Talk:1,4-Dioxin

message: This page is quite confusing, since it purports to be about C4H4O2 dioxin, but most of the material on the page refers to "dioxin" meaning TCDD and related polychlorinated dibenzodioxins.  I am removing the sections which refer to dioxin as an environmental pollutant, since all those references (e.g. reference 2) clearly mean TCDD/PCDD and not the relatively unimportant C4H4O2 dioxin this page describes.  I am also changing the TCDD disambig entry to point to Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and not to this page, which is largely inappropriate.  Finally, I would strongly recommend pointing dioxin to that page as well, since the word almost exclusively refers to TCDD and not to C4H4O2.  I won't do that now, but I would ask you to consider it.  76.19.197.209 (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My edits were predictably reverted, but I am adding  for now.  Once more: This article describes the little-known and extremely unimportant o-dioxin and p-dioxin, but attributes health and safety information which is relevant to the important environmental pollutants called polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, including 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and which are all generally referred to as "dioxin".  The sections I removed are not remotely relevant to o-dioxin and p-dioxin.  There's no point in my reverting until I can convince someone else to spend 2 minutes looking at the literature on "dioxin", which, you will notice, always refers specifically to TCDD or the PCDDs more generally, but never to o-dioxin or p-dioxin.  This is a good place to start.  As I suggested yesterday, a reorganization of these pages would help.  76.19.197.209 (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization needed 

message: I've had a look at various sources of information. There is information at the UK's HPA web site here; and at the Food Standards Agency of Ireland website.
It seems to me (as a public health/health protection consultant, but not one with great knowledge specifically about dioxins) that:
*Dioxin, above certain levels is toxic. As you drop below these levels the toxicity drops, and at low levels it is probably harmless (or, more technically, if it does any harm, it's such a small amount of harm that it's next to impossible to detect or measure it).
*Dioxins occur naturally as well as industrially.
*There is a certain level of dioxin in food.
*Your body can clear dioxin, but only slowly.
*As long as the amount of dioxin you consume, over a period of time, is less than the amount your body can clear during that period, it is unlikely to be harmful.
*If you consume more dioxin than your body can clear, and continue to do so, the level of dioxin will gradually build up in your body (at least until you stop consuming dioxin at a greater rate than you can clear it). If you continue to do this for long enough, dioxin levels could start to reach the levels at which it becomes significantly toxic.
For this reason, "safe" levels in food are very low indeed - otherwise people who consume a lot of a contaminated product could start to build up dioxin. But, as long as you don't continue to eat it over a long period of time, it is not dangerous to consume food with dioxin levels that exceed these safety levels by a considerable margin.
I'm not 100% certain that all of the facts above are correct, but I think they're about right. Thinking it through did raise some questions about the toxicodynamics (is that a word? - pharmacodynamics doesn't seem quite right when discussing a toxin) of dioxins. HPA guidance says it has a half-life of years (I don't have it in front of me, something like 4-7 years IIRC). Is it cleared by 1st order kinetics - at a rate proportionate to the concentration of dioxin in the body, as the statement about half life implies? Or is it more like zero-order kinetics, as is the case with alcohol (cleared at a constant rate, regardless of the blood alcohol concentration). Or does it approximate more to first-order dynamics at higher concentrations, and more to zero-order at very low concentrations? --peter_english (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment is misplaced - it refers to PCDD. I have copied it to Talk:Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins Power.corrupts (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since the December 08 Irish pork contamination incident... 

message: The current title of this page "Dioxin" misleads and possibly confuses many readers. To laypeople, "dioxin" invariably refers to the class of environmental pollutants Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, not this highly specific chemical compound.  About 300 pages link to "dioxin" - the overwhelming majority of those refer to the environmental pollutant, not this specific chemical compound.  Narrowly, from a chemist's viewpoint, the title is perfectly valid.  But from a pragmatic point of view, precision must yield to usefulness.  I will move this page to "Dioxin (chemical)" and let "Dioxin" redirect to Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins  (I also considered "Dioxin (compound)", but compound is a specific chemical term, possibly confusing laypeople). Power.corrupts (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well...... I think the current dioxin (chemical) is more general than polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, since it refers to the class of compounds containing the parent heterocycle, also called dioxin. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins also belongs to this class. (chemical) sounds weird, but I see your point about utility. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, dioxin (chemical) is more general than polychlorinated dibenzodioxins - but it is all about utility, see for instance the misplaced comment above. And yes, (chemical) is a little weird, but it was the best I could come up with :-p. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move to Dioxin (chemical) -  precision must yield to usefulness 

message: The current ref 2 to the main site doesn't lead to actual info, just a general site. delldot ∇. 14:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: This section made me go WTF does this even mean? It's so technical it's entirely content-free to non-biochemedics. In other words: 
:I agree, It only made vague sense to me (and I used to work for a Pharma company).  I've added a couple of tage to the article.  Bit to heavy for me to re-write.   Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Body Response 

message: The names 1,4-dioxin and 1,2-dioxin are incorrect. The proper names are 1,4-dioxane and 1,2-dioxane. These chemicals have only 1 ring. They are NOT "dioxin"-like at all.
"dioxin" refers only to the polychlorinated dibenzodioxin and polychlorinated dibenzofuran families of chemicals which look like they have 3 rings.
Deana Crumbling, M.S.
USEPA 
Washington, DC
crumbling.deana@epa.gov  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.29.5 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be confusing two different chemical names.  Dioxin and dioxane are different chemical compounds - they differ by double bonds in the ring.  "Dioxin" is used properly here, and "dioxane" is used properly at dioxane.  The term "dioxin" can be ambiguous though.  The content in this article refers to the parent compound from which polychlorinated dibenzodioxins are derived.  This article prominently states that the term “dioxin” is commonly used for derivatives of dioxin such as polychlorinated dibenzodioxins.  The article at the title "Dioxin" directs the reader to the article which has the content they may be looking for.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  you are using the wrong chemical name!!