MORE ON DIOXINS

Yesterday I wrote here about the myths and fallacies involved in alleging that even the most toxic to mankind chemicals have "safe" exposure limits. I would agree that they are "safe" to the toxicologist writing the report as well as to the lab person (following appropriate safety protocols) testing animals etc. Not so much however to the human beings who already have a lifetime of exposures to contaminated air, food and water even though allegedly each and every separate exposure may or may not be below so called "safe" levels. Today I'm going to mention a little about dioxin levels in soil. ............................................................................................................................. Background levels are badly abused. Here in Elmira, Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura and Lanxess have all been using "background" concentrations immediately upstream from the infamous polluter. Hence ongoing discharges from the Bolender Park Landfill plus one or two further upstream polluters are affecting upwards the contaminant concentration levels in the Canagagigue Creek. Hence the company (Lanxess) can hide somewhat behind those higher background levels. The 1987 U.S. EPA National Dioxin Study suggested that background be defined as "an area where you would not expect to find any dioxin.". The Centre for Health, Environment and Justice in 1998 suggested that the national background estimate for dioxin by the EPA of 8 parts per trillion (ppt) was far too high as it encompassed a number of known source areas of dioxins. They suggested that 1 ppt was far more appropriate. Overall the studies showed as expected that rural areas had far lower dioxin levels than urban ereas which were far closer to dioxin sources. Here in Elmira we can't even get our corrupt Ontario Ministry of Environment to honestly and seriously sample soils to the immediate east side of the Lanxess site (i.e. Stroh farm). ........................................................................................................................................... One study in 2010 suggested dioxin action levels of 240 ng/kg (ppt) for residential areas. They also suggested that more soil samples were far better than fewer which has been ignored in Elmira. Also ignored here in Elmira was the suggestion that heavy dioxin contaminated soils should all be remediated versus reliance on purely risk-based action levels. I view that a an anti-Risk Assessment position. ...................................................................................................................... In 2012 the EPA released an assessment of dioxins suggesting that the threshold for "safe" dioxin exposure was a TEQ (toxic equivalency) of .7 picograms per kilogram of body weight per day. The U.S. Chemical Industry were not happy with that and the American Chemical Councill (ACC) suggested that it was unclear to them why the EPA set a dioxin exposure level that is three times more stringent than other countries and the World Health Organization (WHO). .................................................................................................................................... Regarding soil background levels the U.K. study in 2009 suggested that soil dioxin levels were consistently higher in the urban areas than in the rural areas. This included dioxin-like PCBs. Rural soils for the various dioxin compounds were between .17 ppt and 60.7 ppt. Urban soils for the various dioxin compounds ranged from .35 ppt to 104 ppt. .................................................................................................................................................. Back in 2004 the U.S. discussed retaining the 50 ppt (TEQ) soil screening level. Compare this to current Canadaian criteria of 7 and 13 parts per trillion (ppt) for dioxins (TEQ) in soils. The 7 ppt is for soils within 30 metres of a surface water body and the 13 ppt for soils further away. There was also discussion of some of the non-cancer health effects of dioxins including hormonal impacts of endocrine disrupters such as dioxins. Other effects included a causal effect in adult-onset diabetes from dioxin exposure. ................................................................................................................................................ Permitting allegedly low concentrations of highly toxic chemicals is a mugs game. Pretending to only need to remediate the very highest concentrations of dioxins is simply to keep the population calm and quiet. If they knew how badly they and their families health was compromised by industrial releases past and present, political heads at the least would roll.