Talk:Polychlorinated biphenyl

Needs references

Many statements in this article need references. I will try to provide them as I have time, but any help is appreciated. Jed 20:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

History

moved from main article: "It's funny how this article is couched in terms of PCBs being pollutants! Indeed, they are when they escape into the environment, but initially they were a rather powerful enabling technology in electrical power generation, were they not?"

-Hindsight is always 20/20. Excellent chemicals for what they were originally used for. No one saw the long term health effects.

- Actually, the known human health effects were revealed in the late 1930s in something called the Drinker Study, conducted for a company called Halowax (which used PCB as an ingredient). GE was present at the meeting, since it was a kind of electrical industry powwow. The Drinker Study indicated that therre was liver necrosis in workers exposed to the substance. So from right at the beginning of commercial production, there was the long term health issue.

This is from my 1994 article in Sierra magazine...

"Drinker presented his results at a 1937 meeting at Harvard attended by Monsanto, GE, Halowax, the U.S. Public Health Service, and state health officials from Massachusetts and Connecticut. Like the Halowax workers, Drinker's test rats had suffered severe liver damage. "These experiments leave no doubt as to the possibility of systemic effects from the chlorinated napthalenes and chlorinated diphenyls," he concluded.

"Minutes of a discussion held later that day include a telling remark by GE official F. R. Kaimer: "We had 50 other men in very bad condition as far as the acne was concerned," he told the group. "The first reaction that several of our executives had was to throw [the PCB] out - get it out of our plant. But that was easily said but not so easily done. We might just as well have thrown our business to the four winds and said, 'We'll close up', because there was no substitute and there is none today in spite of all the efforts we have made through our own research laboratories to find one."

"Sanford Brown, the president of Halowax, concluded the meeting with another thought that would echo through the next five decades. Brown stressed the "necessity of not creating mob hysteria on the part of workmen in the plants" where chemical-safety inspections were being made. Problems with PCBs and napthalenes, he predicted, "may continue, probably will continue for years." The silence of those at the meeting ensured that effect.

"Meanwhile, the damning evidence continued to spill out of corporate laboratories. A 1938 study of PCB-oil mixtures manufactured by Westinghouse and GE demonstrated that liver damage could be caused by skin contact alone, and called for the "greatest personal hygiene" in minimizing exposure. In further research for Monsanto, Drinker warned that adequate ventilation was necessary when handling the chemicals. By 1951, Monsanto also had in its files a 1947 scientific finding that there was "need to give warning" about PCBs because 'the toxicity of those compounds has been repeatedly demonstrated'."

This is actually quite interesting. Is there some way some of this information can be included in the history section without copyright issues? [pared down, perhaps] Jed 21:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The last paragraph in the History section (discussing issues concerning a Westinghouse plant) is written in an informal style and is thus inappropriate for a formal encyclopedia entry. Parts of it also appear opinionated, and the section as a whole is uncited (thus rendering it worthless to someone like me doing research). While not wanting to run roughshod over someone else's work-in-progress (I hope), I suggest that this section be deleted or modified and cited. 64.81.3.74 18:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Jonathan

I just created a separate section for the large scale PCB contamination sites - included so far are only the Hudson River and Indiana, to be added later are New Bedford Harbor, MA (Superfund priority site #5 - I looked it up once), and the just-cleaned up Housatonic River in MA/CT. Jed 18:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the following to the section on the history of PCBs: Internal leaked documents released ex post facto show that Monsanto Chemical Company knew increasingly more about the harmful effects of PCBs to humans and the environment through the 1960s. I find it surprising that no link to such material was found in the article until i made this addition. Please correct me if i am wrong. This information about the depth of culpability and knowingness on the part of Monsanto Chemical Company has been well-known for more than a decade now, and it is quite striking how the leaked documents reveal so much about the sociology and the history of the PCB contamination, that it seems obvious for this to be mentioned, if not even emphasized, in the history of this chemical's presence in human society. Many sources are available. I chose one on an EWG website that documents the issue extensively. Washington Post had relevant articles, if more reference is needed. SageRad (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that chemicalindustryarchives.org is a reliable source. I opened a thread at RSN here. Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, then let's find a reliable source for this part of the story, which really did happen and really is very important to the article, in my opinion, in sociological and historical senses. Would you be able to suggest a reliable source, Jytdog? This topic has also been covered by the Washington Post, though i find those news stories to be missing recently from the web, strangely. It's also covered by Common Dreams. Would that be acceptable to you? There are actual documents that are very important artifacts in the history of this topic which affects millions of people, so let's really try to get this included to your satisfaction if you don't like my suggested source. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the kind of topic that if i were coming to read about PCBs for the first time, as an average person, i would really want to have included in this article. SageRad (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

what is the WaPo link? Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog -- if you do a Google search on "Washington post monsanto anniston" and see the Washington Post story called "Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution" show up in results, that's the reference. I've read that article in the past but it's not showing up now. Common Dreams has a story here that is the same article that was published on the Washington Post, as it says in the byline of "Published on Tuesday, January 01, 2002 by the Washington Post". The author of the article is Michael Grunwald. Can we use the Washington Post article to support the text i wanted to include, even if it's not available online right now? It is in the newspaper, archived, somewhere. SageRad (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And, thank you, Jytdog. SageRad (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

the article posted on commondreams website violates the copyright of WaPo and we cannot cite it as a source. Please read WP:COPYVIO - we cannot cite commondreams for that. And as a matter of basic scholarship, I don't believe the content of reposted articles like that, is necesarily accurate - I do not take it on faith that commondreams accurately reproduces the original. Reliable sourcing matters. LexisNexis has old newspaper articles and your local library probably has a subscription to it. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the advice. Indeed, i found it there:

Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution; PCBs Drenched Ala. Town, But No One Was Ever Told

The Washington Post, January 1, 2002 Tuesday, A SECTION; Pg. A01, 4567 words, Michael Grunwald, Washington Post Staff Writer

I do see the full text of the original Washington Post story by Grunwald, 4567 words long, and it does support the sentence i originally used the website you objected to, to support. SageRad (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Chemical Degradation of PCBs

I changed the earlier statement regarding solar excitation and degradation of PCBs in the atmosphere. Work dating back to 1996 (Anderson et al, Environ. Sci. Technol., 1996, 30, 1756-1763) shows that OH radicals are the major removal pathway in the atmosphere. Work has been done to sensitize PCBs to solar wavelengths (Manzano et al, Chemosphere, 2004, 57, 645-654), but if this takes place at all in the atmosphere, it would be negligable compared to the OH radical pathway. --dil 01:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC) pcb is very usefull we cant get rid of it...

Known human carcinogen

I made reference to PCB's being classified by the National Toxicology Program as known human carcinogens based on Technical Reports 520 and 531. They can be found here http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/ntpweb/index.cfm?objectid=08481142-D3A0-C8AE-408773AC4B6D89C5

Which someone has since removed for some unknown reason. I suggest reverting it back to include your addition unless they can provide a good reason for removing it. dil 20:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

While making a routine repair to vandalism I noticed that removal as quite clearly being unwarranted. So I reverted it too. Samuel Erau 16:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The intro currently reads: "In 2013, The International Association for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that the evidence that PCBs cause non-Hodgkin Lymphoma is “limited” and “not consistent.”"

: The cite for this statement is Lauby-Secretan et al (2013). This is a subscription-only article and I don't have access (not even the abstract is available), but the US Dep't of Health and Human Servs. has given it a much different interpretation than the intro sentence provides. As described in the Federal Register, Lauby-Secretan et al actually found *new* links between PCBs and *other* types of cancer (e.g. breast cancer). The intro sentence implies that L-S et al undercut pre-established links between non-Hodgkins lymphoma and PCBs, and thus weakened the overall link b/w PCBs and cancer. This could not be further from the truth, as DHHS's regulatory action (based entirely on L-S's findings) demonstrates. I propose that the sentence simply be deleted.

Nimajneb87 (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Nimajneb87

NPOV discussion

This article only discusses the claim that PCBs are toxic/carcinogenic when there is evidence that it is neither. If you claim that it is fact since PCBs are on a government list as a carcinogen, please research saccarine and see how it was on a government list at one time also.
References:

http://www.junkscience.com/mar99/kimbro.htm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A03E7DB1E3FF933A25750C0A96F958260

Beyond the fact that the current consensus generally seems to be in favor of the fact that PCBs are indeed harmful, the article mentions that this claim is a source of some controversy. Clearly the article needs more information on the controversy and cited sources, though. Perhaps it'd be best to do those things, then pull the NPOV tag? --FreelanceWizard 23:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV Discussion

I have removed the NPOV disclaimer. PCB are comprhensively studied carcinogens, and the references provided by abover poster are a GE funded epidimeological syudy, and a New York Times review article of said study. Below please find several recent references from the scientific literature detailed toxicity and mechanism for PCB.

Ludewig, G. Cancer initiation by PCBs. PCBs, Recent Advances in Environmental Toxicology and Health Effects (2001), 337-354.

Tohyama, C.; Nishimura, Noriko; Yonemoto, J. Differential disrupting effects of polychlorinated biphenyl isomers on homeostasis of thyroid hormone and retinoid in mice. Organohalogen Compounds (2003), 63 401-404.

Mechanisms of hepatic tumor promotion by polychlorinated biphenyl mixtures. Dean, Charles Edward, Jr. Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO, USA. Avail. UMI, Order No. DA3107075. (2003), 173 pp. From: Diss. Abstr. Int., B 2004, 64(9), 4295. Dissertation.

I agree that the NPOV tag should be removed. A significant number of peer-reviewed references regarding the toxicity of PCB's have been cited; two newspaper articles stating that they are not have been cited. From Wikipedia's own NPOV page: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Unless those who believe they aren't toxic can show a more significant body of work, the tag simply doesn't belong here. dil 01:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree per above comments. It looks like the POV tag may have been erroneously restored in anti-vandal effort.Qball6 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

GE section

I added a section about the GE contamination of the Hudson River, and an exteranl link that discusses that controversy in more detail.KonaScout 19:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This still doesn't have a reference, so I removed the entire paragraph. It can be put back in with a source. Superm401 - Talk 11:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

olestra

Does someone want to confirm or refute the assertion that olestra can treat PCB poisoning? I read it somewhere, and think it might be interesting to include, but I don't have time to be responsible and fact-check it.--Joel 09:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I work with PCBs and chlorinated dioxins, and we have been told to eat Olestra in case of accidental exposure. There is a reference on the dioxin page to Olestra therapy, which I will copy over. Jed 22:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I work on effects of prenatal exposure to PCBs and this is the first time I have heard of Olestra in the field. I went through a fast search in PubMed and there is only one paper on Olestra having effects after Arochlor poisoning. Redgrave TG, Wallace P, Jandacek RJ, Tso P. Treatment with a dietary fat substitute decreased Arochlor 1254 contamination in an obese diabetic male. J Nutr Biochem. 2005 Jun;16(6):383-4. Piedrafita 18:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but there are a few articles about Olestra increasing dioxin (TCDD) excretion - I have presumed that dioxins and PCBs behave pharmacokinetically similar (which is essentially the case). Geusau A, Tschachler E, Meixner M, Sandermann S, Papke O, Wolf C, Valic E, Stingl G, McLachlan M. Olestra increases faecal excretion of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Lancet. 1999 Oct 9;354(9186):1266-7. Olestra has also been used in a clinical setting for TCDD exposure: Geusau A, Abraham K, Geissler K, Sator MO, Stingl G, Tschachler E. Severe 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) intoxication: clinical and laboratory effects. Environ Health Perspect. 2001 Aug;109(8):865-9. [1] Jed 02:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this is so across the board for PCBs. All dioxins, by virtue of their structure, are planar due to the dual oxygen linkage between the chlorinated rings. PCBs have a single linkage and therefore the rings may be able to rotate outside of a coplanar configuration. This is mostly dependent on the positions of the substituent chlorines. For example, the rings will be forced out of a coplanar configuration if there are multiple ortho chlorines. This leads to a wide variation in biological effects between various PCB congeners. dil 14:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You are of course absolutely correct. I was thinking of the non-ortho-substituted PCBs, which are considered the most toxic (ie PCB-77: 3,3',4,4'-tetraCB or PCB-126: 3,3',4,4',5-pentaCB). The ortho substituted PCBs are quite non-coplanar, and thus have different toxicokinetics. However, they may have similar hydrophobicities, which I think is probably the relevant parameter in regards to solubility in olestra. Jed 21:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Monsanto As Sole Producer

The article suggested that Monsanto was the "major" manufacturer of PCBs and then stated that GE also marketed PCB products, which in turn suggests that GE was another North American manufacturer of PCBs. This is inaccurate. After it purchased the Swann Chemical Company in 1930, the sole manufacturing facilities for PCBs in North America were the two Monsanto PCB plants, one located in Anniston, Alabama and one located in Sauget (formerly Monsanto), Illinois. I have edited that passage accordingly. It is also the case that PCB production halted at the Anniston plant in 1971 but continued in Sauget until 1977 (just before the effective date of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) banning PCB production altogether).

Bhamlaw 18:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Are PCBs banned (in the U.S.) or aren't they?

Currently, in the "History" section the article says

Concern over the toxicity and persistence (chemical stability) of PCBs in the environment led the United States Congress to ban their domestic production in 1977, although some use continues in closed systems such as capacitors and transformers.

I put a "{{disputable}} tag on this sentence, as it seems self-contradictory. If Congress banned their domestic production, how can "some uses continue"? Are the chemicals imported? or was the ban not complete, with some exceptions made? Inquiring minds would like to know.

While I was at it, I removed the word dielectric from its use in tranformers, as the chemical is used there as an insulator (dielectrics are for capacitors). +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see these as being contradictory at all. In fact, it's explained pretty clearly if you read the paragraphs immediately before and after the one you've tagged:

"From 1973 their use was banned in "open" or "dissipative" sources..."

Followed by...

"...led the United States Congress to ban their domestic production in 1977..."

Followed by...

"The use of PCBs in "closed" uses include..."

A production ban isn't the same thing as banning its use and, while use in open applications has, use in closed application hasn't been banned. Unless you've got some compelling reason to keep it, I'm going to remove the disputed tag. dil 12:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, but let me just ask an obvious question: if there's a ban on production, then where does the stuff come from? Abroad? In other words, how can you use something without also producing it? It doesn't come from holes in the ground ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's already there - the transformers that were manufactured while PCB's could still be legally produced are still in use today. Companies weren't forced to remove old transformers and replace them with PCB-free transformers when the production or open system ues bans went into effect. I'm not sure why you're equating use with production, as they're two totally separate concepts; it's leading to unneccesary confusion. dil 17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The simple explanation for why production is banned, but closed system uses continue, is that PCBs remain in large electrical components whose useful life spans decades. The ban did not require electrical utilities, for example, to remove 10 year old transformers with a useful life of 50 years from power poles. Many older transformers and other large electrical components that contained PCBs that were manufactured when it was still legal remain in use. Believe me (I'm a lawyer specializing in PCB litigation), the U.S. ban absolutely prohibits the manufacture, importation, or sale of PCBs for new uses.

Bhamlaw 20:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you. Now we're getting somewhere. So PCBs have essentially been grandfathered in for certain uses—I believe that's the correct term, right? So the article ought to be edited to convey this; it's not clear at all the way it's written now. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this before I replied above. dil 17:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Aenchevich (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

1. I agree with Bhamlaw that the state of affairs with the PCBs ban/use is not clear from the wording of the sentence in question. I would like to correct it from "...although some use continues in closed systems such as capacitors and transformers." to "... although some use continues in closed systems such as capacitors and transformers, as operators of such devices were not required by law to remove/replace old components containing PCBs."

2. The sentence which dil quotes in defense of his point of view, "From 1973 their use was banned in "open" or "dissipative" sources..." in my opinion also needs clarification. "Their use" was banned by whom? Where? , in which country(s)? Can anyone contribute a source here? Thanks!

Featured Article Status

Where are we at now and what needs to be done to make this a featured article? dil 17:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

List of trade names

Would a list of trade names under which PCBs were manufactured and sold be of any use? Jed (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How different is it from Polychlorinated biphenyl#Alternative_names? - Neparis (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Not enough to make a difference. A few extra names, but it's probably just clutter. 03:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedgold (talk • contribs)

Salmon

Perhaps this may warrant mention : PCBs - Is Farmed Salmon safe to eat? by Gloria Tsang, RD, Nov 2004; Updated in Jun 2008, healthcastle.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.159.77.35 (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish PCB contamination

I would like someone to check my maths. I found that the EU's safe limit for PCB like chemicals in pork is 1.5 pg/g (1.5 parts per trillion), news reports state that the contaminated Irish pork contains 80 to 200 times the EU's safe limit (1.5 ppt), the contaminated pork would contain 0.12 to 0.3 parts per billion. However, healthy nursing mothers in Japan have 0.8 parts per billion of PCBs in their blood, they are the least contaminated group in Japan. Am I right that the blood of Japanese nursing mothers exceeds the EU's safe limit for PCBs in pork by 533 fold?! --Diamonddavej (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The limit in pork is actually for dioxin equivalent rather than sum of total PCBs. This can be a very confusing aspect of discussing dioxin/PCB toxicity. It is mentioned in the article that some PCBs exhibit dioxin-like toxicity, this ranges from 10x to 1000-100,000x less potent than 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the prototypical dioxin, and many PCBs show no dioxin-like activity. Therefore it would be very possible to have a large amount of PCBs in terms of concentration, but still a relatively small amount of "dioxin" using the TEF system, I think perhaps this article should be linked much more closely with "Dioxin" as many cases listed as PCB contamination, such as Ireland 2008, are in fact more widely considered as Dioxin contamination incidents. A little joined up thinking on both areas may be useful to clarify and prevent duplication of information. I'll have a go as and when I can. Arthurbagwaste (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Quotation problem

The following sentences appear in the current version of this article (second paragraph of History), but as you will notice the first quotation is not closed.

Robert Brown reminded chemists in 1947 that Arochlors were "objectionably toxic. Thus the maximum permissible concentration for an 8-hr. day is 1 mg. per cu.m. of air. They also produce a "serious and disfiguring dermatitis".

Does anyone know where to place the second quotation mark? Alternatively, there may be an extra mark (the one in the middle) that needs to be removed. I do not have access to the referenced book (Brown, 1947), so it would be helpful if someone who does could resolve this discrepancy. Thanks.--CheMechanical (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Replacements

It would be good if the article contained a section on potential or used replacement compounds as in Tetra-ethyl lead, if anyone has such information. Thanks.77.86.67.245 (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing comments May, 2009

Some thoughts on further edits that I am contemplating, should anyone be concerned or interested.

• Physical properties: this section, like many heavily edited articles, is fairly redundant (e.g. about color and viscosity).
• Chemical: again this section makes the useful point that the material is difficult to destroy but there is a whole section on "destruction" below. A list of reactions that the material does not undergo is potentially useful but only for reactions that might reasonably be applicable (one can always long list things that do not happen!). It might be useful to layout the chemical processes by which PCBs are prepared and their main reactions (nucleophilic substitution, probably).
• Alternative names: I am not sure of the point here, especially for the languages that do not use our alphabet. The names for English-speaking countries should possibly be a serial list vs column. Also are these redirects?
• Applications: sections like this area always invitations to list every niche app that comes to mind, but probably the list should be prioritized according to the largest scale app's. There is significant redundancy here as well.
• Other: It seems that we need a clarity about where PCB's are banned and the details of the banning (no use, restricted use, no manufacture). According to the regulators, is there only one PCB classification? Readers would probably be interested in knowing where this material is still being used and made.

That's my 2c.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(PCB pollution)

Pcbs can kill many ppl it causes cancer it causes also kinddy and thats why we as ppl have to make sure were our fish come from because if it comes from the hudson river it is 99% that it might have pbcs so we has ppl have to make our river is cleaner so that we wont have to carry pbc in our bloods.Thank you for your time and i hope u will help us to make our community cleaner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.144.54 (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• The preceding contrib was falsely characterized as "nonsense", and removed from Talk:PCB. (While it rambles, there is but one word to which i can assign no sensible meaning -- Ah, and in fact, it is perhaps a ref to "kidney [damage]"! -- and as a whole it is coherent.) While i'd probably have let it go if it had not been removed with a libelous reason, IMO it must on principle be restored as an out-of-process removal.
  I've copied here it to Talk:Polychlorinated biphenyl, where it would have been more to the point. --Jerzy•t 21:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  
• IMO it is more of an appeal for non-WB action than a conventional article discussion, it would be worth noting whether we cover, in the accompanying article or others that perhaps should be linked to or from it:

1. Settlement of NYS suit against GE over PCB contamination of Hudson River
2. Perhaps a CT suit re Housatonic River
3. Dredging and other operations for remediation (IIRC still in progress as of 2009)
4. Peak and current PCB concentrations in these rivers and their biota
5. Means and results of blood PCB concentrations
6. Kidney effects, if any

--Jerzy•t 03:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Monsanto manufactured PCBs at their chemical plant in Newport South Wales until the mid to late 1970s. PCBs continue to released from the site in waste water discharges.[citation needed]

I can confirm this, I lived in Ynysddu S Wales. All the farms on Mynyddislwyn mountain were shut down and the farmers compensated. Unfortunately I grew up eating poluted produce for 20 years without even knowing of it. Now I have fatty lumps all over my body. The story goes that a private individual bought the land cheap from the council and then made a big profit by letting Monsanto dump their toxic PCB barrels on the top of the mountain. No questions asked and no one thought to mention it to those of us who lived there. These materials can continue to leach out for a 100s of years.

Odor or no odor?

In a piece on PCB in the Hudson River, in the latest issue of Harper's Magazine, a NY state environmental protection officer claims after decades of experience to be able to smell PCBs, saying that in his experience about half of people can smell them and half can't. He describes the odor as bittersweet and metallic, and says most people think it resembles geraniums. Our article, however, states PCBs are odorless. Quickly googling "PCB smell", and ignoring stuff about circuit board smell, turns up some governmental and other sites saying they are odorless, but some that say they may have an odor, plus at least one scientific paper about a man who had supposedly gained the ability to smell them, as well as a reference to PCB detected in recycled paper by the smell. Anyone know who's right? Anyone have any personal experience?--Rallette (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Dioxins

I think the relationship between dioxin and PCBs should be a lot clearer. Essentially the main concern with PCBs is that many of them act in the same way as dioxin, and contribute to overall dioxin burden. In fact, many incidents reported as "dioxin contamination" may involve only PCBs, and no actual dioxin or furan compounds, such as the Belgian incident. PCBs would be of only moderate environmental or toxicological concern if it were not for their dioxin-like activity.

At present this link is not clearly defined within this article. I have made a few changes to this end, and hope to make some more, and also to related articles to clear everything up. I'm still a bit of a novice wiki-editor however, so I would welcome any clean-ups!

143.117.45.114 (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry logging in would be a start! Arthurbagwaste (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Arthurbagwaste is 100% correct, this article is an unfortunate mix of dioxin-like effects mainly caused by polychlorinated dibenzofurans always present in technical mixtures of PCBs, and dioxin-like non-ortho-PCBs (see dioxins and dioxin-like compounds), and on the other hand true PCB-effects which are relatively few. There are also clear mistakes such as that PCBs would not cause developmental toxicity which in fact was a hallmark of Yusho and Yu-cheng accidents in Japan and Taiwan, respectively. Mechanisms of action, toxicity in animals, and human effects should be thoroughly revised to meet the present standards. Early animal work was mainly done by using technical mixtures, so they are not of much value in this revision. Viinamakelainen (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The following sentence appears to have a error where "higher" should be "lower". I base this only on context since I could not find related information in the reference cited:

Noncoplanar PCBs, with chlorine atoms at the ortho positions, have not been found to activate the AhR, and are not considered part of the dioxin group; however, studies have indicated some neurotoxic and immunotoxic effects, but at levels much higher than normally associated with dioxins, and thus of much less concern to regulatory bodies.[5]

Gordon1104 (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia is not in the Czech Republic

"Czech Republic

The chemical plant Chemko in Strážske (east Slovakia) was an important producer of polychlorinated biphenyls for the former communist block (Comecon) until 1984. Chemko contaminated a large part of east Slovakia, especially the sediments of the Laborec river and reservoir Zemplínska šírava.[31][32]"

Slovakia is not part of the Czech Republic: this needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.253.53 (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Lateg (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

resource

Do PCBs Still Threaten Humans? A Turtle Study Suggests They Might by John R. Platt Scientific American December 9, 2011

99.181.147.68 (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There's too much guff about turtles, and the like. It needs to be split off into a separate article. You don't see chemists vandalizing ecological articles. There's no description on production of PCBs, nor of their possible (semi-) natural existence, which is what I wanted to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.77.171 (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The following content in the opening paragraph of the Polychlorinated biphenyl article is one sided and misleading. Please remove the following;

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), PCBs have been shown to cause cancer in animals, and there is also evidence that they can cause cancer in humans.[5] A number of peer-reviewed health studies have shown an association between exposure to PCBs and non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, a frequently fatal form of cancer.[6][7][8] However, other similar studies have found no such link.[9][10][11] Studies of PCB workers have uniformally shown no statistically significant increased rates of deaths from non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.[12][13][14][15][16][17] In 2013, The International Association for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that the evidence that PCBs cause non-Hodgkin Lymphoma is “limited” and “not consistent.” [18]

Concerns about the toxicity of PCBs are largely based on compounds within this group that share a structural similarity and toxic mode of action with dioxin. Toxic effects such as endocrine disruption and neurotoxicity are also associated with other compounds within the group. The maximum allowable contaminant level in drinking water in the United States is set at zero, but due to water treatment technologies, a level of 0.5 parts per billion is the defacto level.[19]

Suggested edit at the end of the opening paragraph:

In 2013, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified PCBs as known human carcinogens

The section in the intro about non-Hodgkin lymphoma is excessive, in my opinion. The intro should summarize the article, so duplicating nearly word-for-word one specific portion of the main text of the article isn't appropriate. I therefore removed that redundant bit from the intro. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Cancer Link suggestions

This paragraph needs to be removed from the Cancer Link section. It was removed from the intro:

A number of peer-reviewed health studies have also shown an association between elevated blood levels of PCBs and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.[82][83][84] However, other similar studies have found no such association.[85][86][87] Studies of PCB workers have uniformally shown no statistically significant increased rates of deaths from non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.[88][89][90][91][92][93] Studies of laboratory animals subjected to large doses of PCBs have shown no unusual incidence of lymphomas. In 2013, The International Association for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that the evidence that PCBs cause non-Hodgkin Lymphoma is “limited” and “not consistent.” [94] Institutions devoted to cancer research and treatment do not list PCB exposure as a risk factor for non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

Suggested additions:

Cancer link

In 2013, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified PCBs as known human carcinogens.The human epidemiologic data supports the position that PCBs cause Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system, and that persons with high levels of PCBs for their age are more likely than not to have had PCBs as a cause of their NHL. Supporting evidence comes from studies measuring the PCB blood and tissue levels of people in the general population, studies of groups exposed to PCBs from particular pollution sources, and, to a lesser extent, studies of workers exposed to PCBs on the job

At least 13 independent general population studies, reported in 17 peer-reviewed articles, have assessed whether increasing levels of PCBs in blood or fat tissue are associated with development of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. The studies by Quintana et al., 2004, and Fritschi et al., 2005, are not informative due to serious methodological limitations, leaving 11 independent studies for evaluation. Of the 11 studies, eight have reported significantly elevated risks of NHL in association with elevated blood or environmental levels of PCBs or selected PCB congeners, typically the higher chlorinated PCBs. Although variation across studies in the specific PCB congeners associated with NHL is not unexpected, seven PCB congeners produced statistically significantly elevated odds ratios for NHL in at least one quartile of exposure or odds ratios greater than 2.0 in at least one quartile across multiple study populations.

Elevated blood levels of PCBs or specific PCB congeners, typically those of higher chlorination, were significantly associated with NHL risk in the CLUE cohort, the Janus cohort, and the Physicians’ Health Study. It should be noted that these studies included evaluation and control for many potential alternative causes of the link between PCBs and NHL, none of which explained away that connection. PCB levels were also significantly associated with NHL risk in the initial investigation within the Nurses’ Health Study (Engel et al., 2007b), but generally showed non-statistically significant increases in a second investigation based on more subjects after longer follow-up (Laden et al., 2010). The Danish-EPIC cohort (Brauner et al., 2012) generally showed no association between PCBs and NHL, although there were a few nonsignificant increases in risk associated with selected congeners (e.g., PCB 99, PCB 138, PCB 153). The Danish-EPIC study has some methodologic features that would have led to underestimates of risk, including using the exposure distribution of the cases and subcohort combined to determine the cutpoints for the five exposure groups. Cocco et al. (2008) is generally a “negative” study, but reported odds ratios above one for PCB 28 and PCB 180. Nordstrom et al. (2000), the other “negative” study, consisted of hairy cell leukemia cases only, a rare subtype of lymphoma, and presented no congener-specific analyses, only total PCBs divided at the median (50th percentile) level.

Two studies of groups exposed to industrial pollution of PCBs, from a chemical factory in Brescia, Italy (Maifredi et al., 2011) and a municipal solid waste incinerator in Besancon, France (Viel et al., 2011), both report increased risks of NHL among the nearby residents.

Nine independent groups of PCB workers have been studied, some with multiple publications representing updated follow-up of the workers. Considering the most recent update for each population, the studies add some support to the causal role of PCBs in NHL but are limited by being based on mortality instead of incidence and, in many instances, by the small size of the cohorts, resulting in few deaths by which one could assess NHL risk. Furthermore, the exposures experienced by the occupational cohorts are somewhat different from those of members of the general population. Some workers may have had greater levels of exposure to PCBs than the general population, but to a different mix of specific PCB congeners. In occupational settings, exposure to lower chlorinated PCBs is more prominent than that in the general population, who tend to have more exposure to the higher chlorinated congeners that bioaccumulate more. The IARC Working Group that recently evaluated PCBs stated, “Because of weathering and biotransformation, the PCB profiles noted in the environment or during biomonitoring differ from those in commercial products.”

Despite the possible differences between occupational and general population exposures, three of the larger transformer or capacitor manufacturing cohorts, the most informative studies, reported excess risk of NHL in association with PCB exposure (Greenland et al., 1994, Mallin et al., 2004; Pesatori et al., 2013), while one did not (Ruder et al., 2014).

In addition to the information from epidemiology studies, further support for the causal connection between PCBs and NHL comes from the fact that PCBs are immunotoxic. Expert groups convened by U.S. government agencies and international institutions to review animal and human data related to PCBs have concluded that PCBs are immunotoxic, including the most recent review in February 2013 by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (Lauby-Secretan et al., 2013  ; EPA, 2008; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 2000). The IARC review states, “PCBs can induce….immune suppression, and inflammatory response…. PCBs can compromise the immune surveillance mechanism.”

The position that PCBs are more likely than not a cause of NHL is supported by the recent IARC Working Group’s classification of PCBs as a Group 1 (known) carcinogen and description of a causal role of PCBs for NHL as “biologically plausible.”

Thanks for your attention. Kdelay13 (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Even if this much detail were appropriate, we pretty much never list long strings of original studies like this. The best sources for medical information like this will be review articles published in the last five years or so. Sources more than ten years old are strongly discouraged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

My review of references in the "Cancer link" subsection:-

5. Health effects of PCBs. This is fine.

75. Lauby-Secretan. A news article, but probably okay.

76. Mayo clinic. About non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Not appropriate for this article, and it doesn't support the statement anyway.

77. Kimbrough. Primary study. Not appropriate.

78. Smith. Very old paper (1982). Primary source. Not appropriate.

79. Maroni. Another old paper (1981). Primary source. Not appropriate.

80. Emmett. Also old (1988). Primary source. Not appropriate.

81. Lawton. Another old one (1985). Primary source. Not appropriate. (There seems to be a theme here.)

82. Chase. Also old (1982). Primary source. Not appropriate. *sigh*

83. Kramer. A recent review paper. This one is fine.

84. Bertrand. Primary source. Not appropriate.

85. Hardell. Primary source. Not appropriate.

86. Laden. Another primary source. Not appropriate.

87. Cocco. Primary source. Not appropriate.

88. Bräuner. Primary source. Not appropriate.

89. Ruder. Primary study, albeit large (24,800 subjects). Not ideal.

90. Pesatori. Primary source. Not appropriate.

91. Mallin. Primary source. Not appropriate.

I shall continue my review later. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

92. Loomis. Somewhat old (1997). A primary study, although huge: 139,000 subjects. While many types of cancer are investigated in the paper, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is not explicitly described. Therefore this source does not support the statement.

93. Gustavsson. Somewhat old (1997) small primary study. Not appropriate.

94. Kimbrough. Duplicate of reference 77. Not appropriate.

95. Lauby-Secretan. Duplicate of reference 75. Probably okay.

96. Safe. This is a suitable reference.

97. Safe. This is fine.

98. Wang. Primary source. Not appropriate.

99. Simon. This is fine.

100. Chauhan. A little old (2000) but probably okay.

Okay, all reviewed. Overall, there are a lot of inappropriate references and the subsection needs to be heavily edited. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any comments, I am going to delete all of the references that I indicated as inappropriate and the accompanying text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

New Section

Please add new below as it is a important and relevant addition the the PCBs article

Litigation Relating to NHL and PCBs

As of March 2014, hundreds of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma patients had filed lawsuits against Monsanto Co. and related entities, alleging that their high blood levels of PCBs caused them to develop NHL. The original Monsanto Company manufactured 99% of all of the PCBs ever used by United States industry. The lawsuits are filed in courts in Los Angeles, California and St. Louis, Missouri. On July 23, 2013, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District issued an opinion rejecting Monsanto’s arguments that the cases should be dismissed on the basis that Monsanto owed no legal duty. Clair v. Monsanto Co., 412 S.W.3d 295 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). In papers filed by Monsanto in that court case, the company argued that the burden of defending the cases would be “overwhelming,” because the company would face potentially more than 1,000 cases per year, and also argued that “if this theory is upheld, everyone in the United States claiming injury from PCBs has a cause of action against Monsanto.”

Kdelay13 (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a very bad idea to include in the article text written by someone involved in the litigation. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Edgar181: I appreciate this principle, but in the history of the article, it has not been applied consistently; Glenn Young is also involved in the lawsuit, and a number of his edits dating back to August 2013 reflect a bias. I understand that adding large quantities of text, as I recently tried to do, is not the best way to address the current lack of neutrality in the article. For the moment, I’d suggest the following:

1. Note the pending lawsuit in the article, as I mentioned above with citations (using my specific language is not necessary, if others feel it reflects a bias); and

2. Adding a {{POV-section}} tag to the "cancer link" section would be worthwhile, until everyone involved can agree on a more neutral version of the text.

Reasonable? Kdelay13 (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

We have previously advised Edgar181 that the alleged association between PCBs and non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma is a key issue in controversy in an ongoing jury trial. Kdelay13 recently made edits to various Wikipedia entries that have been excerpted verbatim from court submissions authored by a paid witness for the parties and their lawyers claiming a connection between PCBs and NHL. Kdelay13 has acknowledged his or her role as a party to this ongoing litigation, but has nevertheless continued to make and/or suggest edits that further his or her interests in this case, including edits that refer to Dr. Kramer and her paper. Dr. Kramer is also a paid witness hired by the same parties, including kdelay13, and Dr. Kramer has been paid over $1.3 million by plaintiffs in this case. Kdelay13’s attempt to manipulate the content of Wikipedia has persisted, despite Edgar181’s efforts to present neutral, balanced and fair entries. We remain concerned that, although the Court in the jury trial in progress has admonished jurors to refrain from conducting any research into the issues of the case, including on-line research, jurors or members of their families might conduct research on line. The recent edits or suggestions by Kdelay13 can only be viewed as a clear attempt to improperly influence sitting jurors. The Wikipedia entries should be restored to the neutral and balanced approach settled on by Edgar181. User:Glynn Young — Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Link with non-Hodgkin lymphoma

@WhatamIdoing: Thank you for your work on the Non-Hodgkin lymphoma article. Since you have taken a close look at the relevant scientific literature, would you mind reviewing the issues on this article as well, specifically in the lead section and the "cancer link" section? -Kdelay13 (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The statement as written is simply not factually true. The reason it is not true is that the cited papers are not "studies" or "original research" but merely reviews or summary papers which discuss actual studies done by others. Nor do they establish "cause." The cited summary papers by Kramer and Freeman were paid for by plaintiffs' counsel for purposes of this pending litigation are the only writings on the subject that use the word "cause." Epidemiologists writing the results of their research are generally not medical doctors and therefore do not report the statistical results of their studies in terms of "cause"; rather they report their results as statistical "associations." A true statement would be that some epidemiology studies show an association between PCB exposure and NHL, and others do not show such an association.

I am posting this on the NHL talk page. Furthermore, this comment has been reproduced on the talk page of editor [WhatAmIDoing/Edgar181], both of whom have been involved in this discussion. User:Glynn Young — Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Interrupted review of Polychlorinated biphenyl#Cancer link

I started a review of Polychlorinated biphenyl#Cancer link on 22 May [2] but now find myself with very limited internet access. I'll get back to it once I've returned to civilisation if no one has beaten me to it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Missing Kyūshū under Japan heading?

The Japan section has no mention to Kyūshū 1968, but other parts of the page mention the incident that lead to Yushō disease.

Mdnahas (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I restored the text you had written about the Kyūshū 1968 rice bran oil poisoning incident, Mdnahas. Thank you for adding this important part of the history around PCBs to this article. I am disturbed at the quick summary removal of your edit for being unsourced, when a very easy search provided me with a review-level PubMed reference that i could use to source it, and when you provided even the link to the Wikipedia article on Yushō disease which also provides source references for this incident. I think that it is very important that additions to the history which are indeed genuine and verifiable, do not just get sent to the trash bin for some technical reason. I call into question the nature of the edit that removed this incident from the article completely, without apparently any discussion. It doesn't seem to serve the public interest to me. It puts throws away the contributions of people like you. Here is my edit to restore and provide a source so that someone will not come by and remove it again for being "unsourced". Here is the edit in which the user Jytdog had removed it, calling it "unsourced" which it technically may have been but which was very easy to source instead of trashing. SageRad (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Creation of article "Pollution of the Hudson River"

For reasons described at Talk:Pollution of the Hudson River#About this article I created the article Pollution of the Hudson River. I have deleted the content in this article which was covering this topic and replaced the content which was here with the lede of that pollution article and a link to the pollution article.

I propose that anyone with comments post them at that article, because multiple articles had been covering the topic of "pollution of the Hudson River", and I likewise have directed them all to that article. It is best to post there because this new pollution article affects several articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this kind of meta-editing is great, and sorely needed. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Solubility of PCBs: incorrect units

I think that the units for solubilities of PCBs indicated in this article are incorrect. They are given as ng/L. I think the units should be mg/L. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielArthurWalker (talk • contribs) 23:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Updated Okinawa USFJ pollution in Japan section

I removed some longer text that was only tangentially related to PCBs, and to my reckoning went into too much detail about a question of whether some barrels contained elements of Agent Orange, and replaced it with a concise description of the PCB contamination found on the Kadena Air Base, with a reference that will provide more background for anyone who is curious. I hope this helps balance the article in terms of weighting, focus, and brevity. Here is the new text:

• In Okinawa, high levels of PCB contamination in soil on Kadena Air Base were reported in 1987 at thousands of parts per million, some of the highest levels found in any pollution site in the world, and there is fear that PCB contamination may also be present on other land used by United States Forces Japan.

Here is the diff. SageRad (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that Formerly 98 removed part of my sentence, "and there is fear that PCB contamination may also be present on other land used by United States Forces Japan" in this diff and called it WP:WEASEL and said that it is not supported by the source, which contains this passage, quoting an official report by a USFJ Major tasked to write about the situation:

However, perhaps the most serious concern raised in McCarty’s report was the fear that Kadena’s contamination — if made public — would prompt demands for widespread tests on other U.S. bases. “Since the level of island-wide PCB contamination, if any, has not been determined, both USFJ and GOJ [government of Japan] officials will be pressured to test soil samples from high-risk sites . . . at all USFJ installations,” says the report. “The potential for soil contamination at sites on other USFJ installations on Okinawa exists.

• So, while i'm alright with the removal of that text for copyedit / flow reasons -- please note that the source supported this, and please use some more discretion with the WP:WEASEL allegations. I believe that it creates a hostile and contentious environment here. I'm posting well sourced information and looking for discussion here on the talk page as well, about editorial matters. SageRad (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Updated Dioxin Affair

I added citation as tagged for the Belgium section, and i reworked the text to be more direct and to show the history, effects, and sentence of two people involved in the contamination of the animal feed ingredient. New text:

• In 1999, the Dioxin affair caused serious harm when PCBs were found in animal feed made with animal fat contaminated with machine oil containing PCBs. One researcher says the crisis probably led to thousands of cases of cancer and other serious health problems. Two businessmen who knowingly sold the contaminated feed ingredient received two-year suspended sentences for their role in the crisis.

Here is the diff. SageRad (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User Formerly 98 summarily deleted the whole section, saying that it related to dioxin and not PCBs, which is not true. PCB contamination was the source of the problem. I had useful information in there which was relevant to the article and a few ref's. Maybe it could have been improved -- but deletion like that? Anyway, i have added this new version with another reference that clearly implicated PCBs in this incident:

In 1999, the Dioxin Affair occurred when PCBs were added to a stock of recycled fat used in animal feed, eventually affecting around 2,500 farms in several countries. One researcher says the crisis, which involved both PCBs and dioxin, probably led to thousands of cases of cancer and other serious health problems. Two businessmen who knowingly sold the contaminated feed ingredient received two-year suspended sentences for their role in the crisis.

Here is the diff in which the original passage was deleted. SageRad (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Now user Formerly 98 has made this deletion, which would say is fair. In this case, it's a partial deletion and the reason is valid. We could find a better source as to epidemiological consequences of the event. This is certainly better, in my opinion, than wholesale deletion of a section. SageRad (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact, i have now learned that the incident involved 50 kg of PCBs and 1 gram of dioxin. So it's clearly about PCBs. SageRad (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Pattern of Disappearing Information

about contributors, not content in violation of WP:TPG Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There seems to be a pattern on this page of information disappearing instead of trying to include and improve sections that are relevant to the history and sociology and epidemiology around PCBs. It is very disturbing to me. It seems to show a preference to disappear an entire section (like the Yusho disease event in Japan in 1968 for one thing, and the Dioxin Affair in Belgium, for another thing, instead of talking about it and improving sources or refining the sections. Highly disturbing and throws away the work and the contributions of others. It erases the long memory that we all need so much when it comes to incidents of breach of public trust, which is a large part of what this page can offer to the public at large. I am sounding an alarm call here, and would love if other concerned people would add your observations or comments. SageRad (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC) instead of getting alarm-y, please simply focus on content and sourcing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC) I'll get "alarm-y" and call out a pattern that is real, as a meta-level concern here, because it's not just about one specific edit, but a pattern that i am seeing, and so i will call it out because i think it's important. In addition, i will also pay attention to content and sourcing, of course. I would like to feel that this is a cooperative effort to document a class of chemicals and their history and relation to human society, and not a tug of war. SageRad (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC) this is how wikipedia goes. people come through and add a bunch of unsourced or badly sourced content; other people come clean it up. yet other people come back and find better sourcing and rescue things. it is no crisis for pete's sake. crappy content is added here every day, and crappy content is removed every day; great content is added every day; some times great content is removed. it is why we watch, and why we work, and why talk. totally normal. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC) I'd also add that it would be wise to be careful about making insinuations about the motives of other editors. It would be good for you to review the talk page guidelines WP:TALK, the guidelines for sourcing medical content WP:MEDRS (hint: a quote from "a researcher" taken from the Flanders News doesn't even come close to meeting Wikipedia standards), and the guidelines regarding single purpose accounts WP:SPA. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 15:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Speaking of insinuations.... SageRad (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC) It's as if neither of you think that my observation here holds *any* merit, and as if the practice of coming to a passage and deleting it wholesale is alright, even when the incident or event described verifiably happened, and it is a very important even in the history of the subject of the article, and someone put a lot of work into it. Sure, this is how WP *can* go with contentious people who do this sort of thing, but not how it *must* go and that is why i started this conversation, for which you're now labeling me all sorts of wrong for doing... I think i've got a point and it's important. I see a pattern that is not good for the comprehensiveness and usefulness of this article. Having fun? SageRad (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC) you added content that was removed due to sourcing, per WP:BRD you talk it out. it is not a big deal, but happens every day here. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC) That's not at *all* what i was talking about. I am talking about a *pattern* of disappearing information -- a trend that i see here that i hold is very, very, very, very harmful to the content and quality of the article in terms of usefulness to the public, in terms of retaining the net positive of the work of people in the past to update the page, and in terms of editorial integrity. It's not right to be deleting whole episodes in the history of PCBs, even if it's poorly sourced in your opinion, or unsourced. You can tag it for citation needed, and give it a couple weeks. You can write something about it on the talk page. You can look for a source yourself. You can follow the link that it contains and find a source there. But instead, i noted things going down the memory hole, and something is wrong with that. So i said so. And then.... diversion, distraction, denial... SageRad (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC) And yeah, it *is* a big deal. If you knew nothing about PCBs but wanted to know about them, and you came here, wouldn't you want to know the full history, the way that people's food has gotten contaminated, the way that rivers have gotten contaminated, and how that happened, and who knew what, when? If it was YOUR river that got poisoned? If it was YOUR aunt who got cancer from PCB exposure... wouldn't you want a public collectively-written encyclopedia to retain the work done in good faith by people around the world who contributed their bits to this article? You're really beginning to seem like an intentional curmudgeon to me, Jytdog. SageRad (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Suppose you're a young person who lives in Okinawa and you hear something about PCBs, some rumor about contamination, and you Google them, and read this article. Wouldn't you want to know about Yusho disease, and to see the information about the extremely high PCB contamination in soil on the former US base? By deleting entire events from the page, you're denying a young girl in Okinawa the chance to see that on a page that she looks up to learn about it. And why do your edits pretty much have one direction? You accuse me of advocacy as if that's a bad thing in itself, but your edits collectively make me think you're an advocate for a different cause, that which would not want these histories so publicly visible. It's really strange. SageRad (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC) That post was problematic on so many levels I don't even know where to start. Please have a look at WP:TALK, WP:ADVOCACY and WP:V. The statement "It's not right to be deleting whole episodes in the history of PCBs, even if it's poorly sourced in your opinion, or unsourced." flies directly in the face of WP:V: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." This would be a good time stop lecturing longtime contributors and read the some of the key Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 07:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Wow, i think we're talking past each other here, and you go and cite another slew of policies as a result. I very much understand the need for sourcing on anything that is challenged, as that's a tension that keeps it real and reflecting the real world. I am calling out what i see as a culture of this page that seems to throw things down the memory hole rather than to tag them for needing sources, or better sources, or work on them a little, or put a remark on the talk page about one's concerns. I am "advocating" for valuing the contributions of others enough that we don't delete it wholesale if the sources don't match what we think is adequate. I'm also talking about a culture of hyper-rule-citing here, which i think is hurting the general editorial atmosphere that i think would result in a better article altogether. Each article takes a heck of a lot of work, and is meant to evolve over time, and throwing out wholesale descriptions of events and episodes in history from an article like this one, in my opinion, devolves it instead of evolving it. That's what i am noting here, in my perception, after being involved with this page for a week or two. And then it's informative that even in calling this out, i get in response allegations and insinuations from the people who were doing the very thing i was calling out to begin with. Judging solely on observed behavior, it feels wrong to me. It doesn't feel like it's in the public interest, what is going on here. SageRad (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC) And let me tell you that i do mean Memory hole and that this term is especially relevant to a page like this one, because there are indeed passages that are embarrassing to certain groups that are covered on this page. And there are people who suffered greatly due to the events and incidents that are going into a memory hole. Those people should not be forgotten. Wikipedia is part of the public consciousness, as a publicly generated content source that supposedly reflects a balance of views that are held by significant groups of people, especially on controversial topics where different groups may tell different stories. It's not very assuring to see that events in which people died as a result of contamination with PCBs get dropped from the page summarily. When i say "summarily" what i mean is that in some cases they've not even been tagged with "citation needed" and therefore it actually took me, acting on a hunch, to go back into the history rather far, and to notice some significant deletions, and then to ask "Why did this get deleted? It's a rather good passage and simply needed a source that i can find in 5 minutes." Really, now. SageRad (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC) you came here with content you wanted to add to the article. a priori. you are identifying what you want with the "public good". This is what advocates typically do, on both fronts. As I and others have told you many times, over the years the Wikipedia community has developed policies and guidelines aimed at furthering its mission to provide the public with reliable, neutral information. You continue to ignore that these policies and guidelines exist - both the spirit and the letter of them. Understanding them and working within them is not "lawyering", it is what it means to be WP:HERE as opposed to WP:NOTHERE - please read those. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC) "Wikipedia is part of the public consciousness, as a publicly generated content source that supposedly reflects a balance of views that are held by significant groups of people" Nope, not even close. Wikipedia does not reflect "a balance of views that are held by a significant number of people". Per WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS " Its [Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." The opinions of the editors have nothing to do with it. Again, please read the guidelines. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 14:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I am WP:HERE.... and i have experienced that most of the time when you two (Formerly and Jytdog) have cited guidelines and essays *at* me, it's generally not even supported by the guidelines you cite. And then i have responded in turn with that comment, and you've never acknowledged this. I continue to hold that there is a hostile and contentious atmosphere here, and that you're not hearing what i'm saying, and you're misrepresenting my actions, and that this is not good for the culture of Wikipedia. I think i am more WP:HERE than the two of you. I'm calling out a pattern of bad dialogue and problematic editing practices, and this is what i get? Ha. SageRad (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC) there has been tension as you have been learning, and having content and sourcing not "stick" because it doesn't work under the policies and guidelines. you continue to personalize this, which is another mistake new editors make. please show you are here by using good sources and discussing content and sources, based on policies and guidelines, simply, on article talk pages. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC) People are people, with identities. I see a pattern in behavior. Is that "personalizing" it? I've seen specific behaviors that i have described here in this conversation. It's not all about me learning. The tension is not from that solely. When i have checked into the citations you two keep producing, i find nuance there that usually supports my actions. I find a pattern of seemingly ingenuine citation and obstruction. There is a real tension that i believe is related to the same tension in the society at large over issues that are so-called "controversial" like the one of chemical contamination of humans and the Earth. There is a tension when one group does not want the information to be broadcast, for it is inconvenient and potentially harmful to the culpable. SageRad (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Also, and this is just a personal observation, you two emit -- to my judgment -- a "lording" attitude like you're the kings of this place. That's a strictly personal impression, but is the result of a couple weeks of intense interaction with you both, and my considered observation. SageRad (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent actions on this Talk Page

The following content was removed from this talk page in this diff with edit note "Discussing content: ce" by Jytdog. I don't agree that this should be removed because of the need for free speech as well as the need to make meta-level observations about behaviors that may be harmful to integrity of articles and to avoid potential bias in articles created by patterns of behavior and atmospheres of obstructionism.

• Content that was removed:

Closing of Dialogue To be clear, i was making observations about the history of the modification of this page, and noting a pattern that disturbed me, in Pattern of Disappearing Information. Observations on the behavior of editors is part of that conversation, and it is a relevant meta-level discussion about the article, editorial process about the article, and how it may affect the quality of the article and perhaps bias of the article. So, i continue to maintain that this is a relevant topic to the article's composition, and that if someone's behavior in terms of editing may seem to be problematic, then this seems to me a relevant topic in regard to the article's editorial process. That is all. SageRad (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog, would you please respond to that? Thanks. SageRad (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• To further contextualize it, i wrote this text that was removed, after the closing of a dialogue called "Pattern of Disappearing Information" and i was concerned about a pattern of disappearing information about a pattern of disappearing information. SageRad (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

article talk pages are for discussing content and sources based on policy and guidelines. I have made you aware of this. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I see. I guess that meta-level discussion would be allowed on dispute resolution pages, then, if participants in the article editing choose to not discuss them on the Talk page. SageRad (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, we try to avoid more than very minimal discussions of user behavior on the article Talk pages per WP:TALK. The reason for this is that as difficult and confrontational as these discussions sometimes become, we are in principle working toward a common goal. It is much too easy to fall into ad hominem attacks, and not only do these generally lack any factual support (one cannot know what motivates another editor, or what they are thinking), but they generally aggravate whatever tendency was already present for the discussion to become confrontational. And the bad feelings created can create long term conflicts that make editing here more difficult and unpleasant for both parties.

I don't know all the exact places where these issues are discussed, but in general the preferred procedure goes something like this:

1) Attempt to resolve disagreements by discussing content and sources within the context of various Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Arguments about what the WP:TRUTH is are generally not successful here. What matters is what is verifiable per WP:V.

2) If this fails to provide agreement, one can arrange for a Request for Comment to get a broader range of editors to comment on the issues. (But don't WP:CANVASS. There are also comment boards for the reliability of sources and the like.

3) Behavioral issues can be raised diplomatically on the editor's personal talk page.

4) If this fails, and you really want to pursue it, you can take it up at ANI. But this is no fun and you don't want to spend a lot of time over there, either as an accuser or as the accused.

Good luck. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 16:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Meta level discussions occur regularly on talk pages. Discussing an observed pattern of content removal is discussion of content. SageRad could be more careful about sticking to content, but his comments here are not a clear violation of anything. Jytdog's removal of SageRad's text and closure of the previous discussion were particularly aggressive actions that are very rarely made by non-admins. In my view such actions should not be taken by parties involved in a discussion without first getting an outside opinion, with exception for clear vandalism or clear personal attacks. Otherwise, once a discussion is not going the way an editor likes, he or she can just site a violation of guidelines that occurred and cut off discussion arbitrarily.Dialectric (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I hear you on that Dialectric. I do that rarely, when an editor, after repeated efforts to get them to talk about content and not contributors, will not stop. As you can see I hatted one thing, then reverted another, but I did not edit war over the unrevert. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

discussion at WT:MEDRS

here: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Does_MEDRS_cover_basic_historical_documentation_and_toxin_levels_from_chemical_contamination.3F Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, i did, because i think your interpretation is wrong. So i ask for clarification of MEDRS and i think that's a good thing to do. I need input from people who are genuinely in dialogue with intention of making this a great encyclopedia. SageRad (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)