher than what the EPA has proposed as safe exposure. Adults are exposed to 1,200 times more dioxin than the EPA suggests is safe, mostly through eating meat, dairy, and shellfish."

cancel ×

343 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Screw dioxin (5, Funny)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894666)

It's the dihydrogen monoxide [dhmo.org] that's killing us.

Re:Screw dioxin (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32894672)

What a bunch of rage-inducing bullshit.

The first picture of the article is child pornography. The rest of the website caters to a bunch of clueless goddamn yuppie scum whose kids will grow up to be thumb-sucking bed-wetters because their overprotective pseudo-environmentalist iPhone-using (hey yuppies, did you know that making things for Apple is so bad that people commit suicide?), Prius-driving, neon-spandex-bike-riding entitled scumbag poseur Gen X-er sired by baby boomer fucks!

Do you hear me, you goddamn yuppies? You whiny, bitch-ass self-important motherfuckers are going to get a fat dose of fuckin' loud-ass guitar tonight. I'm sick of you knocking on my fucking door telling me to "keep it down." If you wanted to have a baby then you shouldnt've bought a fucking condo next to San Diego State University. You safe, sterile, pseudo-survivalist, god-fearing, blank-eyed fucks! I hope you like Cannibal Corpse, because I'm going to play "Evisceration Plague" with the volume on my Mesa/Boogie Dual Recto turned up to 11? Do you hear me now?

Re:Screw dioxin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32894718)

Turn it down, rage boy.

Re:Screw dioxin (1)

HairyNevus (992803) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894746)

lol @ CP.
yeah, suck that shit

Re:Screw dioxin (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894796)

Actually, the real risk is trioxin. That's the zombie-maker.

Re:Screw dioxin (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32895136)

Triox, the now banned soil sterilizer, is chemically relate to Dioxin, AKA Agent Orange, the Cancerous defolient brought to you by out wonderful Goverment, and the nice company Monsanto, during The Vietnam war

Re:Screw dioxin (1)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894992)

Damn... Beat me to it.

DHMO is a major health menace!

Re:Screw dioxin (4, Funny)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895104)

I tried to cut down, now it's the C2H5OH that's killing me.

Re:Screw dioxin (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895234)

It's the dihydrogen monoxide that's killing us.

Why do you think I only drink distilled grain alcohol?
God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from dioxins and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids

Great (3, Insightful)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894674)

But what exactly is accomplished by reviewing the safe exposure limit? Apparently it's unavoidable and is already consumed in orders of magnitude higher levels than is recommended.

Re:Great (5, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894810)

But if they change the formula for calculating safe dosages, they can show fewer bars on the display and people will at least feel better about their dioxin exposure.

Re:Great (4, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894894)

But if they change the formula for calculating safe dosages, they can show fewer bars on the display and people will at least feel better about their dioxin exposure.

It's also recommended that infants hold breasts with their left hand.

Re:Great (2, Funny)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895044)

It's also recommended that infants hold breasts with their left hand.

Bastards, getting to hold breasts and suck on them with that smug look on their face.

Re:Great (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32895056)

This is a scaremongering conspiracy to convince mothers that feeding a baby with ridiculously expensive formula is better than natural breast-milk.

Don't you get it, yuppies? They want you to feed your babies formula so they can become dumb, rubber-skinned consumers of American slop!

The only milk is tit milk. Anything else should be a crime. My wife breast-fed my son until he was ten years old and now he's six feet tall, captain of the football team, and has already gotten more pusye than you will ever get in your collective lives.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32895184)

has already gotten more pusye than you will ever get in your collective lives

Inside or outside the family?

Re:Great (1)

XSpud (801834) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894906)

Though dioxins are currently ubiquitous much of the dioxin level in the environment is a result of man's activities e.g. paper-making, pesticides etc, so in theory could be reduced.

Re:Great (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895118)

I'm not sure "it" is the right word. As far as I understand, "dioxin" isn't a poison, but a group of chemicals with widely varying toxicity.
So "77 times the safe level of dioxin" isn't more meaningful than "77 times the safe level of metals".

Re:Great (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895244)

The safe exposure limit has two major uses:

One, it directly informs industrial hygiene standards for workers exposed to it on the job. OSHA recommendations/requirements will(possibly some decades after the fact, The Business of America is Business(tm) after all) reflect the levels of exposure that are permissible, given the expected health effects.

Two, it informs environmental regulations related to the discharge of the chemicals in question. Dioxins are only "unavoidable" today because their release has historically been alarmingly close to unregulated, and they are fairly persistent little critters. If the safe exposure limit is revised downward, acceptable release limits will(again, possibly with substantial lag, nobody wants to make the American Chemistry Council [americanchemistry.com] cry) will be revised downward, so that, as the compounds eventually are degraded or encapsulated, exposures will fall.

So... (0, Offtopic)

Traze (1167415) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894676)

New leading cause of death in the US?

so..... (2, Insightful)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894680)

wouldnt this mean its safe to ingest more than the reported levels? That's not necessarily a good thing, but it does take a bit of the sensationalism out of the story

Re:so..... (1, Flamebait)

Galactic Dominator (944134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894788)

Yeah that's what it means genius, it's fucking nutritional supplement.

On the other hand, it could be a contributor to the fact that people living in industrial countries are much more likely to get cancer.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/canc-a26.shtml [wsws.org]

Re:so..... (2, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894846)

On the other hand, it could be a contributor to the fact that people living in industrial countries are much more likely to live long enough to get cancer.

FTFY, no charge this time, drive through

Re:so..... (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895012)

On the other hand, it could be a contributor to the fact that people living in industrial countries are much more likely to live long enough to get cancer.

Except, here in the US (which is where babies are ingesting 1200 times the safe level of dioxin) we don't live as long as many other developed countries.

Maybe the solution is to simply make the US year 310 days long so we can live as many years as they do in other countries. That seems more reasonable than trying to lower environmental dioxin levels, after all. God forbid we should have to examine the consequences of our desire for cheap consumer goods.

We need to start a pro-dioxin public relations campaign in the Third World, so we can continue to have a place to manufacture those cheap consumer goods. They don't need long life-spans over there because who wants to live long in those nasty places anyway? We could say that dioxin makes you more virile or something. It worked for cigarettes.

Re:so..... (4, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895068)

Except, here in the US (which is where babies are ingesting 1200 times the safe level of dioxin) we don't live as long as many other developed countries.

You can't make this statement without comparing infant/early-childhood mortality rates, as well as the different policies governments use to determine what a "live birth" actually means. Average lifespan is one of those statistics that becomes fuzzier and fuzzier the more you look at it.

Re:so..... (5, Interesting)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895108)

Maybe the solution is to simply make the US year 310 days long so we can live as many years as they do in other countries. That seems more reasonable than trying to lower environmental dioxin levels, after all. God forbid we should have to examine the consequences of our desire for cheap consumer goods.

US life expectancy is 78.2 years. You're saying other countries life expectancy is 92 years? I think you're off by a bit. Japan, with the highest life expectancy in the world, is at 82.6 years. The UK is at 79.4 years. It's also interesting you vilify "cheap consumer goods". I didn't realize Herbicide was or was used to make consumer goods. Perhaps you should take a second look at the sources of dioxin?

Re:so..... (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895224)

It would also be nice if our infant mortality rate were not comparable to Croatia.

Re:so..... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32895264)

Oh wow, you dug up exactly one statistic where the US is worse than a lot of countries.

Hey I have an idea... why don't you harp on that single number while ignoring how we are near the top on pretty much every other health metric. That's a winner.

Re:so..... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895268)

We need to start a pro-dioxin public relations campaign in the Third World, so we can continue to have a place to manufacture those cheap consumer goods. They don't need long life-spans over there because who wants to live long in those nasty places anyway? We could say that dioxin makes you more virile or something. It worked for cigarettes.

To quote one Lawrence Summers:

"'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons: 1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.

2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.

3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable.

The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization. "

Re:so..... (3, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894888)

people living in industrial countries are much more likely to get cancer.

And people in non-industrial societies have shorter life-spans. So your choice is to die from something other than cancer at a younger age, or live longer and die from cancer.

Another way to look at it is that we could cut the rate of cancer in industrial societies by euthanizing people at age 40.

Re:so..... (3, Insightful)

bsane (148894) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895062)

euthanizing people at age 40

The cure for cancer!!

Re:so..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32895188)

Also Alzheimers and it'll save Social Security!

Man the benefits are so worth it!

Re:so..... (2, Informative)

Galactic Dominator (944134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895126)

There's no question where you'd like to be living if you are diagnosed with cancer. The question is do you want a high risk of cancer? If not, then actively ignoring evidence would not be a good strategy. Otherwise, enjoy your years with chemo, radiation and surgical procedures, I hear it's a blast. Those ventilators can give you a few more months or even years to pump up your stats. Also ignore the high child mortality rates and the AIDS epidemic which significantly alter the average life expectancy in developing countries. If you live to age 25 there and don't have AIDS in a developing country, you have a better chance of living to a ripe old age without cancer than a US citizen.

Life expectancy with qualifications is a lot different than raw stat listing of how long the general person might live.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs225/en/index.html [who.int]

Re:so..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32895154)

You have identified a confounding factor. That is why people who study cancer rates have to perform something they call "statistics" in order to account for increased life span. The fact is, even accounting for increased life span, cancer rates are up. For the sake of specificity, see "Rising Incidence of Renal Cell Cancer in the United States" by Chow, Devesa, Warren et al. (which can be found on Google). You will see that their statistical analysis is careful to avoid the fallacy that you identified. Or see "Recent trends in incidence of cutaneous melanoma among US Caucasian young adults" by Purdue, Freeman et al., who find that between 1980 and 2004 the incidence of invasive cutaneous melanoma (the "bad kind" of skin cancer) went up 50% among white American women aged 15-39--too young to be saved by your facetious proposal to euthanize people at age 40. Or see any number of studies found easily through Google.

Bogus debunking is worse than bunk.

Re:so..... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894808)

No, it means that you're much more likely to die from cancer than if you were able to avoid dioxin.

Re:so..... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894976)

wouldnt this mean its safe to ingest more than the reported levels?

Clearly, if our babies are ingesting 1200 times the safe amount of dioxin, the most reasonable solution is to simply raise the level which is considered safe.

It's kind of like bars on a cell phone, I guess.

1200 times safe level? (4, Insightful)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894682)

It seems to me that if adults typically are exposed to 1200 times what is considered a safe level, then either every adult should be seriously ill from exposure, or the EPA standard for what is a safe level is a bit unreasonable.

Re:1200 times safe level? (0, Redundant)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894696)

I reckon the latter.

Re:1200 times safe level? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32894738)

The danger from dioxin is that it is cumulative. The "safe" exposure is what is tabulted to be "not particularly harmful considering consistent exposure over a lifetime." Much like DDT in the environment building up and eventually killing birds by making eggshells too brittle to be hatched, dioxins build up in animal tissues, and accumulate in epic proportions in apex predators (like humans...)

Dioxins are associted with increased risks for a large number of cancers, as well as with reduced fertility, and various sexual birth defects, among other things.

WHO on Dionxin [who.int]

Re:1200 times safe level? (0)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895002)

and accumulate in epic proportions in apex predators (like humans...)

Talk for yourself. I'm [youtube.com] vegan!

Re:1200 times safe level? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32895172)

If you are not an apex predator, then you are food for an apex predator.

Re:1200 times safe level? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32894778)

Well, I've noticed a whole lot of people dying, written off with pseudoscientific explanations like "old age" -- it's probably dioxin poisoning.

Re:1200 times safe level? (1)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895144)

Sweet, so if we can eliminate dioxins, then we live forever?

Re:1200 times safe level? (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894782)

Actually, neither necessarily needs to be true. For the EPA standard, it could simply be unreasonable in the way of being unrealistic. For the massive exposure, long term effects and general decrease in life expectancy and resistance to other health issues could be the result when it's not health issues directly caused by exposure. Remember, an LD 50 is what kills 50% of a population. Safe exposure levels similarly don't translate directly to "shit's gonna go down like this for every person."

Re:1200 times safe level? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32894784)

It also depends on what you're calling "unsafe". We can call juggling hammers "unsafe" (you may drop one and bruise your toe), but we'd also call juggling thermonuclear warhead "unsafe" as well. The threshold for "chronic exposure causes a minor increase in the risk of a particular form of cancer" will be vastly different from "causes instantaneous death upon ingestion". My guess the level referred to in the 1200 times figure is the lowest level at which any sort of adverse health effect has been shown (which is probably a small but statistically significant increase in the rate of some cancer). It's an "unsafe" level in that if everyone in the US were exposed to it, we'd have a small but measurable increase in the total death rate (e.g. several thousand extra deaths per year).

That said, I agree that the "1200 times safe levels" quote is fear-mongering. Humans are notoriously bad at judging relative risk (see the Bad Science blog for more). That sort of context-free figure just calls out for the hammers/nukes line blurring - which was probably intentional by the person who quoted it (or at least by the media quoting it).

Re:1200 times safe level? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32894792)

Are you aware that you have a 30% chance of getting cancer, mostly due to the level of dioxin and other carcinogens in your body? That this rate is expected to rise to 50% in the next two decades? I would consider this a reasonable description of "unsafe".

Re:1200 times safe level? (2, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894866)

Are you aware that you have a 30% chance of getting cancer, mostly due to the level of dioxin and other carcinogens in your body? That this rate is expected to rise to 50% in the next two decades? I would consider this a reasonable description of "unsafe".

Yeeeeahhh, I think we're going to need to, um, see a citation on that one, mmmkay.

And not one from tinfoil.org.

Re:1200 times safe level? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32895010)

Ok, but *everything* causes cancer. One could argue that life itself is cancer.

Re:1200 times safe level? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895014)

I up my odds by consuming artificial sweeteners and banned azo dyes! Don't wanna slack behind the meat-eaters!

Re:1200 times safe level? (5, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894804)

Not necessarily. It depends on how "safe" is defined. If "unsafe" means that you can expect a statistically measurable drop in life expectancy and measurable increase in related illnesses over a lifetime of exposure (ie: pretty much the same case as you have for smoking-related illnesses), then you would not necessarily have an obviously sick population even though said population was, indeed, sick - merely not sick enough for it to be visible at that time.

Lifetime exposure is one factor. Yearly exposure and daily exposure are other measures. I don't know exactly which of these the 1200x refers to. It matters. It matters a lot. You can't simply assume that exposure is utterly uniform and devoid of any fluctuation, nor can you assume that accumulation is also uniform and devoid of any fluctuation. Thus, the 1200x may well be an average that never actually happens, but where you are very likely to get millions of times safe levels for brief periods of times at intervals in your life. Or it might be that 1200x is the maximum value that the fluctuations are likely to reach, or it might be the root-mean-square value of the fluctuating values, or any number of other things. The summary is useless (as usual) in understanding what the numbers mean.

Or maybe 1200x is not actually the exposure level at all, but rather the peak value observed for bodily accumulation of the toxin. Or the average. Or the root-mean-square. Or some other statistical value.

Regardless, the EPA is usually wildly optimistic - the EU generally permits levels only half the EPA estimates of what is safe, and the value is generally much closer to the value considered sensible by environmental chemists and inorganic biochemists. Both the EPA and EU values are usually also much lower than the values industry will stomach, with the result that either the law is widely flouted (since jobs = votes and nobody is stupid enough to vote themselves out of office by risking jobs through environmental crackdowns) or the law is widely bypassed by moving the most polluting component(s) to places like Bhopal, where the people are too poor or too dead to complain.

(I don't know what the solution is, but since a company pays for whatever it wastes, it would seem to follow that the less you waste the more you make.)

Re:1200 times safe level? (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894856)

It seems to me that if adults typically are exposed to 1200 times what is considered a safe level, then either every adult should be seriously ill from exposure, or the EPA standard for what is a safe level is a bit unreasonable.

Or we'd all be a lot healthier if we weren't exposed to as much dioxin.

Re:1200 times safe level? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894986)

More importantly:

77 times the recommended safety limits for infants? 1200 for adults?

Screw the infants, WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE GROWN-UPS!?!

Re:1200 times safe level? (1)

Lotana (842533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895260)

Screw the infants

Congratulations. You have just been added to every single pedophile watch list.

Wait! By quoting you, so was I. Hang on, there is someone at the door...

Re:1200 times safe level? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32895140)

FTA: "Adults are exposed to 1,200 times more dioxin than the EPA suggests is safe, mostly through eating meat, dairy and shellfish (a good reason to go vegan)."
FTSTAC: "...the general public is exposed to up to 1,200 times more dioxin than regulatory agencies typically consider safe." (emphasis mine)

Funny how leaving out a couple words can make things seem a lot more dire. According to the source, one cheeseburger and a glass of milk is roughly a third of the EPA's limit for safe daily exposure for a 130-lb adult.

But while this article probably was written by someone who already had an agenda against dioxin, and it was slightly altered to be more sensational, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried. There are chemicals that can castrate you and make your babies retarded or make you totally sterile or give you all kinds of nasty cancers, and we are constantly being exposed to more and more, and the United States with it's innocent-until-proven-guilty chemical regulations has the greatest body burden of any country where they keep tabs on these things.

So while it is nice that our funnoodles and plastic hula skirts and particle board cubicles won't catch on fire, it may well turn out that the opportunity cost of the flame retardants was your and your neighbor's testes. And while it's cool that you can get a McDouble for a (ever-weakening) dollar, it may end up costing you a lot more when your lymph nodes are the size of plums.

But hey, that's the cost of doing business.

Re:1200 times safe level? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32895222)

It seems to me that if adults typically are exposed to 1200 times what is considered a safe level, then either every adult should be seriously ill from exposure, or the EPA standard for what is a safe level is a bit unreasonable.

Just how many people that you know manage to make it to their death bed without getting cancer? Virtually everyone I know has had cancer and several have had it multiple times. A 100 years ago it was fairly rare. We've all been poisoned and we will all get cancer if we live long enough.

Screw Dioxin! (4, Funny)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894706)

How about... 5 fun things you can do with your baby's placenta [inhabitots.com] !!?!?!?!?!? (from the same site as this "article"). I suppose any excuse to beat up on "evil industry" will always fly on Slashdot.
    Next thing you know there'll be the usual litany of +5 insightfuls about how "big media" (led by Catie Couric) regularly pumps out pro-insecticide propaganda. No I'm not joking.. the regular scare pieces about anything that might be remotely toxic are the product of "big pesticide" to bore us to death with obviously untrue hysteria so that we accidentally let them get away with poisoning all of us!

Re:Screw Dioxin! (2, Insightful)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894744)

I suppose any excuse to beat up on "evil industry" will always fly on Slashdot.

Yeah.. and while I was going to say that only a sensationalist troll like KDawson would post this, I didn't want to since I hadn't checked the byline before the last post... then I went and checked it... You see kids, sometimes prejudice is just a more efficient way of arriving at the same conclusion that carefully deliberation would lead to, and it's more fun!

Please KDawson, go back to parroting what the DailyKos tells you to think... while you are a drooling idiot, at least they hire some professionals to troll the right way!

Re:Screw Dioxin! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32894790)

Too bad there isn't a +1 Gross mod.

Re:Screw Dioxin! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32894910)

LOL

Enjoy looking like a fucking raisin [wizbangblog.com] , you dipshit. Dioxin is nasty shit but nothing to be afraid of until you've absorbed enough of it to look like ass, but by then the CEOs will have bailed out to the bahamas with their golden parachutes while the California Raisins wring whats left of their hands over what to do about it. And there'll probably STILL be Republitards screaming in Youtube videos to LEAVE THAT COMPANY ALONE!!!1! when people suggest that the companies that poisoned them be held responsible.

In the end the entire country will end up one massive superfund site paid for by your tax dollars because corporations cried about breaking eggs to make omeletes, then skipped town without paying the check for the eggs.

According to Wikipedia... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32894712)

PCDD exposures are proven/suspected in famous cases including Agent Orange produced by Monsanto sprayed over vegetation during the Vietnam war, the Seveso disaster, and the poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko.

bs levels fed to everyone have risen exponentially (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32894720)

feeding toxic garbage disguised as food to our kids is just more of **it. see you on the other side of it?

meanwhile (at least until even the nitrogenous 'food' is gone); the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder
never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

Meat, Dairy, and shellfish?? (1)

Solidblu (241490) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894748)

Great another thing my Vegan friend can brag about FOREVER even though he doesn't know what dioxins are.

Re:Meat, Dairy, and shellfish?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32894838)

Fabricate some data that the water industry is harmful to fish. He should stop bothering you in a week or two.

Re:Meat, Dairy, and shellfish?? (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895174)

Don't worry. Those people usually get run over by trucks.

Kind of makes you wonder... (3, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894750)

... if the official dioxin-exposure limits are set unreasonably low, perhaps for political reasons unrelated to human or animal health.

Re:Kind of makes you wonder... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894832)

Yeap. As the wars on terror/drugs lose momentum, there need to be something else to keep us scared and forget about Net Neutrality, Gulf spill, health care (whatever).
Long leave "War on Dioxin".

Re:Kind of makes you wonder... (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895182)

The world is a complex place. If your threshold for "OMG they want to control us" is someone warning you that something is probably unhealthy, you'll have conspiracy theories from cradle to grave.

Re:Kind of makes you wonder... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32894850)

Make me wonder why so many people I know have had cancer,
but you could assume that because it is a slow painful to go through, painful to watch for others death, that it is safe.

Mod me +5 more insightful than the other guy please.

Re:Kind of makes you wonder... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32894914)

"Nine animal studies conducted between 1973 and 2008 show that dioxin is harmful at levels even lower than in the human studies on which EPA based its proposal. Those human studies, conducted in 2008, explored the toxic legacy of a 1976 chemical plant explosion in Seveso, Italy, which exposed thousands of people to dioxin in unprecedented intensity and left large quantities of the chemical in the soil." source: http://www.ewg.org/dioxin/home

of course ... those studies could have all been flawed ... but ... it's a much more likely possibility that the cancer all the people you know that have cancer comes from something related to their lifetime of high exposures to environmental pollutants.

Re:Kind of makes you wonder... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894928)

They are usually set to be open ended. The US just does not define safety levels for certain harmful substances, ie no laws, upper limits.
If something goes wrong, laws, lawyers and recalls after the fact.
People seem happy to pay less, spin the cancer wheel and enjoy food freedom.
Any numbers, tests, data, long term studies are a real risk to “manufacturing” costs. A persons death at home or in a hospital at a younger age is just not part of the math.

Re:Kind of makes you wonder... (4, Insightful)

Cedric Tsui (890887) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894952)

I don't think so.
This is a common problem in terms of safety standards. Toxicity of a substance is very hard to quantify. It's easy to take a group of lab rats and see what dosage kills half of them. But what does that say about how tiny amounts of the substance will affect your lifetime chance of developing cancer? Usually, you cant say anything!

If it can't be quantified, then you assume the worst case scenario. I know that when it comes to radiation, we call this the 'linear, no threshold' (LNT) model. If x amount will bring you 50% of the way to death, then x/500 will bring you 0.1% of the way to death. There is no safety threshold, which means that we assume that any ingested amount no matter how small does damage.

Now, the LNT model is pretty much never correct. At least, I've never seen an example where it has held. One example: Swallowing two pounds of vitamin C should kill me based on the LD50 for rats. If we were to apply the LNT model, we'd conclude that vitamin C is toxic and I shouldn't ingest any if I can help it. It's this kind of reasoning why lexan bottles are no longer covering the shelves. Some scientist measured 6-20 parts per billion of BPA in the water contained in one of these bottles.

Does that mean the EPA is unreasonably over protective? Yes. Do I want them to change? ABSOLUTELY NOT! In this case, as in the case for radiation, and for BPA, pseudo estrogen, mercury, etc.., is that we can not prove that exposure to these quantities is safe, and we have reason to believe that they are not. They do not need to be proven dangerous to be banned. They need to be proven safe to NOT be banned.

Nursing risk (2, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894772)

That settles it. Feed the kid formula and leave the tit for daddy.

Where is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32894802)

Dioxin Dolly when you need her?

Ask any industrial hygenist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32894840)

Most chemical exposure limits are messed up or just sorely out of date.

Re:Ask any industrial hygenist (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894966)

Yes you do not have a lobby, the people with manufacturing costs do. Another good way is to suggest science is communist, a simple art subject or against faith.
That buys a few more decades of easy profit. Then the tech to clean up is cheaper. Usually the tombstones add up and real data is finally exposed, leaked or released.

EWR's press release (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32894934)

here's the EWR's press release http://www.ewg.org/dioxin/press [ewg.org]

Environmental Working Group's dioxin timeline, complete with citations http://www.ewg.org/dioxin/timeline [ewg.org]

I'm a vegan, politcally I'm a progressive (let the flaming begin), and even I was disgusted with the "article" linked in TFS. Piss poor choice dudes, as you easily could have linked to the EWR's press release and allowed the discussion to go from there. But instead we start with a shit "article" from an alarmist site, which stokes an immediate onslaught of comments that outright dismiss even a _possibility_ that dioxin is harmful to humans.

In my 12 years of hanging around here, I sure do miss the days when we'd have a discussion based on the SCIENCE of whether or not dioxin is worthy of our concern

Re:EWR's press release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32895066)

So you're saying that by not reading the article we engender a more productive discussion? I like it!

Gee... I don't remember that: (1)

Hartree (191324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895156)

I've been watching this site for that long and I don't remember a time when most of these discussions were much more than flame wars with made up statistics, dubious assertions and ad hominem on both sides.

I do agree that it's gotten worse in recent years, though.

Re:Gee... I don't remember that: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32895200)

original poster here -- yes, you are right, to some extent it's always been this way, and it has been worse in recent years. Your response brought into perspective what a cranky s.o.b. i've been for a couple hours now... need food & caffeine.

Now, get off my lawn ;-)

Mmmm. Coffee: (1)

Hartree (191324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895250)

Good food and caffeine. Few things can't be improved by that.

White Cardboard. (3, Interesting)

stimpleton (732392) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894946)

About 10 years ago, in my country(outside the US), they found the greatest levels came from the insides of milk containers(the cardboard ones). For consumer perception reasons, the inside should be snow white, not brown. The whitening process was a bleach based one and the chemical contained dioxin. Apparently, a chlorine based oxidation whitening method is safe. But of course, more costly. How are your cardboard products whitened? Don't assume in this day and age its the safe method.

Re:White Cardboard. (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32894996)

I get my milk in a plastic jug.

Re:White Cardboard. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32895042)

The plasticizers will neuter you. You won't win.

Re:White Cardboard. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32895050)

A white plastic jug? Think about it.

Re:White Cardboard. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32895150)

I get my milk in a glass bottle... And it's real fresh milk, not industrial crap. In fact, I pasteurize it myself.

Re:White Cardboard. (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895142)

About 10 years ago, in my country(outside the US), they found the greatest levels came from the insides of milk containers(the cardboard ones). For consumer perception reasons, the inside should be snow white, not brown. The whitening process was a bleach based one and the chemical contained dioxin. Apparently, a chlorine based oxidation whitening method is safe. But of course, more costly.

Bleach (NaClO) is a Chlorine based chemical. Could you expand on exactly how Bleach was the problem or the difference between the two?

Re:White Cardboard. (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895176)

"Bleach" is usually Sodium Hypochlorite, in water solution. Historically, both Sodium Hypochlorite and elemental Chlorine, among others, would have been used at various stages of the pulp bleaching process. Unfortunately, a number of organochlorine compounds are pretty nasty customers(dioxins hog the stage time; but furans, PCBs, and others are also not exactly tasty treats), and using Chlorine to attack wood pulp, full of various organic compounds, produces nice white wood pulp, and a bunch of organochlorine compounds(even if the cardboard isn't going into food packaging, these tend to end up going more or less straight into the river).

The almost-as-cheap-and-somewhat-less-dangerous method substitutes chlorine dioxide for straight chlorine. Apparently, this reduces the amount of exciting organochlorines in the result.

The more costly; but chlorine free, technique involves Ozone(the same applies in water treatment plants). The nice thing about Ozone is that it is pretty close to Chlorine in terms of being a vociferous oxidizing and bleaching agent that is soluble in water; but that it consists entirely of oxygen atoms, and is fairly unstable. This means that you can have a ghastly disinfecting or bleaching agent that, after 24-48 hours of sitting around, is pretty much just plain water with dissolved oxygen.

The chlorine-free methods are particularly popular in Europe, and they've reduced the output of Chlorinated nasties pretty much everywhere; but the odds are still pretty good that, unless specifically stated otherwise and in the EU, your white paper is white because of a chlorine process.

Re:White Cardboard. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32895216)

MILK COMES IN BAGS.

It's all but impossible to avoid... (1, Offtopic)

daemonc (145175) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895054)

"Adults are exposed to 1,200 times more dioxin than the EPA suggests is safe, mostly through eating meat, dairy, and shellfish."

So, couldn't you, uh, just not eat those things?

I can tell you for a fact that it's not impossible.

Cue pro/anti vegan flame war in 3,2,1...

Re:It's all but impossible to avoid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32895168)

Save animals, kill meat-eaters!

Dioxin is well-studied (1)

tee-rav (1029032) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895092)

The potential effects of accumulated dioxin are well established. The finding that infants and adults regularly consume more than the EPA limit suggests that reviews of the limit and the enforcement of environmental regulations are in order. The myriad unstudied, undocumented, widely-disseminated, and widely-used chemicals in the environment also demand scrutiny -- BEFORE they become widespread. Presently, industrial regulation follows the Pandora model: open the box and see what happens. Precaution is a severely underrepresented entity at the EPA (though curiously the DEA and FDA get plenty, within their respective scopes).

Re:Dioxin is well-studied (1)

tee-rav (1029032) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895114)

Parent should read: The potential effects of accumulated dioxin are well established. The finding that infants and adults regularly consume more than the EPA limit suggests that reviews of the limit and the enforcement of environmental regulations are in order. Myriad unstudied, undocumented, widely-disseminated, and widely-used anthropogenic chemicals also demand scrutiny -- BEFORE they become widespread in the environment. Presently, industrial regulation follows the Pandora model: open the box and see what happens. Precaution is a severely underrepresented entity at the EPA (though curiously the DEA and FDA get plenty, within their respective scopes). There. Fixed that for me.

In the words of the dead (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895116)

I may not agree on everything this man said, and hell he wouldn't want me to. But he sure did nail some things right:
  Fear of Germs [youtube.com]

Where did this sudden fear of germs come from in this country? Have you noticed this? The media constantly running stories about all the latest infections? Salmonella, E-coli, hanta virus, bird flu, and Americans will panic easily so everybody's running around scrubbing this and spraying that and overcooking their food and repeatedly washing their hands, trying to avoid all contact with germs. It's ridiculous and it goes to ridiculous lengths.

In prisons, before they give you lethal injection, they swab your arm with ALCOHOL. Wouldn't want some guy to go to hell AND be sick. Fear of germs, why these fuckin' pussies. You can't even get a decent hamburger anymore they cook the shit out of everything now 'cause everyone's afraid of FOOD POISONING! Hey, wheres you sense of adventure? Take a fuckin' chance will you? Hey you know how many people die of food poisoning in this country? Nine thousand, thats all, its a minor risk.

Take a fuckin' chance bunch of goddamn pussies. Besides, what d'ya think you have an immune system for? It's for killing germs! But it needs practice, it needs germs to practice on. So if you kill all the germs around you, and live a completely sterile life, then when germs do come along, you're not gonna be prepared. And never mind ordinary germs, what are you gonna do when some super virus comes along that turns your vital organs into liquid shit?! I'll tell you what your gonna do ... you're gonna get sick. You're gonna die and your gonna deserve it because you're fucking weak and you got a fuckin' weak immune system!

Let me tell you a true story about immunization ok. When I was a little boy in New York city in the nineteen-forties, we swam in the Hudson river. And it was filled with raw sewage! OK? We swam in raw sewage, you know, to cool off. And at that time the big fear was polio. Thousands of kids died from polio every year. But you know something? In my neighborhood no one ever got polio. No one! EVER! You know why? Cause WE SWAM IN RAW SEWAGE! It strengthened our immune system, the polio never had a prayer. We were tempered in raw shit!
  George Carlin

  Disclaimer: I trusted Google on getting a "reliable" quote, I read most of it, but the typos made me twitch too

Re:In the words of the dead (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895254)

Carlin's exactly fuckin' right. I love going home and watching my family methodically wash and scrub their hands before every meal, every trip to the bathroom, etc. You know, got the hand sanitizer EVERYWHERE. I don't wash my hands before I eat, why the hell would I wash my hands in the bathroom if I didn't, well, shit all over myself? When I clean my apartment, I use soap and water, no ultra-bleach-sanitization, unless it's the stank-ass trashcan or I left the dishes go WAY too long.

I haven't barely had a sniffle in over half a decade. SOMEONE at home is always sick. Hell, for every 10 times my girlfriend is down and out with a cold, I get maybe one two-day stuffy nose and scratchy throat. And I smoke!!

Put down the Lysol, people.

What's a safe leve? (1)

vvaduva (859950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895120)

It sounds like the EPA pulled the "safe level" out of their asses. If it was as dangerous as our bureaucrat overlords claim, babies should instantly burst into cancerous blobs of puss...yet longevity is longer than ever and more humans than ever live longer and healthier lives.

Good thing the Almighty State is there to get our backs (wink,wink) -- if we could only be more thankful by letting them tax us more and more.

Re:What's a safe leve? (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895198)

Perhaps you should take a look at these studies and consider that they're there to protect you. There's a lot of room for hazards that are long-term unhealthy or risky that won't create dramatic, visible dangers, and given how artificial our modern environment is, it's prudent to enter it with eyes open and people using oars to help steer us from the worst of what hazards we can predict.

Re:What's a safe leve? (2, Insightful)

vvaduva (859950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895266)

Maybe you are right, but anymore it's hard to trust anything coming out from government employees. I grew up in Eastern Europe where a clean environment wasn't anywhere on the list of the commies...as kids we used to break up thermometers and play with the mercury inside for days. Melting led into our own molds to make toys was something we loved doing. Bottom line is that while education helps, there are hazards all around us with the media and the State constantly scaring the hell out of us with everything and anything under the sun. That's how they stay employed...

Yes, Minister (3, Funny)

nura78 (757740) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895194)

Courtesy of Yes, Minister:

Concerned woman: Listen, I've heard that this factory will be making the chemical that poisoned Seveso.
Jim Hacker: Now that's not true. The chemical in Seveso was dioxin. This is metadioxin.
Woman: Well that must be virtually the same thing.
Hacker: No, it's just a similar name.
Woman: It's the same name, only with 'meta' stuck on the front.
Hacker: And that makes all the difference.
Woman: Why, what does 'meta' mean?
Hacker: (baffled) What does 'meta' mean, Humphrey?
Sir Humphrey: It's quite simple. It means 'with' or 'after', sometimes 'beyond'. It's from the Greek. In other words, with or after dioxin, sometimes beyond dioxin. It depends whether it's the accusative or the genitive. With the accusative it's beyond or after, with the genitive it's with. As in Latin, of course, as you no doubt obviously recall, where the ablative is used for words needing a sense of 'with' to preceed them.
Bernard: But of course there isn't an ablative in Greek, is there Sir Humphrey?
Sir Humphrey: Well done, Bernard, well done.
Hacker: You see?
Woman: Not really, no.

Binary? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32895272)

Is it a binary thing? 1200x dioxin maybe no worse than >1x dioxin? Once you get >1x dioxin, maybe you can swim in the stuff and not have any worse chance of cancer? It's certainly not 1200x worse...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?