Talk:Polychlorinated biphenyl

message: Many statements in this article need references. I will try to provide them as I have time, but any help is appreciated. Jed 20:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs references 

message: I changed the earlier statement regarding solar excitation and degradation of PCBs in the atmosphere. Work dating back to 1996 (Anderson et al, Environ. Sci. Technol., 1996, 30, 1756-1763) shows that OH radicals are the major removal pathway in the atmosphere. Work has been done to sensitize PCBs to solar wavelengths (Manzano et al, Chemosphere, 2004, 57, 645-654), but if this takes place at all in the atmosphere, it would be negligable compared to the OH radical pathway.
--dil 01:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical Degradation of PCBs 

message: This article only discusses the claim that PCBs are toxic/carcinogenic when there is evidence that it is neither. If you claim that it is fact since PCBs are on a government list as a carcinogen, please research saccarine and see how it was on a government list at one time also.
References:
::http://www.junkscience.com/mar99/kimbro.htm
::http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A03E7DB1E3FF933A25750C0A96F958260
:Beyond the fact that the current consensus generally seems to be in favor of the fact that PCBs are indeed harmful, the article mentions that this claim is a source of some controversy. Clearly the article needs more information on the controversy and cited sources, though. Perhaps it'd be best to do those things, then pull the NPOV tag? --FreelanceWizard 23:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV discussion 

message: I have removed the NPOV disclaimer. PCB are comprhensively studied carcinogens, and the references provided by abover poster are a GE funded epidimeological syudy, and a New York Times review article of said study. Below please find several recent references from the scientific literature detailed toxicity and mechanism for PCB.
Ludewig, G.  Cancer initiation by PCBs.    PCBs, Recent Advances in Environmental Toxicology and Health Effects  (2001),     337-354.
Tohyama, C.; Nishimura, Noriko; Yonemoto, J.  Differential disrupting effects of polychlorinated biphenyl isomers on homeostasis of thyroid hormone and retinoid in mice.    Organohalogen Compounds  (2003),  63  401-404.
Mechanisms of hepatic tumor promotion by polychlorinated biphenyl mixtures.     Dean, Charles Edward, Jr.    Colorado State Univ.,  Fort Collins,  CO,  USA.  Avail. UMI, Order No. DA3107075.    (2003),     173 pp.  From: Diss. Abstr. Int., B 2004, 64(9), 4295.  Dissertation.
:I agree that the NPOV tag should be removed. A significant number of peer-reviewed references regarding the toxicity of PCB's have been cited; two newspaper articles stating that they are not have been cited. From Wikipedia's own NPOV page: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Unless those who believe they aren't toxic can show a more significant body of work, the tag simply doesn't belong here. dil 01:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree per above comments.  It looks like the POV tag may have been erroneously restored in anti-vandal effort.Qball6 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of NPOV Discussion

message: I added a section about the GE contamination of the Hudson River, and an exteranl link that discusses that controversy in more detail.KonaScout 19:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This still doesn't have a reference, so I removed the entire paragraph. It can be put back in with a source. Superm401 - Talk 11:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GE section

message: Does someone want to confirm or refute the assertion that olestra can treat PCB poisoning?  I read it somewhere, and think it might be interesting to include, but I don't have time to be responsible and fact-check it.--Joel 09:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe this is so across the board for PCBs. All dioxins, by virtue of their structure, are planar due to the dual oxygen linkage between the chlorinated rings. PCBs have a single linkage and therefore the rings may be able to rotate outside of a coplanar configuration. This is mostly dependent on the positions of the substituent chlorines. For example, the rings will be forced out of a coplanar configuration if there are multiple ortho chlorines. This leads to a wide variation in biological effects between various PCB congeners. dil 14:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are of course absolutely correct. I was thinking of the non-ortho-substituted PCBs, which are considered the most toxic (ie PCB-77: 3,3',4,4'-tetraCB or PCB-126: 3,3',4,4',5-pentaCB). The ortho substituted PCBs are quite non-coplanar, and thus have different toxicokinetics. However, they may have similar hydrophobicities, which I think is probably the relevant parameter in regards to solubility in olestra. Jed 21:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  olestra 

message: The article suggested that Monsanto was the "major" manufacturer of PCBs and then stated that GE also marketed PCB products, which in turn suggests that GE was another North American manufacturer of PCBs.  This is inaccurate.  After it purchased the Swann Chemical Company in 1930, the sole manufacturing facilities for PCBs in North America were the two Monsanto PCB plants, one located in Anniston, Alabama and one located in Sauget (formerly Monsanto), Illinois.  I have edited that passage accordingly.  It is also the case that PCB production halted at the Anniston plant in 1971 but continued in Sauget until 1977 (just before the effective date of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) banning PCB production altogether).  
Bhamlaw 18:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monsanto As Sole Producer 

message: Where are we at now and what needs to be done to make this a featured article? dil 17:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article Status

message: Would a list of trade names under which PCBs were manufactured and sold be of any use? Jed (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How different is it from Polychlorinated biphenyl#Alternative_names? - Neparis (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. Not enough to make a difference. A few extra names, but it's probably just clutter. 03:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of trade names

message: Perhaps this may warrant mention : PCBs - Is Farmed Salmon safe to eat?
by Gloria Tsang, RD, Nov 2004; Updated in Jun 2008, healthcastle.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.159.77.35 (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Salmon

message: I would like someone to check my maths. I found that the EU's safe limit for PCB like chemicals in pork is 1.5 pg/g (1.5 parts per trillion), news reports state that the contaminated Irish pork contains 80 to 200 times the EU's safe limit (1.5 ppt), the contaminated pork would contain 0.12 to 0.3 parts per billion. However, healthy nursing mothers in Japan have 0.8 parts per billion of PCBs in their blood, they are the least contaminated group in Japan. Am I right that the blood of Japanese nursing mothers exceeds the EU's safe limit for PCBs in pork by 533 fold?! --Diamonddavej (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish PCB contamination

message: The following sentences appear in the current version of this article (second paragraph of History), but as you will notice the first quotation is not closed.  
Robert Brown reminded chemists in 1947 that Arochlors were "objectionably toxic. Thus the maximum permissible concentration for an 8-hr. day is 1 mg. per cu.m. of air. They also produce a "serious and disfiguring dermatitis".
Does anyone know where to place the second quotation mark?  Alternatively, there may be an extra mark (the one in the middle) that needs to be removed.  I do not have access to the referenced book (Brown, 1947), so it would be helpful if someone who does could resolve this discrepancy.  Thanks.--CheMechanical (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation problem 

message: It would be good if the article contained a section on potential or used replacement compounds as in Tetra-ethyl lead, if anyone has such information. Thanks.77.86.67.245 (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Replacements

message: Some thoughts on further edits that I am contemplating, should anyone be concerned or interested.
*Physical properties: this section, like many heavily edited articles, is fairly redundant (e.g. about color and viscosity).
*Chemical: again this section makes the useful point that the material is difficult to destroy but there is a whole section on "destruction" below.  A list of reactions that the material does not undergo is potentially useful but only for reactions that might reasonably be applicable (one can always long list things that do not happen!).  It might be useful to layout the chemical processes by which PCBs are prepared and their main reactions (nucleophilic substitution, probably).
*Alternative names: I am not sure of the point here, especially for the languages that do not use our alphabet.  The names for English-speaking countries should possibly be a serial list vs column.  Also are these redirects?
*Applications: sections like this area always invitations to list every niche app that comes to mind, but probably the list should be prioritized according to the largest scale app's.  There is significant redundancy here as well.
*Other:  It seems that we need a clarity about where PCB's are banned and the details of the banning (no use, restricted use, no manufacture). According to the regulators, is there only one PCB classification?  Readers would probably be interested in knowing where this material is still being used and made.
That's my 2c.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing comments May, 2009

message: In a piece on PCB in the Hudson River, in the latest issue of Harper's Magazine, a NY state environmental protection officer claims after decades of experience to be able to smell PCBs, saying that in his experience about half of people can smell them and half can't. He describes the odor as bittersweet and metallic, and says most people think it resembles geraniums. Our article, however, states PCBs are odorless. Quickly googling "PCB smell", and ignoring stuff about circuit board smell, turns up some governmental and other sites saying they are odorless, but some that say they may have an odor, plus at least one scientific paper about a man who had supposedly gained the ability to smell them, as well as a reference to PCB detected in recycled paper by the smell. Anyone know who's right? Anyone have any personal experience?--Rallette (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odor or no odor? 

message: I think the relationship between dioxin and PCBs should be a lot clearer.  Essentially the main concern with PCBs is that many of them act in the same way as dioxin, and contribute to overall dioxin burden.  In fact, many incidents reported as "dioxin contamination" may involve only PCBs, and no actual dioxin or furan compounds, such as the Belgian incident.  PCBs would be of only moderate environmental or toxicological concern if it were not for their dioxin-like activity.
At present this link is not clearly defined within this article.  I have made a few changes to this end, and hope to make some more, and also to related articles to clear everything up.  I'm still a bit of a novice wiki-editor however, so I would welcome any clean-ups!
143.117.45.114 (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Arthurbagwaste is 100% correct, this article is an unfortunate mix of dioxin-like effects mainly caused by polychlorinated dibenzofurans always present in technical mixtures of PCBs, and dioxin-like non-ortho-PCBs (see dioxins and dioxin-like compounds), and on the other hand true PCB-effects which are relatively few. There are also clear mistakes such as that PCBs would not cause developmental toxicity which in fact was a hallmark of Yusho and Yu-cheng accidents in Japan and Taiwan, respectively. Mechanisms of action, toxicity in animals, and human effects should be thoroughly revised to meet the present standards. Early animal work was mainly done by using technical mixtures, so they are not of much value in this revision. Viinamakelainen (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Noncoplanar PCBs, with chlorine atoms at the ortho positions, have not been found to activate the AhR, and are not considered part of the dioxin group; however, studies have indicated some neurotoxic and immunotoxic effects, but at levels much higher than normally associated with dioxins, and thus of much less concern to regulatory bodies.[5]
Gordon1104 (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dioxins 

message: "Czech Republic
The chemical plant Chemko in Strážske (east Slovakia) was an important producer of polychlorinated biphenyls for the former communist block (Comecon) until 1984. Chemko contaminated a large part of east Slovakia, especially the sediments of the Laborec river and reservoir Zemplínska šírava.[31][32]"
Slovakia is not part of the Czech Republic: this needs to be changed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.253.53 (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovakia is not in the Czech Republic 

message: Do PCBs Still Threaten Humans? A Turtle Study Suggests They Might by John R. Platt Scientific American December 9, 2011
99.181.147.68 (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  resource 

message: The following content in the opening paragraph of the Polychlorinated biphenyl article is one sided and misleading. Please remove the following;
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), PCBs have been shown to cause cancer in animals, and there is also evidence that they can cause cancer in humans.[5] A number of peer-reviewed health studies have shown an association between exposure to PCBs and non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, a frequently fatal form of cancer.[6][7][8] However, other similar studies have found no such link.[9][10][11] Studies of PCB workers have uniformally shown no statistically significant increased rates of deaths from non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.[12][13][14][15][16][17] In 2013, The International Association for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that the evidence that PCBs cause non-Hodgkin Lymphoma is “limited” and “not consistent.” [18]
Concerns about the toxicity of PCBs are largely based on compounds within this group that share a structural similarity and toxic mode of action with dioxin. Toxic effects such as endocrine disruption and neurotoxicity are also associated with other compounds within the group. The maximum allowable contaminant level in drinking water in the United States is set at zero, but due to water treatment technologies, a level of 0.5 parts per billion is the defacto level.[19]''
Suggested edit at the end of the opening paragraph:
In 2013, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified PCBs as known human carcinogens 
:The section in the intro about non-Hodgkin lymphoma is excessive, in my opinion.  The intro should summarize the article, so duplicating nearly word-for-word one specific portion of the main text of the article isn't appropriate. I therefore removed that redundant bit from the intro.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraph 

message: This paragraph needs to be removed from the Cancer Link section. It was removed from the intro:
A number of peer-reviewed health studies have also shown an association between elevated blood levels of PCBs and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.[82][83][84] However, other similar studies have found no such association.[85][86][87] Studies of PCB workers have uniformally shown no statistically significant increased rates of deaths from non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.[88][89][90][91][92][93] Studies of laboratory animals subjected to large doses of PCBs have shown no unusual incidence of lymphomas. In 2013, The International Association for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that the evidence that PCBs cause non-Hodgkin Lymphoma is “limited” and “not consistent.” [94] Institutions devoted to cancer research and treatment do not list PCB exposure as a risk factor for non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.
Suggested additions:
===Cancer link===
In 2013, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified PCBs as known human carcinogens.The human epidemiologic data supports the position that PCBs cause Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system, and that persons with high levels of PCBs for their age are more likely than not to have had PCBs as a cause of their NHL.  Supporting evidence comes from studies measuring the PCB blood and tissue levels of people in the general population, studies of groups exposed to PCBs from particular pollution sources, and, to a lesser extent, studies of workers exposed to PCBs on the job
At least 13 independent general population studies, reported in 17 peer-reviewed articles, have assessed whether increasing levels of PCBs in blood or fat tissue are associated with development of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. The studies by Quintana et al., 2004, and Fritschi et al., 2005, are not informative due to serious methodological limitations, leaving 11 independent studies for evaluation.  Of the 11 studies, eight have reported significantly elevated risks of NHL in association with elevated blood or environmental levels of PCBs or selected PCB congeners, typically the higher chlorinated PCBs.  
 
 
 
 
 
 Although variation across studies in the specific PCB congeners associated with NHL is not unexpected, seven PCB congeners produced statistically significantly elevated odds ratios for NHL in at least one quartile of exposure or odds ratios greater than 2.0 in at least one quartile across multiple study populations.
Elevated blood levels of PCBs or specific PCB congeners, typically those of higher chlorination, were significantly associated with NHL risk in the CLUE cohort, the Janus cohort, and the Physicians’ Health Study. It should be noted that these studies included evaluation and control for many potential alternative causes of the link between PCBs and NHL, none of which explained away that connection. PCB levels were also significantly associated with NHL risk in the initial investigation within the Nurses’ Health Study (Engel et al., 2007b), but generally showed non-statistically significant increases in a second investigation based on more subjects after longer follow-up (Laden et al., 2010). The Danish-EPIC cohort (Brauner et al., 2012) generally showed no association between PCBs and NHL, although there were a few nonsignificant increases in risk associated with selected congeners (e.g., PCB 99, PCB 138, PCB 153). The Danish-EPIC study has some methodologic features that would have led to underestimates of risk, including using the exposure distribution of the cases and subcohort combined to determine the cutpoints for the five exposure groups. Cocco et al. (2008) is generally a “negative” study, but reported odds ratios above one for PCB 28 and PCB 180. Nordstrom et al. (2000), the other “negative” study, consisted of hairy cell leukemia cases only, a rare subtype of lymphoma, and presented no congener-specific analyses, only total PCBs divided at the median (50th percentile) level. 
Two studies of groups exposed to industrial pollution of PCBs, from a chemical factory in Brescia, Italy (Maifredi et al., 2011) and a municipal solid waste incinerator in Besancon, France (Viel et al., 2011), both report increased risks of NHL among the nearby residents. 
Nine independent groups of PCB workers have been studied, some with multiple publications representing updated follow-up of the workers. Considering the most recent update for each population, the studies add some support to the causal role of PCBs in NHL but are limited by being based on mortality instead of incidence and, in many instances, by the small size of the cohorts, resulting in few deaths by which one could assess NHL risk.  Furthermore, the exposures experienced by the occupational cohorts are somewhat different from those of members of the general population.   Some workers may have had greater levels of exposure to PCBs than the general population, but to a different mix of specific PCB congeners. In occupational settings, exposure to lower chlorinated PCBs is more prominent than that in the general population, who tend to have more exposure to the higher chlorinated congeners that bioaccumulate more. The IARC Working Group that recently evaluated PCBs stated, “Because of weathering and biotransformation, the PCB profiles noted in the environment or during biomonitoring differ from those in commercial products.”
Despite the possible differences between occupational and general population exposures, three of the larger transformer or capacitor manufacturing cohorts, the most informative studies, reported excess risk of NHL in association with PCB exposure (Greenland et al., 1994, Mallin et al., 2004; Pesatori et al., 2013), while one did not (Ruder et al., 2014).   
In addition to the information from epidemiology studies, further support for the causal connection between PCBs and NHL comes from the fact that PCBs are immunotoxic. Expert groups convened by U.S. government agencies and international institutions to review animal and human data related to PCBs have concluded that PCBs are immunotoxic, including the most recent review in February 2013 by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (Lauby-Secretan et al., 2013  ; EPA, 2008;  Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 2000).   The IARC review states, “PCBs can induce….immune suppression, and inflammatory response…. PCBs can compromise the immune surveillance mechanism.”
The position that PCBs are more likely than not a cause of NHL is supported by the recent IARC Working Group’s classification of PCBs as a Group 1 (known) carcinogen and description of a causal role of PCBs for NHL as “biologically plausible.”
Thanks for your attention. Kdelay13 (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if this much detail were appropriate, we pretty much never list long strings of original studies like this.  The best sources for medical information like this will be review articles published in the last five years or so.  Sources more than ten years old are strongly discouraged.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

text: In the absence of any comments, I am going to delete all of the references that I indicated as inappropriate and the accompanying text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer Link suggestions 

message: In 2013, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified PCBs as known human carcinogens.The human epidemiologic data supports the position that PCBs cause Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system, and that persons with high levels of PCBs for their age are more likely than not to have had PCBs as a cause of their NHL.  Supporting evidence comes from studies measuring the PCB blood and tissue levels of people in the general population, studies of groups exposed to PCBs from particular pollution sources, and, to a lesser extent, studies of workers exposed to PCBs on the job
At least 13 independent general population studies, reported in 17 peer-reviewed articles, have assessed whether increasing levels of PCBs in blood or fat tissue are associated with development of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. The studies by Quintana et al., 2004, and Fritschi et al., 2005, are not informative due to serious methodological limitations, leaving 11 independent studies for evaluation.  Of the 11 studies, eight have reported significantly elevated risks of NHL in association with elevated blood or environmental levels of PCBs or selected PCB congeners, typically the higher chlorinated PCBs.  
 
 
 
 
 
 Although variation across studies in the specific PCB congeners associated with NHL is not unexpected, seven PCB congeners produced statistically significantly elevated odds ratios for NHL in at least one quartile of exposure or odds ratios greater than 2.0 in at least one quartile across multiple study populations.
Elevated blood levels of PCBs or specific PCB congeners, typically those of higher chlorination, were significantly associated with NHL risk in the CLUE cohort, the Janus cohort, and the Physicians’ Health Study. It should be noted that these studies included evaluation and control for many potential alternative causes of the link between PCBs and NHL, none of which explained away that connection. PCB levels were also significantly associated with NHL risk in the initial investigation within the Nurses’ Health Study (Engel et al., 2007b), but generally showed non-statistically significant increases in a second investigation based on more subjects after longer follow-up (Laden et al., 2010). The Danish-EPIC cohort (Brauner et al., 2012) generally showed no association between PCBs and NHL, although there were a few nonsignificant increases in risk associated with selected congeners (e.g., PCB 99, PCB 138, PCB 153). The Danish-EPIC study has some methodologic features that would have led to underestimates of risk, including using the exposure distribution of the cases and subcohort combined to determine the cutpoints for the five exposure groups. Cocco et al. (2008) is generally a “negative” study, but reported odds ratios above one for PCB 28 and PCB 180. Nordstrom et al. (2000), the other “negative” study, consisted of hairy cell leukemia cases only, a rare subtype of lymphoma, and presented no congener-specific analyses, only total PCBs divided at the median (50th percentile) level. 
Two studies of groups exposed to industrial pollution of PCBs, from a chemical factory in Brescia, Italy (Maifredi et al., 2011) and a municipal solid waste incinerator in Besancon, France (Viel et al., 2011), both report increased risks of NHL among the nearby residents. 
Nine independent groups of PCB workers have been studied, some with multiple publications representing updated follow-up of the workers. Considering the most recent update for each population, the studies add some support to the causal role of PCBs in NHL but are limited by being based on mortality instead of incidence and, in many instances, by the small size of the cohorts, resulting in few deaths by which one could assess NHL risk.  Furthermore, the exposures experienced by the occupational cohorts are somewhat different from those of members of the general population.   Some workers may have had greater levels of exposure to PCBs than the general population, but to a different mix of specific PCB congeners. In occupational settings, exposure to lower chlorinated PCBs is more prominent than that in the general population, who tend to have more exposure to the higher chlorinated congeners that bioaccumulate more. The IARC Working Group that recently evaluated PCBs stated, “Because of weathering and biotransformation, the PCB profiles noted in the environment or during biomonitoring differ from those in commercial products.”
Despite the possible differences between occupational and general population exposures, three of the larger transformer or capacitor manufacturing cohorts, the most informative studies, reported excess risk of NHL in association with PCB exposure (Greenland et al., 1994, Mallin et al., 2004; Pesatori et al., 2013), while one did not (Ruder et al., 2014).   
In addition to the information from epidemiology studies, further support for the causal connection between PCBs and NHL comes from the fact that PCBs are immunotoxic. Expert groups convened by U.S. government agencies and international institutions to review animal and human data related to PCBs have concluded that PCBs are immunotoxic, including the most recent review in February 2013 by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (Lauby-Secretan et al., 2013  ; EPA, 2008;  Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 2000).   The IARC review states, “PCBs can induce….immune suppression, and inflammatory response…. PCBs can compromise the immune surveillance mechanism.”
The position that PCBs are more likely than not a cause of NHL is supported by the recent IARC Working Group’s classification of PCBs as a Group 1 (known) carcinogen and description of a causal role of PCBs for NHL as “biologically plausible.”
Thanks for your attention. Kdelay13 (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if this much detail were appropriate, we pretty much never list long strings of original studies like this.  The best sources for medical information like this will be review articles published in the last five years or so.  Sources more than ten years old are strongly discouraged.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

text: In the absence of any comments, I am going to delete all of the references that I indicated as inappropriate and the accompanying text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Cancer link

message: Thank you for your work on the Non-Hodgkin lymphoma article. Since you have taken a close look at the relevant scientific literature, would you mind reviewing the issues on this article as well, specifically in the lead section and the "cancer link" section? -Kdelay13 (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link with non-Hodgkin lymphoma 

message: I started a review of Polychlorinated biphenyl#Cancer link on 22 May  but now find myself with very limited internet access. I'll get back to it once I've returned to civilisation if no one has beaten me to it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  06:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interrupted review of Polychlorinated biphenyl#Cancer link 

message: The Japan section has no mention to Kyūshū 1968, but other parts of the page mention the incident that lead to Yushō disease.
Mdnahas (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Kyūshū under Japan heading? 

message: For reasons described at Talk:Pollution of the Hudson River#About this article I created the article Pollution of the Hudson River. I have deleted the content in this article which was covering this topic and replaced the content which was here with the lede of that pollution article and a link to the pollution article.
I propose that anyone with comments post them at that article, because multiple articles had been covering the topic of "pollution of the Hudson River", and I likewise have directed them all to that article. It is best to post there because this new pollution article affects several articles.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this kind of meta-editing is great, and sorely needed.  thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of article "Pollution of the Hudson River" 

message: I think that the units for solubilities of PCBs indicated in this article are incorrect. They are given as ng/L. I think the units should be mg/L.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielArthurWalker (talk • contribs) 23:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solubility of PCBs: incorrect units 

message: I removed some longer text that was only tangentially related to PCBs, and to my reckoning went into too much detail about a question of whether some barrels contained elements of Agent Orange, and replaced it with a concise description of the PCB contamination found on the Kadena Air Base, with a reference that will provide more background for anyone who is curious. I hope this helps balance the article in terms of weighting, focus, and brevity. Here is the new text:
* In Okinawa, high levels of PCB contamination in soil on Kadena Air Base were reported in 1987 at thousands of parts per million, some of the highest levels found in any pollution site in the world, and there is fear that PCB contamination may also be present on other land used by United States Forces Japan.U.S. military report suggests cover-up over toxic pollution in Okinawa Jon Mitchell, Japan Times, 17 March 2014
Here is the diff. SageRad (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think my biggest problem with this was the phrase "and there is fear that...".  It really doesn't add anything to the article as it is too vague. Fear by who?  Is it rational fear? On what evidence is the fear based?  There is fear among some in the United States that Obama is a Al Qeda mole, and among others that GMOs cause cancer, but there is no meaningful evidence supporting either of these things according to reliable sources.  Starting a sentence with "there is fear that" is simply a way to suggest possibilities for which there is no evidence.  If you have a source that says that investigations are ongoing to determine the potential for contamination at other sites, or that the government of Okinawa has demanded such investigations, those would be concrete statements.  But "there is fear that" clearly falls under WP:WEASEL Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement  11:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Okinawa USFJ pollution in Japan section 

message: There seems to be a pattern on this page of information disappearing instead of trying to include and improve sections that are relevant to the history and sociology and epidemiology around PCBs. It is very disturbing to me. It seems to show a preference to disappear an entire section (like the Yusho disease event in Japan in 1968 for one thing, and the Dioxin Affair in Belgium, for another thing, instead of talking about it and improving sources or refining the sections. Highly disturbing and throws away the work and the contributions of others. It erases the long memory that we all need so much when it comes to incidents of breach of public trust, which is a large part of what this page can offer to the public at large. I am sounding an alarm call here, and would love if other concerned people would add your observations or comments. SageRad (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: instead of getting alarm-y, please simply focus on content and sourcing.  Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get "alarm-y" and call out a pattern that is real, as a meta-level concern here, because it's not just about one specific edit, but a pattern that i am seeing, and so i will call it out because i think it's important. In addition, i will also pay attention to content and sourcing, of course. I would like to feel that this is a cooperative effort to document a class of chemicals and their history and relation to human society, and not a tug of war. SageRad (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: this is how wikipedia goes.  people come through and add a bunch of unsourced or badly sourced content; other people come clean it up. yet other people come back and find better sourcing and rescue things.  it is no crisis for pete's sake.  crappy content is added here every day, and crappy content is removed every day; great content is added every day; some times great content is removed.  it is why we watch, and why we work, and why talk.  totally normal.  Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I'd also add that it would be wise to be careful about making insinuations about the motives of other editors.  It would be good for you to review the talk page guidelines WP:TALK, the guidelines for sourcing medical content  WP:MEDRS (hint: a quote from "a researcher" taken from the Flanders News doesn't even come close to meeting Wikipedia standards), and the guidelines regarding single purpose accounts WP:SPA. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement  15:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of insinuations.... SageRad (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's as if neither of you think that my observation here holds *any* merit, and as if the practice of coming to a passage and deleting it wholesale is alright, even when the incident or event described verifiably happened, and it is a very important even in the history of the subject of the article, and someone put a lot of work into it. Sure, this is how WP *can* go with contentious people who do this sort of thing, but not how it *must* go and that is why i started this conversation, for which you're now labeling me all sorts of wrong for doing... I think i've got a point and it's important. I see a pattern that is not good for the comprehensiveness and usefulness of this article. Having fun? SageRad (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: you added content that was removed due to sourcing, per WP:BRD you talk it out.  it is not a big deal, but happens every day here. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not at *all* what i was talking about. I am talking about a *pattern* of disappearing information -- a trend that i see here that i hold is very, very, very, very harmful to the content and quality of the article in terms of usefulness to the public, in terms of retaining the net positive of the work of people in the past to update the page, and in terms of editorial integrity. It's not right to be deleting whole episodes in the history of PCBs, even if it's poorly sourced in your opinion, or unsourced. You can tag it for citation needed, and give it a couple weeks. You can write something about it on the talk page. You can look for a source yourself. You can follow the link that it contains and find a source there. But instead, i noted things going down the memory hole, and something is wrong with that. So i said so. And then.... diversion, distraction, denial...  SageRad (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And yeah, it *is* a big deal. If you knew nothing about PCBs but wanted to know about them, and you came here, wouldn't you want to know the full history, the way that people's food has gotten contaminated, the way that rivers have gotten contaminated, and how that happened, and who knew what, when? If it was YOUR river that got poisoned? If it was YOUR aunt who got cancer from PCB exposure... wouldn't you want a public collectively-written encyclopedia to retain the work done in good faith by people around the world who contributed their bits to this article? You're really beginning to seem like an intentional curmudgeon to me, Jytdog. SageRad (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Suppose you're a young person who lives in Okinawa and you hear something about PCBs, some rumor about contamination, and you Google them, and read this article. Wouldn't you want to know about Yusho disease, and to see the information about the extremely high PCB contamination in soil on the former US base? By deleting entire events from the page, you're denying a young girl in Okinawa the chance to see that on a page that she looks up to learn about it. And why do your edits pretty much have one direction? You accuse me of advocacy as if that's a bad thing in itself, but your edits collectively make me think you're an advocate for a different cause, that which would not want these histories so publicly visible. It's really strange. SageRad (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

text: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."
This would be a good time stop lecturing longtime contributors and read the some of the key Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement  07:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Wow, i think we're talking past each other here, and you go and cite another slew of policies as a result. I very much understand the need for sourcing on anything that is challenged, as that's a tension that keeps it real and reflecting the real world. I am calling out what i see as a culture of this page that seems to throw things down the memory hole rather than to tag them for needing sources, or better sources, or work on them a little, or put a remark on the talk page about one's concerns. I am "advocating" for valuing the contributions of others enough that we don't delete it wholesale if the sources don't match what we think is adequate. I'm also talking about a culture of hyper-rule-citing here, which i think is hurting the general editorial atmosphere that i think would result in a better article altogether. Each article takes a heck of a lot of work, and is meant to evolve over time, and throwing out wholesale descriptions of events and episodes in history from an article like this one, in my opinion, devolves it instead of evolving it. That's what i am noting here, in my perception, after being involved with this page for a week or two. And then it's informative that even in calling this out, i get in response allegations and insinuations from the people who were doing the very thing i was calling out to begin with. Judging solely on observed behavior, it feels wrong to me. It doesn't feel like it's in the public interest, what is going on here. SageRad (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And let me tell you that i do mean Memory hole and that this term is especially relevant to a page like this one, because there are indeed passages that are embarrassing to certain groups that are covered on this page. And there are people who suffered greatly due to the events and incidents that are going into a memory hole. Those people should not be forgotten. Wikipedia is part of the public consciousness, as a publicly generated content source that supposedly reflects a balance of views that are held by significant groups of people, especially on controversial topics where different groups may tell different stories. It's not very assuring to see that events in which people died as a result of contamination with PCBs get dropped from the page summarily. When i say "summarily" what i mean is that in some cases they've not even been tagged with "citation needed" and therefore it actually took me, acting on a hunch, to go back into the history rather far, and to notice some significant deletions, and then to ask "Why did this get deleted? It's a rather good passage and simply needed a source that i can find in 5 minutes." Really, now. SageRad (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: you came here with content you wanted to add to the article.  a priori.  you are identifying what you want with the "public good".  This is what advocates typically do, on both fronts.  As I and others have told you many times, over the years the Wikipedia community has developed policies and guidelines aimed at furthering its mission to provide the public with reliable, neutral information.  You continue to ignore that these policies and guidelines exist - both the spirit and the letter of them.  Understanding them and working within them is not "lawyering", it is what it means to be WP:HERE as opposed to WP:NOTHERE - please read those. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I am WP:HERE.... and i have experienced that most of the time when you two (Formerly and Jytdog) have cited guidelines and essays *at* me, it's generally not even supported by the guidelines you cite. And then i have responded in turn with that comment, and you've never acknowledged this. I continue to hold that there is a hostile and contentious atmosphere here, and that you're not hearing what i'm saying, and you're misrepresenting my actions, and that this is not good for the culture of Wikipedia. I think i am more WP:HERE than the two of you. I'm calling out a pattern of bad dialogue and problematic editing practices, and this is what i get? Ha.  SageRad (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: there has been tension as you have been learning, and having content and sourcing not "stick" because it doesn't work under the policies and guidelines. you continue to personalize this, which is another mistake new editors make. please show you are here by using good sources and discussing content and sources, based on policies and guidelines, simply, on article talk pages. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: People are people, with identities. I see a pattern in behavior. Is that "personalizing" it? I've seen specific behaviors that i have described here in this conversation. It's not all about me learning. The tension is not from that solely. When i have checked into the citations you two keep producing, i find nuance there that usually supports my actions. I find a pattern of seemingly ingenuine citation and obstruction. There is a real tension that i believe is related to the same tension in the society at large over issues that are so-called "controversial" like the one of chemical contamination of humans and the Earth. There is a tension when one group does not want the information to be broadcast, for it is inconvenient and potentially harmful to the culpable. SageRad (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, and this is just a personal observation, you two emit -- to my judgment -- a "lording" attitude like you're the kings of this place. That's a strictly personal impression, but is the result of a couple weeks of intense interaction with you both, and my considered observation. SageRad (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

text: (Specifically, WP:TPG#Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration applies.)--Jerzy•t 07:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pattern of Disappearing Information 

message: We need better sourcing in this section under "Animals" -- there are many citation needed tags. Just a note in case anyone has time. I'll try to get to it soon. SageRad (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need better sourcing in Animals section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Polychlorinated biphenyl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070715221107/http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/GreenBuilding/43106016.pdf to http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/publications/GreenBuilding/43106016.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is it perhaps time to remove this "neutrality disputed" tag?  I don't see that it's relevant anymore and doesn't serve the reader as far as i can tell. Is there any reason to keep the tag there? If so, would an editor who knows what it's about please re-state that meaning of this tag? SageRad (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your comment. "Legal issues etc" means what exactly? I posted this section to begin to build consensus to remove the tag, and to ask what it's about. Could you state in some more depth what it's about please? SageRad (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that you can go ahead and remove it. Gandydancer (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV dispute tag from 2014 -- can we remove? 

message: This article is the latest in a string of many making the connection between Monsanto's production of PCBs while knowing fully of their dangers, while hiding the knowledge, to the environmental harm that has been caused by the chemicals. I think we ought to include more in this article about the major source of PCBs and the nature of the supply of these chemicals sociologically and historically as evidenced by sources like this one, which includes many primary documents (internal memos and meetings minutes, etc). The notability of the connection is established and it's basic definition of the topic of the article to define the major sources of the chemicals, where they were produced, how much they've contaminated the environment of the globe, and similar things of that sort. It's the sort of basic information that a common reader would hope to expect from this article if they were to be learning about the topic for the first time. I'll work on some basic edit proposals soon. SageRad (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant article. 

message: I am doing a major edit of this article recently.  If editors are even a little worried, leave a note.  The topic is an important one, and the article has the elements of something useful for the average reader, but there are problems with redundancy, creative writing, opinions creeping in (understandably IMHO with this notorious material), some medical commentary not appearing to meet WP:MEDRS standards, and tangential stuff (like a table of all isomers possible).  Also I wonder if the regulations sections should not be spun off.  But feel free to comment or make suggestions.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing June, 2016

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Polychlorinated biphenyl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/pdf/PCBtranscap.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808144938/http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/POPs_Inc/proceedings/bangkok/FIEDLER1.html to http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/POPs_Inc/proceedings/bangkok/FIEDLER1.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cevl.msu.edu/~long/pcb.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519121339/http://www.epa.gov/NE/ge/sitehistory.html to http://www.epa.gov/NE/ge/sitehistory.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201054957/http://www.epa.gov/Region2/superfund/npl/0202229c.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/Region2/superfund/npl/0202229c.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306134819/http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/suppl7/suppl7.pdf to http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/suppl7/suppl7.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Polychlorinated biphenyl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414094248/http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/management/guidance/mwms/pdf/mwms.pdf to http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/management/guidance/mwms/pdf/mwms.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Polychlorinated biphenyl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003010739/http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/publications/chemicals/scheduled-waste/pubs/pcbid.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/publications/chemicals/scheduled-waste/pubs/pcbid.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414094255/http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/pdf/PCBident/pcbid1.pdf to http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/pdf/PCBident/pcbid1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131006060813/http://legalnewsline.com/news/236012-ala.-sc-makes-ruling-in-cases-over-300m-monsanto-settlement to http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/236012-ala.-sc-makes-ruling-in-cases-over-300m-monsanto-settlement
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130817023437/http://www.fsai.ie/food_businesses/topics_of_interest/recall_of_pork_dec08/recall_information.html to http://www.fsai.ie/food_businesses/topics_of_interest/recall_of_pork_dec08/recall_information.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718123940/http://www.wyff4.com/r/26949154/detail.html to http://www.wyff4.com/r/26949154/detail.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The $185-million result of this trial should be added to the "Lawsuits" section of this article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to "Lawsuits" section:  information about 2021 trial