Being a Fishing Guide here in Central Wisconsin, I have been asked about this several times. This has been the easiest way for me to explain to my clients about contaminates we have in our waters. Dioxin is not the only one by any means, however it is one that I know quite a lot about. I ALWAYS tell my clients about this, and the choice is theirs to keep the fish, or C P R them. I do hope all of you folks read the entire report. It has a lot of interesting facts for you to think over.

Dioxin belongs to a family of chemicals with related properties and toxicity. There are 75 different dioxins, or polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs), 135 different furans, or polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and 209 different polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Each different form is called a "congener." Not all of the "dioxin-like" chemicals have dioxin-like toxicity, and the toxic ones are not equally toxic. Only 7 of the 75 dioxins, 10 of the 135 furans, and 12 of the 209 PCBs have dioxin-like toxicity. These 29 different dioxins, furans, and PCBs all exhibit similar toxic effects caused by a common mechanism: binding to a particular molecule known as the aryl hydrocarbon or "Ah" receptor.

It is believed that the tighter the binding to the Ah receptor, the more toxic the chemical. The most potent member of this family is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or TCDD, which also has the greatest affinity for the Ah receptor.

The word dioxin is often used imprecisely. Some people restrict its use only to 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the most toxic and most studied dioxin. Others extend its use to the whole class of chemicals with similar toxicity and whose effects are controlled or triggered by the Ah receptor. In this report, the terms dioxin and dioxins are used to refer to any of the dioxin family members that bind to the Ah receptor and elicit dioxin like effects.

This new evidence from human studies provides strong confirmation of the toxicity of dioxin and its impact on the general American public. With this in mind, Americans have a choice: take action to protect public health by eliminating dioxin creation or continue to allow dioxin to be created and not burden industry with the short term transition costs of elimination. Prudent public health policy would make every effort to eliminate environmental releases of dioxin and related compounds Dioxins are unintended by-products of many chemical and combustion processes, which involve chlorine. They get into the environment from industrial air emissions, wastewater discharges, disposal activities, and from burning material that contains chlorine. Approximately 90%, and perhaps as much as 98%, of the dioxin that average Americans are exposed to comes from the foods they regularly eat.

Because dioxins accumulate in fatty tissue, they are found mostly in meat, fish, and dairy products. Consequently, when people consume these foods, they also consume dioxins According to the EPA; the American people's lifetime risk of getting cancer from exposure to dioxin is 1 in 10,000. The risk attributable to dioxin for highly exposed members of the population is 1 in 1,000. These risk estimates are based on ingesting a "risk specific dose" of 0.01 pg TEQ/kg bow/day over a 70-year lifetime. At this dose, there will be one additional cancer for every one million exposed person. One cancer per million is often considered an "acceptable risk" value. Since the average daily intake of dioxin ranges from 1-to 3 pg/kg bw/day (3-6 pg/kg bw/day if dioxin-like PCBs are included), everyday the general American public is exposed to a cancer risk that is 100 to 300 times higher than the one-in-a-million "acceptable" cancer risk.

The American people are already well above several federal and international guidelines for dioxin exposure as well as the typical acceptable cancer risk value. Dioxin interferes with the hormone insulin and alters glucose tolerance, which leads to diabetes. In one study of 55 exposed workers evaluated 10 years after exposure, 50% of the workers were diabetic or have abnormal glucose tolerance, an early indicator of diabetes. Since this striking finding, there have been mixed findings of diabetes or glucose tolerance in several studies. In the NIOSH workers, the risk of diabetes increased 12% for every 100 ppt dioxin in blood lipid.

In a study of the Ranch Hand veterans, the soldiers who had the highest exposures to Agent Orange, those with blood dioxin greater than 33.3 pg/gm (ppt) have a relative risk of 2.5 for diabetes. A relative risk of 1.0 means that an exposed person is no more likely to develop the disease than an unexposed person. In a follow-up study, the veterans exposed to dioxin had a relative risk of 1.4 for glucose abnormalities, 1.5 for diabetes, and 2.3 for the use of oral medications to control diabetes. This study also found that Ranch Hand veterans exposed to dioxin develop diabetes at an earlier age than other veterans and that non-diabetic Ranch Hands exposed to dioxin have a relative risk of 3.4 for serum insulin abnormalities.

The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to define TCDD as "carcinogenic to humans." In making an overall judgment of dioxin's carcinogenicity in humans, IARC now includes mechanistic information as well as human and animal data. For example, the importance of the Ah receptor in mediating dioxin's toxic effects and its presence in both humans and experimental animals is acknowledged. This decision is further supported by strong evidence in animal studies that show dioxin causes cancer in all studies that have been conducted. The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) had upgraded dioxin from its status as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" to "known to cause cancer in humans" in 1997, but reconsidered their decision based on procedural errors pointed out by industry. NTP has not decided whether they will upgrade dioxin or leave it as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen."

As discussed earlier, the lifetime risk of getting cancer from exposure to dioxin is 1 in 10,000 for the general American population and 1 in 1,000 for highly exposed members of the population. If these estimates are taken seriously, then the average exposure of the American people to dioxin poses an uncertain but potentially substantial risk, a point made at least a decade ago.

At higher risk of exposure to dioxin are children, nursing infants, some workers and farmers, people who eat fish as a main staple of their diet such as some indigenous peoples and fishermen, and people who live near dioxin release sites. These groups of people are likely exposed to at least 10 times as much dioxin as the general population.

Dioxin is a ubiquitous poison that is in our food and that causes many toxic effects in people and animals. The neurodevelopment and reproductive effects observed in children may be the most disturbing new evidence. The small shifts in cognitive ability or thyroid levels may be the tip of the iceberg of the impact of dioxin on the general American public.

We know that the daily dioxin intake of Americans is already too high, and exceeds several federal risk guidelines. We also know that some members of the general population are particularly sensitive to exposure to dioxin and others are exposed to higher than average daily levels. These are infants and children, people who live near contaminated sites, fishermen and indigenous people who rely on fish as a main staple of their diet, workers, and others with high exposures. These groups have suffered a disproportionate share of dioxin exposure and many have already suffered the adverse health effects caused by these exposures. Every effort should be made to eliminate environmental releases of dioxin and related compounds. Americans have a choice: take action to protect public health by eliminating dioxin creation or continue to allow dioxin to be created and not burden industry with the short term transition costs of elimination and related compounds.

Fish and land-based subsistence cultures are at higher health risk from persistent bioaccumulative toxics in the food web and ecosystem. Base-line sampling should be done in communities of color and low-income communities to establish the levels of dioxin found in impacted communities and to determine disparate toxic burdens. Currently, standards for chemical exposure are written for white, middle-aged adults. Risk assessments do not take into account the sensitive populations, such as elders, children, and those already suffering from environmentally induced disease.

Dioxins are found in the water, air and solid wastes created at pulp and paper mills. The largest cause of dioxins in the industry is the use of elemental chlorine and other chlorinated compounds in the bleaching process. In addition, salt-laden wood, chlorinated plastics, and sludges are burned in on-site incinerators, which produce energy for the operation of the mill. These incinerators (called "hog fuel boilers") generate dioxin, but are totally unregulated for dioxin. Dioxins have also been found in bleached paper food containers and other products. The EPA has estimated that in 1995, pulp and paper mill effluent contained from 13.8 to 27.6 grams TEQ of dioxin, with a central estimate of 19.5 grams TEQ; that pulp and paper mill sludge contained from 20 to 40 grams TEQ, with a central estimate of 28.4 grams TEQ; and that pulp contained from 17 to 34 grams TEQ, with a central estimate of 24.1 grams TEQ.

Current policies for the pulp and paper industry are not protective of the environment and public health. The latest federal policy for the industry, the "Cluster Rule," is a technology-based standard, which mandates the "best available technology" for pulp and paper mills. The cluster rule designates chlorine dioxide as the best available technology for bleaching, a choice based more on economics than health considerations. Chlorine dioxide was the industry's preference for bleaching technology because it requires the least change from current practice. But while chlorine dioxide bleaching produces less dioxin than elemental chlorine bleaching, it does not eliminate dioxin releases. The designation of chlorine dioxide as the best technology doesn't adequately protect worker safety because chlorine dioxide poses significant accident risks. Also, mills using chlorine dioxide cannot convert to "closed loop" or zero discharge systems, which should be a goal for the industry. And the rule has no requirements for testing air discharges of dioxins. The cluster rule takes a back-ended approach, rather than looking at the industry's impact on health and the environment. A protective policy would acknowledge that the best technology for bleaching paper is one that minimizes threats to worker and community health. The best technology is chlorine-free, not chlorine dioxide.

Many U.S.-based companies are making shortsighted investments in chlorine dioxide bleaching technology and virtually ignoring non-wood fibers, which need little or no bleaching. The technical and economical feasibility of processes that are free of dioxins, furans, organ chlorines and their precursors has been proven in the industry's more advanced mills around the world. Worldwide, the industry is already moving gradually towards the use of oxygen, ozone, peroxide and other non-chlorine bleaching methods. EPA's decision to base the "best available technology" standard for bleaching on the use of chlorine dioxide was irresponsible. To rectify this part of the rules, the EPA policy should include the following:

• Time lines that require advanced technologies such as oxygen dezincification extended cooking, and ultimately, TCF bleaching as the best available technology for the industry. These Time lines could coincide with requirements for zero discharge of dioxins, furans, and other chlorinated compounds.
• Testing of effluents and affected water bodies with high volume dioxin monitoring devices to record levels of dioxins currently considered "undetectable."
• Regular testing of fish, aquatic plants and animals, and sediments in these areas. Zero tolerance for dioxin buildup in these organisms should be established. Encouragement for the development and implementation of processes to eliminate chlorine donors, such as chlorinated process water.
• Regular testing of fish, aquatic plants and animals, and sediments in these areas. Zero tolerance for dioxin buildup in these organisms should be established.
• The EPA needs to take the potential for the pulp and paper industry to emit dioxin and precursors to air more seriously. The new MACT I rule is a step in the right direction, but assumes without adequate proof that levels of chlorine compounds released to air will be reduced with a reduction in methane emissions. The proposed MACT II rules need serious revision if they are to protect public health.
• Study, control, and eventually require elimination of air discharges of chlorine, chlorine dioxide, chloroform, hydrochloric acid and other chlorinated compounds.· Study whether dioxins and furans or their precursors are created by ambient air discharges and if there are other health effects from these discharges. Chlorinated feedstock's, excluding untreated wood, but including sledges, salt-laden wood, and plastic waste from recycling operations, must be eliminated from incinerators (hog fuel boilers) and other combustion "process equipment.
• Industry must further research how much dioxin is transferred from air and water discharges into solid waste and paper products, to better understand where the chlorine from bleaching processes ends up. Simply transferring dioxin through pollution control equipment is not acceptable.
• Chlorinated sludge should be considered and managed as hazardous waste. The sludge from processes using chlorinated compounds for bleaching must be tested on a regular basis. Strict standards must be set for the dioxin levels allowed in these sludges.
• The EPA should prohibit the incineration or land spreading of chlorinated pulp sludge. Appropriate government agencies, including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, must better evaluate the health of pulp mill workers and communities who have been exposed to decades of chlorine use at mills. The studies must look beyond cancer and include effects on the immune, hormone, and reproductive systems, as well as developmental damage and chronic respiratory diseases. These government agencies must also better evaluate the worker and community safety aspects of chlorine dioxide use at pulp mills. Chlorine dioxide threats are greater than that of elemental chlorine, and its chronic effects are largely unstudied.
• Products bleached with chlorinated compounds must be tested for dioxin on a regular basis. In a broader context, the paper industry and government should be taking positive steps to promote healthier processes and products. They should encourage all levels of government to purchase totally chlorine-free or processed chlorine-free paper products and sponsor public education campaigns about the problems with dioxin and the role of chlorine-free processes in reducing health risks.

  A. Products must be labeled with the amount of dioxin they contain.
  B. Strict standards calling for zero dioxin should be set for products.
  C. Government and industry should explore the issue of potential health impacts of dioxin in products which come in contact with food or sensitive skin on a regular basis, such as napkins, bathroom tissues, sanitary napkins, tampons, and the like.

  Mercury Advisory - Safe Eating Guidelines

  Wisconsin's new statewide advice for most of Wisconsin's inland (non-Great Lakes) waters recommends that:

  Women of childbearing years, nursing mothers and all children under 15 may eat:

  • One meal per week of bluegill, sunfish, black crappie, white crappie, yellow perch or bullheads AND
  • One meal per month of walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, channel catfish, flathead catfish, white sucker, drum, burbot, sauger, sturgeon, carp, white bass, rock bass or other species.
  Men, and women beyond their childbearing years may eat:
  • Unlimited amounts of bluegill, sunfish, black crappie, white crappie, yellow perch, or bullheads AND
  • One meal per week of northern pike, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, channel catfish, flathead catfish, walleye or other species. I hope this helps all of you to understand what Dioxins are and how they can affect your health, and your families.
  If you have any questions on anything in this article you can e-mail me at either [email protected] or [email protected]. I'd like also to thank my friends at Crestliner Boats, Bombardier Motor Corp. Magic products, Lake-link.com, Fish-Wisconsin.com, Fishtheriver.com, Landbigfish.com, , CharlieBrewer tackle, Lowrance locators, St.Croix Rods, Heckels marine, Amherst Marine, Comprop Props, ISG Jigs, Reeds Sporting Goods, Big Fish Tackle Co., Ipsglass.com, Thermoilbatteries.com, Pepsi of Americas, Beckman nets, Trojan Batteries, Black-Widow Fishing Line, TICA Reels, Minn-Kota Trolling, motors, Austackle Lures, Exciter Baits, Today's Tackle Co., Jere's Bait and Tackle, Misty's Menu, Tennesse Trailers, and others who have helped me along the way. This article may not be reproduced, or used in any way without my written permission. Bob is a Licensed Wisconsin Fishing Guide, and owner of Gone Fishing Guide Service. Specializing in Walleyes, on the Wisconsin River System. He is also an outdoors field reporter for many fishing web sites, Author, Historian on the Wis. River and the Petenwell Flowage in Central Wisconsin, and on many Pro-Staff programs for various tackle manufactures, Crestliner Boats, and Evinrude Outboards. He has written many articles on Walleye Fishing, and informational articles on the waters in Central Wisconsin.

  PLEASE CPR ALL FEMALES,THE FUTURE OF FISHING DEPENDS ON IT!!