Hi Guest. As you can see this is not a new article. Users have been commenting on it for over 6 years. We do see your point and hopefully you have also directed these concerns to our sources who still have the same information live on their websites without any changes. We have over 3,000 articles on this website and we do make changes on popular subjects. This topic is not one of them. We do rely to some extent on the input of users to highlight that there have been changes to the subject matter. Most users contribute constructively by explaining what has changed and quoting relevant sources. The comments therefore add to the content. Your point has been noted and hopefully other readers will also bear it in mind that there are safe levels now set for dioxin exposure (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2012/February/epa-dioxins-exposure-level.asp).

When you wrote article your source have 16 years, you know how much it is in science? I can found you sources from 20 century which claim that smoking is good for lungs. I understant that you commercial publication but you should checks your reference if something dont change in science like for example that earth is not flat dont this in past mainstream theory?.

Hi Guest. Thank you for your input. As previously stated the information in this article was not the writer’s assertion but taken from another source. The reference is available at the bottom of the article but if you did not spot it, the information was derived from the Energy Justice Network (here is the article http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/). Further reading on their website will reveal that they in fact sourced some of this information from a book GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY BOARD 102ND MEETING, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, JULY 15, 1993, PRESENTATION BY LINDA BIRNBAUM, U.S. EPA (Washington, D.C.: International Joint Commission, Great Lakes Water Quality Board, Dec. 21, 1993). The author of the book says there is no threshold for immunotoxic responses to dioxin on page 14. If you are unsatisfied with this statement then please direct your correspondence to them. The writer of this article is no longer with our publication. We are simply a commercial publication and produce content with information derived from other sources.

First please read about hormesis even toxin can have positive effect. Second Im toxicologist “. Agreed that the dose determines which toxin will in fact be harmful to the organism” no the dose detemines if something will be toxin, and this term I can call every substance even water, ” nevertheless does not detract from the fact that arsenic is still a poison” the same we can wrote about Vitamin D its main substance in rats poison so going your logic we should avoid her? Cant you develop other viramin toxicity? Here you have example of arsenic hormesis http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acel.12076/full About dioxin the dose can be higher than we think god example Juszczenko who was poisoned dioxin 10 ppm (20 000 times higher dose that is limit), I wrote again everything have their safe dose. I study many substance and read many articles and never find any proof that something dont have safe level.

Hi Darek. Agreed that the dose determines which toxin will in fact be harmful to the organism. However, these issues do become contentious from the public health perspective. For example trace amounts of arsenic have been found in rice sourced from certain regions and while it may not cause harm upon eating a single meal, it nevertheless does not detract from the fact that arsenic is still a poison.The author has stated the findings in the paper mentioned. The issue of liability always enters the fray when discussing such issues and as an online publication it is important to maintain a position on the matter that is not misleading or potentially dangerous to the reader without a thorough understanding of biochemistry.