This might slightly related to neighbouring threads on styrofoam. Dioxin, an unwanted by-product like from incineration process and is previously common to be used as herbicide (i dont know whether it is still used as herbicide), is a carcinogenic chemical. Around few million liters agent orange which contains around 300 kg dioxin was once used in vietnam war, and it was suspected that it caused four million people were either died or became handicap. Question: * supposed it was true (it is still under investigation), how could one remove 300 kg of dangerous chemical from soil? I mean what is the best effective way to do that. To remove such contaminant from water is much easier. But from soil? * is it true that a warm plastic material could expose dioxin? So for example I wrap my warm food or drink with styrofoam, is that makes me at higher risk of exposed to dioxin?
dioxin cannot be disposed of by incineration, which is why chemical processes are used to break it down into harmless substances. indirect thermal desorption (ITD) and base catalysed decomposition (BCD) http://clu-in.org/download/partner/vijgen/NATO_BCDFactSheet_1.pdf are 2 technologies used to break down dioxin. ITD technology separates organic pollutants from soils and other materials by heating them in a rotating drum without direct contact with the heat source. BCD technology, breaks down chlorinated hydrocarbons chemically, transforming them either into raw waste or in concentrates resulting from thermal desorption. The end products of the reaction are salt, water and carbon.
I am not sure if dioxin is in Styrofoam...but benzene is and yes when Styrofoam is heated it releases benzene. No, I do not have internet link proof for this, but I know this is true. (Read_only will/might be attacking me again)
Several technical misunderstandings here. First, dioxin has NEVER been used as a herbicide. Also, Agent Orange was not a herbicide, it was a defoliant - in other words it did not kill plants, it caused them to drop their foliage (leaves) which would regrow after a period of time during which buds regenerated on the plant material. Last, there's no connection between dioxin and stryofoam.
Nope, never have attacked YOU even once - just your misinformation. Do you still insist on letting your nonsense claims stand in those other threads without admitting your mistakes????????
Several. You don't understand the difference between toxins accumulating in the body and being broken down/ eliminated by the kidneys and liver, and at least two or three others - shall I go find them for you????? Oh - another was that you apparently don't know the difference between Arecibo and SETI. (Nor do you have even the slightest understanding about the importance of radio telescopes.)
ok lets stop fighting (even if you don't admit to), yes now you have told me this, now I understand this. As for radio telescopes, money to nowhere. Exploration for natural resources on moon, Mars and beyond...this is the goal.
"Even if I don't admit to" what??? Right. Spoken like a truly undereducated mind. It's obvious - just as Phlio said in another thread - that you don't even realize that before we GO somewhere we first need to see that it's there. And both optical and radio telescopes have provided a WEALTH of information about the solar system and the cosmos. That means nothing to you, does it?
Yeah wealth of information we can't use. Quasars, dwarfs, black holes, antimatter. Right. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So useful Wealth of information about Solar System was provided by Viking, Voyager, Galileo, Odyssey, Huygens Cassini satellites...Appollo, MIR, ISS, Skylab are Real stuff matters. Some nebula exploded far away...great...big deal. Methane clouds on Titan? Now that is news and something useful, methane to be used for fuel. Water ice on Europa? water to be broken into hydrogen and oxygen for fuel. Great, real things that matter. Not some quasars.
Yeah. Absolutely NO appreciation for the advancement of cosmological science. You're only equipped to be interested in things that have a nearly-immediate payoff. Pity - what a waste of a mind.
I did not say dioxin can be disposed of by incineration. I said dioxin can be resulted from an incineration (as an unwanted by-product). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxin Sources of dioxin When the original US EPA inventory of dioxin sources was done in 1987, incineration represented over 80% of known dioxin sources. 2 b continued...
yes, it has been used as a herbicide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxin Historical perspective The most toxic dioxin, 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), became well known as a contaminant of Agent Orange, a herbicide used in the Vietnam War[3]. ------------------------------------------------- Sources of dioxin Dioxin enters the general population almost exclusively from ingestion of food, specifically through the consumption of fish, meat, and dairy products since dioxins are fat-soluble and readily climb the food chain [8]. Occupational exposure is an issue for some in the chemical industry, or in the application of chemicals, notably herbicides. ------------------------------------------------- Dioxin exposure incidents In 1949 in herbicide production plant for 2,4,5-T in Nitro, West Virginia 240 people were affected when a relief valve opened [38]. In the 1960s, parts of the Spolana chemical plant in Neratovice, Czechoslovakia, were heavily contaminated by dioxins, when the herbicide 2,4,5-T (also a component of Agent Orange) was produced there.
I suggest that you go back and read each of those again - and more carefully this time. Nowhere in there did it say that dioxin itself was used as a herbicide -it's always a by-product or contaminant. Not only that, the fellow/gal that wrote one of those obviously doesn't know the real difference between a herbicide and a defoliant. And last of all, I answered your original question by saying that there is no dioxin link to Styrofoam (in case you missed it).