Dioxins-gold+class+'09

=**What are dioxins?**=

Dioxins are chemical contaminants that are formed in the process of combustion i.e. waste incineration, forest fires, trash burning and also types of industrial processes.

-Most dioxins are environmental contaminants, but portions of them come from the intake of animal fats in some meat.

-Dioxins have no particular uses, they aren’t manufactured intentionally and are just results of chemical procedures.

-The main sources of dioxin are in our diet. A typical family will be exposed to dioxins from meat and dairy products.

-Dioxins aren’t used in any products, but are found in the environment, large amounts of them result from burning trash.

-Dioxins are found mostly in areas where combustion and industrial processes take place.

-Products that contain dioxins (meat) are banned in Malaysia.

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/dioxins/index.cfm

=**Human health implications:**=


 * What are the possible dangers associated with this chemical?**

~It can get inside of your cells and affect the way DNA is read out, can change the way a cell functions, can turn it into a cancer cell, etc. ~Some dioxins are likely carcinogens.


 * How, specifically, does this chemical affect the body?**

~Dioxins are very toxic to some animal species. The toxicity of dioxins to humans is uncertain. In people, dioxins can cause chloracne; small, pale, yellow skin lesions that can last from weeks to years. Dioxins can also cause changes in the activity of the liver, but without any clear symptoms. These liver changes are similar to changes resulting from the intake of alcoholic beverages.

~They can cause nerve damage in animals.


 * What human body processes are affected by this chemical?**

~Change in behavior, human development, birth defects decreased IQ and growth.


 * What human systems are affected by this chemical?**

~The immune, reproductive and endocrine systems are affected. In the endocrine system receptor numbers change and hormone levels and transportation change.

=**Environmental Implications:**=


 * -What specific environmental systems/processes does your chemical interact with? How does the chemical interact with the environment?**

When dioxins are released into the air, it travels. Since the chemical travels, dioxins are found in most places in the world. When dioxins are released into water, they settle down into sediments. Fish or other aquatic organisms ingest these sediments. Also dioxins decompose slowly into the environment, because of this they can be deposited on plants. Studies show that dioxins may be concentrated in the food chain. This allows animals to have a higher concentration than plants, water, soil, or sediments.

How long does it take to degrade?**
 * -What happens when this chemical degrades? What byproducts are formed?

It has been known that dioxins in water can be degraded by ultra violet alone. This is great and all but the rate of dioxin’s degradation is too low for practical use. There is a process that improved this problem. By a combination of ozone and ultra violet light, dioxin degrading has improved at a considerably high rate. According to the research of this website this is the process.

http://www.gec.jp/JSIM_DATA/WATER/WATER_1/html/Doc_173.html The UV light converts dissolved ozone into highly reactive hydroxyl radicals. Dioxins degradation is conducted by a combination of dechlorination by ultra violet and a fission of double bonds by hydroxyl radicals. This photochemical degradation process can degrade dioxins to carbon dioxide, water and no harmful compounds.


 * -How is it disposed of?**

Soil or sediment that has been occupied with dioxins may be land filled, incinerated or 'remediated' by exposing it to UV light (as mention above) and with possible chemical treatment. Landfill is, of course, not a real disposal, but it temporally solves the problem. It’s more of a delaying tactic, until later on, something is figured out to rid it completely. Incineration gets rid of some dioxin, by dumping some of it into the sky. Laws stated that the above two methods are “safe”.

=**Synthesis/Production:**=


 * -How is the chemical made/refined?**

Dioxins are a man-made chemical and are not refined. They are difficult to remove because they accumulate in the aquatic food chain (Dioxin is fat soluble). They are by-products of the manufacture, molding, or burning of organic chemicals and plastics that contain chlorine. It is very toxic. The level of its toxicity is only second to that of radioactive waste.


 * -How are common products that contain this chemical made?**

Dioxins result from burning trash, industrial work, forest fires, fatty foods, etc. Most products that contain dioxin usually go through some sort of burning process or manufacturing through factories. And when those chemicals and plastics are manufactured or burned, dioxin is produced as an unwanted (but inevitable) by-product. Dioxin is also formed in paper bleaching, so most paper products are contaminated. Dioxins aren’t necessarily present in any products, but are the result of man-made processes.


 * -Include a detailed description of the synthesis process.**

Dioxin synthesis process requires four things:

1. A source of chlorine (or bromine)

2. Organic matter

3. A thermally or chemically reactive environment in which these materials can combine

4. A source of oxygen.



http://newsletter.exponent.com/practice/environmental/200703/Dioxins-and-Furan.gif http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/water/marine_quality/images/Fig6a.jpg =**Economic/Political Impact**=


 * -What/who would be affected if the chemical were banned?**

Dioxins are purely by-products that are not purposely produced and have no specific use. If anything there would be no negative affect on people if it were banned. Dioxins are toxic, although people still consume them through fish and other meats. Producers of meat products would be affected if they were banned in supermarkets etc. because they wouldn’t be able to be sold.


 * -What are the costs of alternatives?**

There are no specific costs if any at all because we can’t entirely get rid of dioxins unless everyone were to stop burning trash and working in industrial areas. What people can do at most is reduce any activity that results in the byproduct of dioxins and reduce our intake of meat.


 * -What products would we not have if it were banned?**

If dioxins were banned we wouldn’t have meat.


 * -What countries export and/or use this product?**

Various countries export meats. Dioxins are everywhere in the world, especially in areas such as industrial, agricultural and where combustion occurs.


 * -How would a ban affect you (or the average American)?**

A lot of people would have a reduced diet, Americans intake various meats, some of which contain dioxins.


 * -What are the political ramifications of banning this chemical?**

In order to ban this chemical a lot of changes in processes that we use. Banning this product would mean the absence of agriculture, industry work and combustion. We could never really ban dioxins.

=**Necessary Actions:**= There are no necessary actions that need to be made. There aren’t any known specific harms to human health. Dioxins can be dangerous at high levels and can cause damage to normal body processes. To eliminate intake of dioxins people can reduce combustion, industrial processes, and intake of meat. We are exposed to dioxins through the fat in some meat we eat, so people can limit their diet.

=**Summary: Dioxins**=

Dioxin has been a problem in several different departments. It is found in meats, different combustion processes, bleached pulp and paper mills, leaded gasoline, cigarette smoke, boilers and furnaces, etc. However, there are many alternatives for this dangerous chemical. To substitute for certain products to decrease dioxin emissions included an alternative fuel (replacing coal with gas), and waste incinerators being replaced with autoclave systems. Since dioxin is spread through the air, reduction of emissions of dioxins to air can be expected to yield human health benefits because dioxins are toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative. The cost of both projects would be the same as if they were to keep using the sources they are using. Any attempt to quantify health and economic benefits in dollars would be extremely provisional, so the benefits from each technical option considered have been expressed in terms of effectiveness in reducing dioxin emissions. Essentially, money is not the issue. Considering that, we think both actions should be put in place.

media type="custom" key="3489942"