Talk:2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin

Sources of TCDDs
Revision on the sources of TCDDs is misleading here and belongs to Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. TCDD as defined here, is a single compound 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and the sources given are common to many related compounds. The sole sources of pure TCDD are accidents (Seveso) or deliberate poisonings as described. Please check Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, and add the necessary sources there. Viinamakelainen (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead
Thanks for working on this article! It looks very good and the sourcing appears excellent. The lead, the most important part of the article, needs to be expanded to adequately summarize all the article content per WP:LEAD. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Poorly written section on sugarcane
The article contains a section on 2,3,7,8-TCDD accumulation in sugarcane. This section is sourced but extremely poorly written. It's difficult to decipher its meaning and it is not up to the quality of the rest of the article. I'm on the fence about whether it should be removed or rewritten. On one hand it seems a bit odd to have an entire section devoted to sugarcane, but on the other it is at least nominally relevant information. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.23.129 (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the commercial importance of sugarcane (and interest in biofuels) I think it's worth leaving in. It looks to me like it was translated or authored by a non-native English speaker, since the sentence construction was technically OK but difficult to read.  I've re-written it and tried to preserve the meaning, further changes welcome.
 * It seemed to imply that dioxins were produced largely because chlorides were included in the sugarcane fertilisers, and that Cl is only included because it happens to be in the usual potassium sources. I'm not sure how accurate that is, since a certain amount of Cl will be needed by the plant in any case, but it might make a difference and might be in the relevant source - I don't have access that source except for the abstract. Pastychomper (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

You are right. Sugarcane does not belong here, it could be shortly mentioned in Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, even if it is trivial as a source of dioxins. I am editing both entries shortly and plan to delete it here. Viinamakelainen (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)