This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I wonder, whether [the article entitled "Dioxin" as of Oct. 16, 2007] should be renamed to Polychlorinated dibenzodioxin, and a disambiguation page be created under its current [as of Oct. 16, 2007] name Dioxin, with the following contents:
The name Dioxin can describe several diferent chemical substances:
What do you think?-- 77.234.80.83 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure exactly how to proceed. There is a lot of incorrect information on this page. I am a chemist. The structure is actually dioxane, not dioxin. Since dioxin is a controversial topic it is important to get this right. The structure shown is that of dioxane but much of the text is about dioxin. It will take a lot of work to sort this out. Falexdchema ( talk) 15:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Please ignore the previous comment. The structure is correct. Falexdchema ( talk) 15:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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:
This article may be too technical for most readers to understand.(September 2010) |
This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject.(September 2010) |
Let's have one main article called Dioxin, and any number of sections or subordinate articles about specific dioxins.
My main interest in dioxin is as a pollutant: what levels are safe or dangerous, who says so, and on what basis?
I'm also interested in how chemists classify the various compounds called "dioxin".
Most of all, I'd like the article(s) to be accessible to the reader who has not taken a course in organic chemistry on the university level and passed it.
Specific questions:
It'll take a lot of work to do this rewrite and reorganization. Who's with me? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Also I have already compiled a list of all the articles which mention or are pertinent to dioxin toxicity Here a quick glance through them immediately shows the need for some joined up thinking. Perhaps a "dioxin toxicity" tag to draw them together in some way? Arthurbagwaste ( talk) 09:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I created the article
1,2-Dioxin. I suggest this article here be moved to
1,4-Dioxin. Anyone opposing? --
Leyo 14:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
We can just put the definition at
dioxin, and continue to disambig from there --
Rifleman 82 (
talk) 17:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
This is the wrong Chemical for the name dioxin. This is 1,4 dioxane. You can refer to the NIST Chemistry website, Chemical abstracts service or a multitude of chemistry references. Check the CAS number. Dr. John S. Canham (Ph.D. Chemistry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.11.109 ( talk) 03:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I wonder, whether [the article entitled "Dioxin" as of Oct. 16, 2007] should be renamed to Polychlorinated dibenzodioxin, and a disambiguation page be created under its current [as of Oct. 16, 2007] name Dioxin, with the following contents:
The name Dioxin can describe several diferent chemical substances:
What do you think?-- 77.234.80.83 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure exactly how to proceed. There is a lot of incorrect information on this page. I am a chemist. The structure is actually dioxane, not dioxin. Since dioxin is a controversial topic it is important to get this right. The structure shown is that of dioxane but much of the text is about dioxin. It will take a lot of work to sort this out. Falexdchema ( talk) 15:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Please ignore the previous comment. The structure is correct. Falexdchema ( talk) 15:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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:
This article may be too technical for most readers to understand.(September 2010) |
This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject.(September 2010) |
Let's have one main article called Dioxin, and any number of sections or subordinate articles about specific dioxins.
My main interest in dioxin is as a pollutant: what levels are safe or dangerous, who says so, and on what basis?
I'm also interested in how chemists classify the various compounds called "dioxin".
Most of all, I'd like the article(s) to be accessible to the reader who has not taken a course in organic chemistry on the university level and passed it.
Specific questions:
It'll take a lot of work to do this rewrite and reorganization. Who's with me? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 18:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Also I have already compiled a list of all the articles which mention or are pertinent to dioxin toxicity Here a quick glance through them immediately shows the need for some joined up thinking. Perhaps a "dioxin toxicity" tag to draw them together in some way? Arthurbagwaste ( talk) 09:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I created the article
1,2-Dioxin. I suggest this article here be moved to
1,4-Dioxin. Anyone opposing? --
Leyo 14:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
We can just put the definition at
dioxin, and continue to disambig from there --
Rifleman 82 (
talk) 17:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
This is the wrong Chemical for the name dioxin. This is 1,4 dioxane. You can refer to the NIST Chemistry website, Chemical abstracts service or a multitude of chemistry references. Check the CAS number. Dr. John S. Canham (Ph.D. Chemistry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.11.109 ( talk) 03:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)