Talk:Lindane

message: Gammaxene (540 Google hits) or gammexane (27000 Google hits)?  The latter is more consistent with the saturated cyclohexane structure.96.54.53.165 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the second sentence of this article, where it says that "Lindane is the gamma isomer of hexachlorocyclohexane (“gamma-HCH”), formerly known as benzene hexachloride...."Rick lightburn (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (old thread on obsolete name)

message: I think that the The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Public Health Advisory at http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/lindane/lindanePHA.htm was prepared by the federal government and falls under the public domain. See Wikipedia:Public domain resources#US Government.  WODUP  04:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation

message: This article isn't the place for an essay on who manufactures, imports, distributes, and sells Lindane-based pharmaceuticals, or advocacy relating to its removal or anticipated removal from the marketplace. It's more than enough to note that Lindane is banned for almost all applications in the US. Perhaps there is another article where discussion of the health and political consequences of pesticide use would be more appropriate. Joseph N Hall 00:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that that section in question has/had a POV problem and your edits go a long way toward solving this, I disagree that the info about import/manufacturing/who sells lindane has no place in the article. Other articles about pharmaceuticals and pesticides contain this type of info, and i don't see any reason why we should treat this one any different.  I'm going to re insert this useful info, while leaving the POV-ish stuff out.Yilloslime 20:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I was just trying to quickly remove the fluff. Thanks for taking the time to do a more thoughtful job. Joseph N Hall 21:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, way back when, my grandfather used to spray that stuff in his orchard ... he was a practical guy who kept supplies of assorted "useful" pesticides around long after they were banned. Shudder. Joseph N Hall 21:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV on "Use" 

message: On 4/19/2009, the "Morton Grove Lawsuit" section was edited by a representative of the National Pediculosis Association. Npa-representative-01 (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes by The National Pediculosis Association

message: On 9/11/2007, I removed a range on copyrighted materials from the article (verbatim reports from newspapers), in the subsection on "Adverse Reactions" I made more reflective of FDA documents, and brought the section on the Morton Grove lawsuit more in line with the status of the lawsuit.  
It should be notied that the bill frequently introduced into the NY legislature to ban lindane remains, as I understand it, still in committee.
LHL Rick 19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The scare quotes give away that the sentence is biased--i.e. the POV of the author of the sentence is clearly on the side of Morton Grove. Sorry if this wasn't clear from my edit summary. Anyways Rick, your work on this article has greatly improved it, but you are wrong about the scare quotes and the phrase "so called". Take a look at the guidelines on this, it's pretty clear cut. The subject of lawsuit are factsheets issued by the Ecology Center, and nothing is gained or made any clearer by putting the word factsheet in scare quotes or using the term "so-called." On the other hand, the use of the quotes and the term "so-called" "suggest that a term [factsheet] is invalid"--something that the courts will decide, not wikipedia editors. Hope this makes sense. Happy editting. Also, I'd suggest that you pick one user name ("Rick Lightburn" or LHL Rick") and stick with it. Using two can be interpetted as sockpuppetry.Yilloslime 00:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to hide behind the two names, and I readily admit it is sloppy. (I was working on a different computer, and couldn't remember my password.)  I've made a change that (I hope) clarifies that the defendants in the case called them fact sheets. I hope this achieves a more neutral POV.  Rick lightburn 06:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Rick. Again let me begin by commending you for the great work you've done on this page. It's a lot better off now than before you began. Kudos. But I have almost as much of problem with "what the defendants styled 'fact sheets' " as I did with "so-called 'factsheets.' " While your edit did not contain any of the official WP:Words to avoid it still runs up against the spirit of that guideline. And it still has those scare-quotes. (Whether you intend them to be scare quotes or not, the reader will always interpet them as such when they enclose a single word that is not obviously a direct quote.) Clearly the lawsuit was filed because the plantiffs believe that not everything in the factsheets is accurate, so there is no need cast any additional doubt on their veracity by describing them as "what the defendants styled 'fact sheets.'" The reader will interpret the phase "what the defendants styled 'fact sheets'" to suggest that the author of the phrase also doubts truthfulness of the factsheets, and thus the statement violates WP:NPOV. Hope this is clear. Yilloslime (t) 02:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Yilloslime.  I'm trying to be scientific, and yet I need to be on guard for NPOV, since my current position is not disinterested.  I'm just resistant to using "fact" in anything that the defendants produced.  How about we just call it "literature?" (This is editing at the nits, I admit, but that margin is where the law works.) Rick lightburn 18:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think simply calling it 'factsheets' works best, but I can live with 'literature'.Yilloslime (t) 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that 'factsheets' without quotes is problematic, because they imply what is written is factual. For example, if the Bush campaign wrote about the likely effects Obama campaign's plans for the health care system, concluding that it was harmful and risky, and published this in a factsheet, this would (or should) be described as a "factsheet" and not a factsheet. While I agree that in normal cases quotes usually have the 'scare quotes' effect, a written document must in my view have a highly undisputable nature to be called a factsheet without quotes, because the word "fact" in the name implies that what is written is true. It's difficult to read from this whether the Ecology centre has sufficient scientific impartiality. 94.196.242.99 (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes by Rick

message: I removed the "Ad" tag because the language in that section did not violate any of Wikipedia's standards for not being a soapbox, promotion, or advertisement (even if it may have language similar to disclaimers found in pharmaceutical advertisements.) Rick lightburn (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising Tag in the "Pharmaceutical Use" section 

message: I have removed the 'Ad' tag from the section called Adverse Reactions to Lindane Pharmaceuticals. According to the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary (Copyright 2007-2008), the very definition of advertising is to call public attention to especially by emphasizing desirable qualities so as to arouse a desire to buy or patronize. Further, the restriction on advertising within Wikipedia is part of its policy against using Wikipedia as a soapbox--indeed the tag refers to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#SOAPBOX. Accordingly, the section entitled Adverse Reactions to Lindane Pharmaceuticals does not promote in any way the use or sale of any lindane pharmaceutical product nor does it emphasize desirable qualities of lindane medications. To the contrary, the section details information on safety risks, some of which are serious. All of the information is taken directly from FDA-approved prescription labeling, including the boxed warning for these products, and information from a 2003 FDA postmarketing safety analysis. Thus, an Ad tag is not appropriate. Rick lightburn (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising Tag in the "Adverse Reactions to Lindane Pharmaceuticals" section 

message: One of the bold wedges is pointing the wrong way in the image
:I have now replaced it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The PDF on the Ecology centre's webpage (link 41?) appears to have been removed. Since this seems vital to understand the 'lawsuit' paragraph, and to make the reader some possibility of judging themself whether the lawsuit was indeed a SLAPP lawsuit or merited, could it be tracked down?94.196.242.99 (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken link 

message: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090510/sc_afp/unenvironmentchemical
Incase it's expired from yahoo's spool, quoted here for discussion sake., delete after discussion is over. 
GENEVA (AFP) – Nine chemicals, including headlice treatment lindane, have been added to a list of poisonous substances that are to be eliminated under the Stockholm Convention, the UN Environment Programme said on Saturday.
More than 160 signatory states of the convention targeting hazardous substances that can kill or are seriously harmful to health, added the chemicals to the existing list of 12 after a week-long meeting in Geneva.
"The tremendous impact of these substances on human health and the environment has been acknowledged today by adding nine new chemicals to the Convention," said UN Under-Secretary General Achim Steiner in a statement.
"This shift reflects international concern on the need to reduce and eventually eliminate such substances throughout the global community."
The nine chemicals that member states have now committed to eliminate are:
- Lindane -- used in treatment of headlice and scabies, and in insecticides
- Alpha hexachlorocyclohexane -- a by-product of lindane
- Beta hexachlorocyclohexane -- a by-product of lindane
- Hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether -- used in flame retardants
- Tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether -- used in flame retardants
- Chlordecone -- used in agricultural pesticides
- Hexabromobiphenyl -- used in flame retardants
- Pentachlorobenzene -- used in fungicides, flame retardants
- Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride -- used in electric and electronic parts, photo imaging, textiles
--75.20.207.88 (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN banned Lindane 

message: Legal Status: Edits for clarification, particularly relating to the Stockholm Convention. Please note that lindane is not “banned” internationally. Rather, member countries to the Stockholm Convention have agreed to eliminate agricultural uses of lindane while public health uses are currently exempt: “[Stockholm Convention]Decides to amend part I of Annex A of the Convention to list lindane therein with a specific exemption for the use of lindane as a human health pharmaceutical for the control of head lice and scabies as second line treatment”
(http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/Repository/COP4/UNEP-POPS-COP.4-38.English.pdf)
Introductory Section: A few minor changes were made to help clarify the information. As noted, “Benzene Hexachloride” is an obsolete term as a matter of basic organic chemistry (see http://chemistry2.csudh.edu/rpendarvis/BenzStr.html ). Also, the statement regarding uses of lindane was adjusted to reflect the fact that an overwhelming majority of lindane uses have been agricultural (> 99%), not pharmaceutical (as reported by Commission for Environmental Cooperation and other authoritative sources).
Toxicity discussion modified to more accurately reflect 2005 ATSDR report cited. Additional information was also incorporated for context. For example, lindane is an insecticide and its mechanism of action is by way of its neurotoxic action, as noted in the 2005 ATSDR report.  As an insecticide, lindane is preferentially toxic to parasitic insects. While neurotoxic effects in humans have occurred, they are known to be rare and most often associated with chronic or high level exposure situations. The statements regarding liver and kidney toxicity in humans are not accurate. The 2005 ATSDR report noted elevated liver enzymes in workers after 10 years of occupational exposure to technical-grade HCH, not lindane. Moreover, in humans, more serious toxic effects related to lindane exposure almost exclusively relate to the nervous system, not the liver and kidneys. The statement was adjusted to reflect this fact, which is supported by the 2005 ATSDR report and other authoritative references.  
The full report from the Stockholm Converntion can be found at: http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/Repository/COP4/UNEP-POPS-COP.4-38.English.pdf
Blancer707 (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates to Introduction 

message: Section revised to clarify recent changes to the Stockholm Convention. 
The last paragraph was moved to the top of the section.
Blancer707 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm well aware of all the intricacies of lindane's legal status both domestically and internationally. The thing is, wikipedia strives to provide a global perspective,and it also strives to be useable and readable. Sometimes we have make tradeoffs between depth of information and brevity, especially in things like infoboxes. As it currently is (In 2009, the Stockholm Convention banned agricultural uses globally in 166 countries, but permitted pharmaceutical use for 5 more years), the infobox both accurate and short. This, in my view, the best compromise. If people want to know about it's legal status in the US specifically, they look for that info in the article itself--it's discussed in the LEAD, and the History, Lindane Medications, and Regulatory Status sections. No one is gong to be confused if the US status isn't specifically mentioned in the infobox, too. Yilloslime TC 17:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regulatory Status 

message: Dear Editor, 
We are in complete agreement that this article should be balanced and accurate and I am happy to work with you to advance the quality of this page. However, I disagree with your characterization of my edits, which were in response to the edits that you and other editors had made previously. I am not the original architect of this article and have been working within the framework of what had already been created. 
Moreover, while you repeatedly state that you are just “trimming the fat,” the reality is that you are selectively deleting well supported and highly relevant facts to support a single point of view. This form of editing is not only self serving and disruptive, but is also a disservice to the reader. 
I further disagree that both my version and your version were accurate. Indeed, there were numerous false statements in earlier iterations of this article, which I took the time to research and correct only to find that you had globally reversed nearly all of them (and on more than one occasion). This type of editing is extremely disruptive. Similarly, there were many instances where highly relevant facts were left out--perhaps in the spirit of streamlining content – nonetheless, it’s misleading. For example, you state up front that in humans, lindane affects the liver, kidneys and nervous system. This statement is patently false. The liver and kidney effects you refer to relate to the findings from animal toxicology studies where rodents were fed high doses of lindane or technical-grade HCH (which as you know contain the more toxic alpha and beta isomers) over prolonged periods of time. Indeed, the primary reason for conducting animal toxicity studies is to establish safe levels for human use/exposure. In humans, the CNS is the primary system affected by exposure to toxic amounts of lindane. This is a well established and undisputed fact. 
In response to your comments regarding specific edits, I note the following:
*To reiterate, your edit regarding liver and kidney toxicity in “humans” is patently false. The ATSDR toxicology report notes specifically that the primary organ system affected in humans following exposure to toxic amounts of lindane is the nervous system, not the liver and kidneys: “In humans, the most commonly reported effects associated with oral exposure to γ-HCH are neurological. Most of the information is from case reports of acute γ-HCH poisoning.” This fact is well established and the literature replete with support, well beyond the citations included here.  You further neglect to note that the liver and kidney effects you refer to (and  as detailed in the body of the ATSDR Toxicology report on pages 35, 79-87 and 110) relate to findings from select animal toxicology studies, many of which did not involve lindane but rather the more toxic technical-grade HCH and beta and alpha isomers.  As you likely know, animal tox studies are conducted to establish safe exposure levels for humans (e.g., national water criterion, agricultural tolerances, etc). It is unreasonable to expect the lay public to appreciate this fact and understand the implications to human health without further explanation. The statement was therefore corrected.
*Your edit regarding how lindane works is misleading and does not “simplify” the communication in a meaningful way but rather creates ambiguity. It was therefore revised. Lindane was developed specifically to destroy parasitic insects and the section is about the chemical’s mechanism of action, not its human safety profile as implied. I refer to the wording used in other Wikipedia articles for  other like chemicals-- permethrin and malathion--which also work by way of their neurotoxic insecticidal properties to kill parasitic insects—neither is referred to as a “neurotoxin”:
**“Permethrin is a common synthetic chemical, widely used as an insecticide, acaricide, and insect repellent. It belongs to the family of synthetic chemicals called pyrethroids and functions as a neurotoxin, affecting neuron membranes by prolonging sodium channel activation.”
**“Malathion is an organophosphate parasympathomimetic which binds irreversibly to cholinesterase.”
*Your criticism of the statement "Limited data suggest that lindane may be an endocrine disruptor but additional research is needed to determine the relevance to public health" as being too round about was nearly a verbatim taken from page 139 of the ATSDR report that you cited. Specifically the report states “The amount of evidence is limited and further investigation is necessary to ascertain the relevance and impact to public health.” In my opinion, your statement over simplifies the subject; however, I have no problem expanding in the body of the article in the spirit of compromise.
*With regard to carcinogenicity, please note that the edits were not based solely on the ATSDR report but rather a number of authoritative reviews and studies on this subject matter. Further, the chronology is relevant as the science has advanced over time and the more recent reviews taken on by the EPA and the WHO have accounted for these insights whereas those by the IARC and NCI have not. The statement was revised to address your concerns while preserving the integrity of the science.
*Relative to the Stockholm Convention, I disagree that it is intuitive to the lay reader that this applies only to countries that have ratified the treaty, particularly given the language that the ban is global. I think this is misleading and implies that the chemical is banned worldwide, which is false. Again, I appreciate your attempt to simplify and agree that it could be shortened. 
Lastly, as you continue to contribute to this page, please respect that Wikipedia is for consensus building and not for global deletions to the work of others.  The edits made today are to increase the accuracy of the article, provide additional details that are relevant to this topic, and to enhance its readability. I have provided detailed support and rationales for each edit, and have respected your attempt to reorganize the information while making compromises where appropriate.
Blancer707 (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Reversions 

message: === Legal Status === 
As of January 12, 2010, there were 152 signatory countries listed on the Stockholm Convention website. Information was corrected. 
=== Introductory Section ===
Regarding mechanism of action: This section relates to the chemical's mechanism of action (MOA), not human safety as implied here. The statement that "lindane is a neurotoxin" was revised to avoid ambiguity, and is in line with the language used in other Wikipedia articles for other like chemicals with similar MOAs. For example, “Permethrin is a common synthetic chemical, widely used as an insecticide, acaricide, and insect repellent. It belongs to the family of synthetic chemicals called pyrethroids and functions as a neurotoxin, affecting neuron membranes by prolonging sodium channel activation.” Same goes for Malathion: “Malathion is an organophosphate parasympathomimetic which binds irreversibly to cholinesterase.” 
Regarding toxicity: The statement as previously written (in humans, lindane affects the ... liver and kidneys) was false and was therefore corrected for a second time. In humans, the primary body system affected by excess exposure to lindane is the nervous system, not the liver or kidneys. The section on Human Health Effects in this article notes the same. This fact is well established and the evidence undisputed. Indeed, liver and kidney effects, as detailed in the body of the ATSDR tox report (see pages 35, 79-87 and 110) related to findings from select animal toxicology studies involving chronic high-dose exposures, not human exposures. Moreover, many of these studies did not involve lindane but rather more toxic technical-grade HCH and the beta and alpha isomers. Indeed, animal toxicology studies are conducted to establish safe levels of a chemical for human exposure. Detailing results without this understanding is highly misleading and does not serve the lay reader well.
Regarding carcinogenic potential: The most current authoritative reviews on this subject by the EPA and the WHO have concluded that lindane is not likely to be a major human carcinogen. Older reviews by the IARC and the NCI did not take into account newer scientific insights. As a compromise, the statement was revised to include mutatenicity and to more objectively state the facts, which are detailed in the body of this article. 
Regarding pharmaceutical use: Wording was awkward. Modified for clarity.
=== History and Use === 
Changes to this section reflect grammatical refinements and addition of relevant information that was previously deleted. 
 
Regarding agricultural vs pharmaceutical formulations: Information on lindane concentrations in various formulations was reinserted as it is highly relevant to the specific applications and exposure risks associated with lindane.
Regarding major uses: The fact that more than  99% of lindane uses have historically been for agricultural purposes is an important and relevant historical detail reported by many sources, including the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, that helps to set context for the global uses of this chemical. It has been reinserted.
Regarding agicultural bans: As worded, the statement was false and therefore corrected. Lindane is not banned internationally and is legal in many countries including the US and Canada.  Rather, countries who have ratified the treaty have agreed to phase out agricultural uses of lindane, with a specific exemption for healthcare uses. This is not an intuitive point and needs to be spelled out for the lay reader. As noted by the Convention, the ban applies to “countries that have ratified the Convention” Source: http://www.pops.int/documents/guidance/beg_guide.pdf 
Additional edits were to simplify and clarify the wording and information for the reader, including the statement regarding toxicity of the alpha and beta isomers.
Regarding FDA position: A statement regarding the FDA's position on lindane medications was added for accuracy and completeness of discussion on US history and uses.
Regarding resistance: Resistance is a major concern with scabies and lice treatments, which is why governments are advocating for the development of treatment alternatives. I am not clear why this information was deleted previously, but it has been restored here as it is a highly relevant public health issue and an important reason why second-line treatments are sometimes required. 
Regarding FDA warning letter: I am not clear why this information is even included in this article—it occurred in 2007, has been resolved and relevant safety information provided in another section of this article. Perhaps someone can provide a fresh point of view on this. However, in the spirit of compromise, the paragraph was simplified and the information regarding the outcome ( which was deleted by a previous editor for unknown reasons) restored.  This information is relevant to the public and to purposefully exclude it is misleading at best.
Regarding pending legislation: This paragraph was expanded for accuracy. The previous version implies to the lay reader that lindane is banned in Michigan, which is false.
Regarding the California analysis: Important details of this report were reinserted as they are highly relevant to the extent that conclusions can be drawn, particularly for such a narrow study. It is improper to report the authors’ opinions as facts without also describing key limitations of the analysis. This is  basic research reporting 101. 
As well, the study did not report a “marked” decrease. The editorialized remark was thus deleted. As an aside, the levels of lindane entering CA reclamation plants, as reported in this paper, never exceeded levels considered safe by current national water safety standards for lindane. Similarly, the statement that the decline in lindane water levels was "Dramatic" is an opinion of the Wikipedia editor, and not an objective finding of the study. Statement revised.
The opposing viewpoint expressed by the EPA is highly relevant to include here for balance. Why this was removed previously is unclear but biases the communication and does not serve the reader well.
=== Human Health Effects === 
Information briefly expanded here from introductory statement above. Language is nearly verbatim from the CDC’s ATSDR toxicology report cited.
Regarding prenatal exposure to beta-HCH: The statement was deleted because this article as well as this section relates to the health effects of lindane, not other HCH isomers. To also clarify, the previous statement was inaccurate. Beta-HCH is not an isomer of lindane but rather an isomer of HCH. This was one of many corrections made previously that was reverted. 
Regarding cancer risk: This section was reworked to more accurately reflect the available data and expert positions on this subject. The information regarding the EPAs cancer classification of lindane was also in error and was corrected. Similarly, the IARC 2B classification was not for lindane specifically but the broader class of hexachlorocyclohexanes. All of the information provided here comes from the referenced reports. The intent was to correct inaccurate information and to also provide more context for the data and positions that have been published over the years. Review dates were included because some of the experimental data that was relied upon in earlier reviews were later deemed scientifically flawed and less relevant by more current scientific standards. Please note that the lead statement regarding animal studies does not reflect the science on this subject and was removed. 
Regarding adverse reactions: Section revised for accuracy and clarity. Previous version implied that seizures are common events vs the rare events that they are -- this is true for agricultural, occupational, and pharmaceutical chemical exposures. Also, it is standard practice to report common events first, followed by less common and rare systemic effects.
Blancer707 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates to Clarify and Correct Inaccurate and Biased Information 

message: Information briefly expanded here from introductory statement above. Language is nearly verbatim from the CDC’s ATSDR toxicology report cited.
Regarding prenatal exposure to beta-HCH: The statement was deleted because this article as well as this section relates to the health effects of lindane, not other HCH isomers. To also clarify, the previous statement was inaccurate. Beta-HCH is not an isomer of lindane but rather an isomer of HCH. This was one of many corrections made previously that was reverted. 
Regarding cancer risk: This section was reworked to more accurately reflect the available data and expert positions on this subject. The information regarding the EPAs cancer classification of lindane was also in error and was corrected. Similarly, the IARC 2B classification was not for lindane specifically but the broader class of hexachlorocyclohexanes. All of the information provided here comes from the referenced reports. The intent was to correct inaccurate information and to also provide more context for the data and positions that have been published over the years. Review dates were included because some of the experimental data that was relied upon in earlier reviews were later deemed scientifically flawed and less relevant by more current scientific standards. Please note that the lead statement regarding animal studies does not reflect the science on this subject and was removed. 
Regarding adverse reactions: Section revised for accuracy and clarity. Previous version implied that seizures are common events vs the rare events that they are -- this is true for agricultural, occupational, and pharmaceutical chemical exposures. Also, it is standard practice to report common events first, followed by less common and rare systemic effects.
Blancer707 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Health Effects 

message: In this edit, Blancer changed the infobox text under "Legal Status" from "In 2009, the Stockholm Convention banned agricultural uses globally in 166 countries, but permitted pharmaceutical use for 5 more years." to "In 2009, the Stockholm Convention banned agricultural uses but permitted pharmaceutical uses for 5 more years. There are 152 ratified countries to the treaty." I prefer the original text, as it more concise and more accurate. The Convention is binding on countries that are Parties, and there were 166 Parties when Lindane was added to the treaty. There are 152 signatories which is not the same thing as "ratified countries to the treaty"--for example the US is one of those 152 signatories, but it hasn't ratified the treaty and so is not a Party and is not bound by the lindane ban. And as of today, there are 169 parties according to the Stockholm Convention website so that's what the infobox really should say. Yilloslime TC 05:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Status under Stockholm Convention

message: Choking Victim referenced lindane in infested.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.215.161 (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Reference 

message: How stable are the isomers with respect to each other? Do the Cl atoms flip to the other side? It also looks like Hexachlorobenzene has the same atoms connected to the same atoms. Do the various isomers transition to this molecule as well, or not?
If transitions occur, what is their halflife, and if not, what is the chemical/physical reason why the isomers and Hexachlorobenzene are stable?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some questions about the isomers 

message: Moving text comments inserted by  into article to here:
::[ http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33236293 ] WHO says that lindane causes a cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma. There is nothing in this article on lindane to indicate its origin. The most likely production source of lindane is coal tar. There is nothing on the "coal tar" page of Wikipedia that identifies "lindane" as the ingredient of coal tar that is used as a medication to kill head lice. There is no cross link between the two pages. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_tar ] Considering the cancer risk that has been proven, don't you think that it would be appropriate to include this information in both articles, and include the source of lindane as being coal tar?
The article in Lancet is here (free registration).  The BBC News article is at the link above. I too was confused by the mentions of lice treatments. Shenme (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHO comments 2015/06 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Lindane. 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/20061006133810/http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/lindane_fs_addendum.htm to http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/lindane_fs_addendum.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.lindane.com/pdf/EPA_Cancer_Assessment_of_Lindane2001.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/POLLUTANTS/LindaneNARAP-Nov06_en.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927024722/http://www.pops.int/documents/meetings/poprc/chemreview.htm to http://www.pops.int/documents/meetings/poprc/chemreview.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928110049/http://www.panna.org/campaigns/docsLindane/lindaneBannedMap.pdf to http://www.panna.org/campaigns/docsLindane/lindaneBannedMap.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061006100023/http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/lindane_red_addendum.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/lindane_red_addendum.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604094216/http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2006/lindane-order.htm to http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2006/lindane-order.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080104154942/http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s6604c.htm to http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s6604c.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828105149/http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10668/10668.pdf to http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10668/10668.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927024713/http://www.pops.int/documents/meetings/poprc/drprofile/drme/DraftRME_Lindane.pdf to http://www.pops.int/documents/meetings/poprc/drprofile/drme/DraftRME_Lindane.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008225026/http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single061110.pdf to http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single061110.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103184701/http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/lindane/en/print.html to http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/lindane/en/print.html
*Added  tag to http://www.ihpa.info/docs/library/Lindane%20Main%20Report%20DEF20JAN06.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070401141153/http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/thirdreport.pdf to http://www.cdc.gov/ExposureReport/pdf/thirdreport.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010001328/http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/lindan_f.pdf to http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/lindan_f.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091127212241/http://www.akaction.org/REPORTS/Alternatives%20to%20Lindane%20Report%204-29-09.pdf to http://www.akaction.org/REPORTS/Alternatives%20to%20Lindane%20Report%204-29-09.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013061244/http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/factshts/hexagama.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/factshts/hexagama.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060528003323/http://www.panna.org/resources/gpc/gpc_200308.13.2.21.dv.html to http://www.panna.org/resources/gpc/gpc_200308.13.2.21.dv.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) 22:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The redirect Sang-«gamma» has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Mdewman6 (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Sang-«gamma»]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]