Jump to content

Talk:Lindane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(old thread on obsolete name)

[edit]

Gammaxene (540 Google hits) or gammexane (27000 Google hits)? The latter is more consistent with the saturated cyclohexane structure.96.54.53.165 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


why is benzene hexachloride redirected to this article ?? i dont smell any aromaticity in lindane ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.155.3 (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the second sentence of this article, where it says that "Lindane is the gamma isomer of hexachlorocyclohexane (“gamma-HCH”), formerly known as benzene hexachloride...."Rick lightburn (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Bill to ban Lindane

[edit]

Tuesday, December 13, 2005 Bill Summary - A04162 Back | New York State Bill Search | Assembly Home See Bill Text

A04162 Summary: BILL NO A04162A SAME AS Same as S 5619 SPONSOR Weisenberg COSPNSR Dinowitz, Ortiz, Perry, Espaillat, Arroyo, Gottfried MLTSPNSR Acampora, Alfano, Benjamin, Boyland, Brennan, Brodsky, Clark, Cohen A 

          Colton, Englebright, Gordon, Greene, John, Koon, Lafayette, Lifton,
          Lupardo, Mayersohn, McEneny, O`Donnell, Peralta, Pheffer, Robinson,
          Tedisco

Add S2507, Pub Health L

Bans the sale, use, and prescription of any product containing hexachlorocyclohexane, commonly known as Lindane, and its isomers.

A04162 Actions: BILL NO A04162A

02/09/2005 referred to health 05/10/2005 defeated in health 05/31/2005 amend and recommit to health 05/31/2005 print number 4162a 06/16/2005 reported referred to codes

A04162 Votes:


A04162 Memo: 

BILL NUMBER:  A4162A

TITLE OF BILL :  An act to amend the public health law, in relation

to banning the sale, use, and prescription of any product containing the substance commonly known as Lindane 

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL : To restrict the sale, use, and

prescription of any product containing hexachlorocyclohexane, commonly known as Lindane, and its isomers, except as specified in Section 2507. 

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS : Section 1. Adds a new section, 2507

of the public health law.

Section 2. Sets the effective date. 

JUSTIFICATION : Lindane is a synthetic pesticide used in agriculture

and as a treatment for head lice and scabies. Consumers use Lindane most often for the treatment of head-lice and scabies in the form of creams, lotions, and shampoos (Kwell). However, extended exposure to Lindane causes the absorption of its chemicals into the skin, the digestive system, and the respiratory tract, resulting in seizures and, in rare cases, death. Medical and toxicology studies have labeled Lindane a possible carcinogen. The World Health Organization (WHO), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Health and Human Services, confirm these findings, reporting a six fold increase in the number of farmers who have developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma after exposure to Lindane. Recent case studies report high rates of childhood brain cancer due to treatment with Lindane shampoo. Furthermore, studies have proven that Lindane causes a potentially fatal or lifetime condition called aplastic anemia, the deficiency of essential nutrients in the blood and a precursor to leukemia. Adverse effects have resulted from recommended dosage of this product.

Lindane is exceptionally toxic to the environment. The EPA categorizes Lindane as a persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic pollutant, meaning it remains in the environment for a protracted period of time. After its use, patients rinse lindane shampoos and creams down the sink or shower drains. Since waste water treatment plants do not remove Lindane successfully, it passes through groundwater streams, rivers, lakes, and the ocean. In California, one dose of Lindane was shown to pollute six million gallons of water. Even a small amount of Lindane when ingested is lethal. For this reason, the Environmental Protection Agency has severely restricted the agricultural use of Lindane.

In 2003, The Food and Drug Administration repackaged Lindane and included a more detailed and restrictive warning. They classify Lindane as a second choice treatment to more efficient and less toxic alternatives and state that children, the elderly, and pregnant women should not use this product due to its toxicity. Hence, Lindane containing treatments continue to be available by prescription. Although the National Pediculosis Association reports that Lindane products have caused over 500 cases of adverse effects, over one million people receive prescriptions for Lindane each year in the United States.

There is no viable reason to keep Lindane on the consumer market in light of its dangers. It is a deadly poison that safer alternatives can easily replace. Eighteen countries world-wide have banned the use and distribution of Lindane. In addition, since the FDA has restricted the use of Lindane concerning children, the group most likely to become infested with head lice, there is no high demand for this product.

Although Lindane is no longer commercially produced in the United States, it remains commercially available in all states except California. Legislation is necessary to ensure that this dangerous product is removed completely from the consumer market. 

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY : New bill.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS : None.

EFFECTIVE DATE : This act shall take effect 180 days after it shall

become law.

citation that was needed is as follows

[edit]

Harris GL, et al, Pesticide application and deposition - their importance to pesticide leaching to surface water, Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference: Pests and diseases - 1992, Volume 2, 477-486, BCPC 1992.

EPA bans Lindane

[edit]

EPA Bans Lindane for Use as Pesticide The toxic chemical has been used on crop seeds since the '50s. The FDA still allows medical use Aug 2, 2006 | Marla Cone | Los Angeles Times A highly toxic pesticide that is one of the last such holdouts from the 1950s is being banned in the United States after a lengthy review by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA decided not to renew the registration of lindane, an insecticide used to treat seeds for wheat, corn, oats, rye, barley and sorghum crops. In response, the manufacturers agreed to cease sales in the United States, EPA officials said Tuesday.

Lindane is a chlorinated pesticide, much like DDT and similar compounds that were outlawed in most of the world in the 1970s; it is already banned in 52 countries. It does not break down in the environment, so it builds up in food chains and in human bodies, and scatters globally via the oceans and air, reaching even people and animals in the Arctic.

For years, environmentalists have sought a ban in the U.S., especially since Mexico and Canada have already acted. The United Nations was considering adding lindane to a global treaty phasing out chemicals considered the world's most hazardous.

Kristin Shafer of Pesticide Action Network North America, an activist group based in San Francisco, said Tuesday that she was "pleased EPA has finally done the right thing."

Jim Jones, director of the EPA's pesticide program, said the agency weighed lindane's toxicity and its persistence in the environment against its "very few benefits for users," considering the fact that safer alternatives for treating corn, wheat and other grain seeds were available.

"We're making a decision today that I feel very good about," he said. "Most of the uses were deleted a long time ago, and the EPA has taken a number of actions culminating in this one today, where the remaining uses are being voluntarily canceled."

The EPA has acknowledged the hazards of lindane for several years, calling it "quite toxic to humans." It is classified as a possible carcinogen, and in high doses it damages the human nervous system, liver and immune system.

The only remaining U.S. use of lindane is for prescription shampoos and lotion treatments for head lice and scabies, which are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, not the EPA. Lindane prescriptions have been banned in California since 2002, and most U.S. doctors no longer prescribe them.

"It's good to the see the U.S. finally stepping up to the plate" on farm use, said Ann Heil, a supervising engineer at the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts who has researched lindane and lobbied the Legislature for the state ban on lindane prescriptions. But, she said, "it is baffling why the federal government has now banned uses of lindane for farming, but still allows it to be put on children's heads."

The decision to end lindane's use as an agricultural pesticide is the culmination of a 10-year review of the more than 200 active ingredients in pesticides that was ordered by Congress in 1996 under the Food Quality Protection Act.

The law transformed the EPA's safety standards for evaluating pesticide risks, especially to children, and has led to changes in the allowable uses of many chemicals.

"Virtually every chemical that went through that process had some meaningful changes in the way they could be used," Jones said. Seventeen popular chemicals have been banned since the review began.

Lindane has been used on U.S. crops since 1950. The EPA heavily restricted it in 1983, limiting its use to grain seeds to prevent pests from eating the plants. It is banned in the European Union, Japan and several other Asian countries, South Africa, and much of Latin and South America.

If the companies had not voluntarily agreed to cease U.S. distribution, the process of the EPA canceling its registration could have dragged on for years, Jones said. Instead, it will become effective in about two months. Farmers can still legally use lindane products already in stock.

Up to 230,000 pounds of lindane have been used yearly in the United States, mostly to treat corn and wheat seed. California growers already were scaling back its use, reporting application of only 775 pounds in 2004, compared with nearly 5,000 pounds four years earlier, according to state records.

Illinois draft of lindane ban

94TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY State of Illinois 2005 and 2006HB1362


Introduced 02/09/05, by Rep. Daniel J. Burke


SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:


410 ILCS 620/17.2 new 


   Amends the Illinois Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Provides that no person shall sell, deliver, offer for sale, hold for sale, give away, use, or prescribe any product used for the treatment of lice or scabies in human beings that contains the pesticide chemical lindane. Effective January 1, 2006.
[edit]

I think that the The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Public Health Advisory at http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/lindane/lindanePHA.htm was prepared by the federal government and falls under the public domain. See Wikipedia:Public domain resources#US Government.  WODUP  04:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV on "Use"

[edit]

This article isn't the place for an essay on who manufactures, imports, distributes, and sells Lindane-based pharmaceuticals, or advocacy relating to its removal or anticipated removal from the marketplace. It's more than enough to note that Lindane is banned for almost all applications in the US. Perhaps there is another article where discussion of the health and political consequences of pesticide use would be more appropriate. Joseph N Hall 00:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that that section in question has/had a POV problem and your edits go a long way toward solving this, I disagree that the info about import/manufacturing/who sells lindane has no place in the article. Other articles about pharmaceuticals and pesticides contain this type of info, and i don't see any reason why we should treat this one any different. I'm going to re insert this useful info, while leaving the POV-ish stuff out.Yilloslime 20:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I was just trying to quickly remove the fluff. Thanks for taking the time to do a more thoughtful job. Joseph N Hall 21:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, way back when, my grandfather used to spray that stuff in his orchard ... he was a practical guy who kept supplies of assorted "useful" pesticides around long after they were banned. Shudder. Joseph N Hall 21:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes by The National Pediculosis Association

[edit]

On 4/19/2009, the "Morton Grove Lawsuit" section was edited by a representative of the National Pediculosis Association. Npa-representative-01 (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes by Rick

[edit]

On 9/11/2007, I removed a range on copyrighted materials from the article (verbatim reports from newspapers), in the subsection on "Adverse Reactions" I made more reflective of FDA documents, and brought the section on the Morton Grove lawsuit more in line with the status of the lawsuit. It should be notied that the bill frequently introduced into the NY legislature to ban lindane remains, as I understand it, still in committee. LHL Rick 19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (same as "Rick Lightburn")[reply]

On 9/18/2007, User:Yilloslime:Yilloslime changed line 89, by changing so called "fact-sheets" to fact-sheets, commenting that the scare quotes were a dead giveaway. First, they aren't "scare quotes:" no one agrees that certain literature distributed is actually factual, but everyone agrees that this literature is called "fact sheets." So the quotes are simply agreement that that's what they're called, without agreeing that they're factual. Second, whatever they are, I'm not clear of what they are a dead giveaway. What do they giveaway? I've reverted to the version with the quotes. LHL Rick 23:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The scare quotes give away that the sentence is biased--i.e. the POV of the author of the sentence is clearly on the side of Morton Grove. Sorry if this wasn't clear from my edit summary. Anyways Rick, your work on this article has greatly improved it, but you are wrong about the scare quotes and the phrase "so called". Take a look at the guidelines on this, it's pretty clear cut. The subject of lawsuit are factsheets issued by the Ecology Center, and nothing is gained or made any clearer by putting the word factsheet in scare quotes or using the term "so-called." On the other hand, the use of the quotes and the term "so-called" "suggest that a term [factsheet] is invalid"--something that the courts will decide, not wikipedia editors. Hope this makes sense. Happy editting. Also, I'd suggest that you pick one user name ("Rick Lightburn" or LHL Rick") and stick with it. Using two can be interpetted as sockpuppetry.Yilloslime 00:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to hide behind the two names, and I readily admit it is sloppy. (I was working on a different computer, and couldn't remember my password.) I've made a change that (I hope) clarifies that the defendants in the case called them fact sheets. I hope this achieves a more neutral POV. Rick lightburn 06:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Rick. Again let me begin by commending you for the great work you've done on this page. It's a lot better off now than before you began. Kudos. But I have almost as much of problem with "what the defendants styled 'fact sheets' " as I did with "so-called 'factsheets.' " While your edit did not contain any of the official WP:Words to avoid it still runs up against the spirit of that guideline. And it still has those scare-quotes. (Whether you intend them to be scare quotes or not, the reader will always interpet them as such when they enclose a single word that is not obviously a direct quote.) Clearly the lawsuit was filed because the plantiffs believe that not everything in the factsheets is accurate, so there is no need cast any additional doubt on their veracity by describing them as "what the defendants styled 'fact sheets.'" The reader will interpret the phase "what the defendants styled 'fact sheets'" to suggest that the author of the phrase also doubts truthfulness of the factsheets, and thus the statement violates WP:NPOV. Hope this is clear. Yilloslime (t) 02:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Yilloslime. I'm trying to be scientific, and yet I need to be on guard for NPOV, since my current position is not disinterested. I'm just resistant to using "fact" in anything that the defendants produced. How about we just call it "literature?" (This is editing at the nits, I admit, but that margin is where the law works.) Rick lightburn 18:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think simply calling it 'factsheets' works best, but I can live with 'literature'.Yilloslime (t) 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that 'factsheets' without quotes is problematic, because they imply what is written is factual. For example, if the Bush campaign wrote about the likely effects Obama campaign's plans for the health care system, concluding that it was harmful and risky, and published this in a factsheet, this would (or should) be described as a "factsheet" and not a factsheet. While I agree that in normal cases quotes usually have the 'scare quotes' effect, a written document must in my view have a highly undisputable nature to be called a factsheet without quotes, because the word "fact" in the name implies that what is written is true. It's difficult to read from this whether the Ecology centre has sufficient scientific impartiality. 94.196.242.99 (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising Tag in the "Pharmaceutical Use" section

[edit]

I removed the "Ad" tag because the language in that section did not violate any of Wikipedia's standards for not being a soapbox, promotion, or advertisement (even if it may have language similar to disclaimers found in pharmaceutical advertisements.) Rick lightburn (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising Tag in the "Adverse Reactions to Lindane Pharmaceuticals" section

[edit]

I have removed the 'Ad' tag from the section called Adverse Reactions to Lindane Pharmaceuticals. According to the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary (Copyright 2007-2008), the very definition of advertising “is to call public attention to especially by emphasizing desirable qualities so as to arouse a desire to buy or patronize.” Further, the restriction on advertising within Wikipedia is part of its policy against using Wikipedia as a soapbox--indeed the tag refers to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#SOAPBOX. Accordingly, the section entitled “Adverse Reactions to Lindane Pharmaceuticals” does not promote in any way the use or sale of any lindane pharmaceutical product nor does it emphasize desirable qualities of lindane medications. To the contrary, the section details information on safety risks, some of which are serious. All of the information is taken directly from FDA-approved prescription labeling, including the boxed warning for these products, and information from a 2003 FDA postmarketing safety analysis. Thus, an Ad tag is not appropriate. Rick lightburn (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

One of the bold wedges is pointing the wrong way in the image

I have now replaced it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The PDF on the Ecology centre's webpage (link 41?) appears to have been removed. Since this seems vital to understand the 'lawsuit' paragraph, and to make the reader some possibility of judging themself whether the lawsuit was indeed a SLAPP lawsuit or merited, could it be tracked down?94.196.242.99 (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UN banned Lindane

[edit]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090510/sc_afp/unenvironmentchemical

Incase it's expired from yahoo's spool, quoted here for discussion sake., delete after discussion is over.

GENEVA (AFP) – Nine chemicals, including headlice treatment lindane, have been added to a list of poisonous substances that are to be eliminated under the Stockholm Convention, the UN Environment Programme said on Saturday.

More than 160 signatory states of the convention targeting hazardous substances that can kill or are seriously harmful to health, added the chemicals to the existing list of 12 after a week-long meeting in Geneva.

"The tremendous impact of these substances on human health and the environment has been acknowledged today by adding nine new chemicals to the Convention," said UN Under-Secretary General Achim Steiner in a statement.

"This shift reflects international concern on the need to reduce and eventually eliminate such substances throughout the global community."

The nine chemicals that member states have now committed to eliminate are:

- Lindane -- used in treatment of headlice and scabies, and in insecticides - Alpha hexachlorocyclohexane -- a by-product of lindane - Beta hexachlorocyclohexane -- a by-product of lindane - Hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether -- used in flame retardants - Tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether -- used in flame retardants - Chlordecone -- used in agricultural pesticides - Hexabromobiphenyl -- used in flame retardants - Pentachlorobenzene -- used in fungicides, flame retardants - Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride -- used in electric and electronic parts, photo imaging, textiles

--75.20.207.88 (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to Introduction

[edit]

Legal Status: Edits for clarification, particularly relating to the Stockholm Convention. Please note that lindane is not “banned” internationally. Rather, member countries to the Stockholm Convention have agreed to eliminate agricultural uses of lindane while public health uses are currently exempt: “[Stockholm Convention]Decides to amend part I of Annex A of the Convention to list lindane therein with a specific exemption for the use of lindane as a human health pharmaceutical for the control of head lice and scabies as second line treatment” (http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/Repository/COP4/UNEP-POPS-COP.4-38.English.pdf)

Introductory Section: A few minor changes were made to help clarify the information. As noted, “Benzene Hexachloride” is an obsolete term as a matter of basic organic chemistry (see http://chemistry2.csudh.edu/rpendarvis/BenzStr.html ). Also, the statement regarding uses of lindane was adjusted to reflect the fact that an overwhelming majority of lindane uses have been agricultural (> 99%), not pharmaceutical (as reported by Commission for Environmental Cooperation and other authoritative sources).

Toxicity discussion modified to more accurately reflect 2005 ATSDR report cited. Additional information was also incorporated for context. For example, lindane is an insecticide and its mechanism of action is by way of its neurotoxic action, as noted in the 2005 ATSDR report. As an insecticide, lindane is preferentially toxic to parasitic insects. While neurotoxic effects in humans have occurred, they are known to be rare and most often associated with chronic or high level exposure situations. The statements regarding liver and kidney toxicity in humans are not accurate. The 2005 ATSDR report noted elevated liver enzymes in workers after 10 years of occupational exposure to technical-grade HCH, not lindane. Moreover, in humans, more serious toxic effects related to lindane exposure almost exclusively relate to the nervous system, not the liver and kidneys. The statement was adjusted to reflect this fact, which is supported by the 2005 ATSDR report and other authoritative references.

The full report from the Stockholm Converntion can be found at: http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/Repository/COP4/UNEP-POPS-COP.4-38.English.pdf

Blancer707 (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updates, November, 2009

[edit]

Introduction Section

[edit]

A few minor changes were made to help clarify the information. The statement regarding uses of lindane was adjusted to reflect the fact that an overwhelming majority of lindane uses have been agricultural (> 99%), not pharmaceutical (as reported by Commission for Environmental Cooperation and other authoritative sources).

Paragraph 2 was modified to more accurately reflect the 2005 ATSDR report cited. Additional information was also incorporated for context. For example, lindane is an insecticide and its mechanism of action is by way of its neurotoxic action, as noted in the 2005 ATSDR report. As an insecticide, lindane is preferentially toxic to parasitic insects. While neurotoxic effects in humans have occurred, they are known to be rare and most often associated with chronic or high level exposure situations. The statements regarding liver and kidney toxicity in humans are not accurate and were therefore removed. The 2005 ATSDR report noted elevated liver enzymes in workers after 10 years of occupational exposure to technical-grade HCH, not lindane. Moreover, in humans, more serious toxic effects related to lindane exposure almost exclusively relate to the nervous system, not the liver and kidneys. The statement was adjusted to reflect this fact, which is supported by the 2005 ATSDR report and other authoritative references.

The statement regarding the lindane-related death was deleted here (but accurately addressed in the section on adverse events) for several reasons: 1) the statement is inaccurate relative to the information contained in the FDA Public Health Advisory for Lindane that was cited and 2) placement in the upfront summary without discussion of deaths associated with more common agricultural uses runs counter to a non-neutral point of view. Again, this topic has been relegated to the section on adverse events and the information corrected based on the FDA Public Health Advisory report.

Paragraph 4 Edits made to clarify information, particularly regarding the most recent outcome of the Stockholm Convention. The full report can be found at: http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/Repository/COP4/UNEP-POPS-COP.4-38.English.pdf.

Lindane Medications

[edit]

Please note that a couple of statements were deleted and the section revised and reworded overall to more accurately reflect the science on the subject. Resistance is a geographic phenomenon that is dependent upon local patterns of medication use and other factors. Thus, the Indian study by Zargari et al. cited by the previous editor does not support a general statement regarding lindane’s efficacy in the US (or elsewhere, except the region where the study was conducted). Indeed, other studies have documented high rates of efficacy for lindane. For example, a clinical study conducted in Korea (2003) found a high rate of efficacy of 91.3% with 1% lindane against head lice (Sim S et al. Korean J Parasitol. 2003;41:57). Another clinical study conducted in Thailand, published the same year, reported a high rate of clinical cure of 91% with 0.3% lindane against scabies (Singalavanija S, et al. J Med Assoc Thai. 2003; 86:S531-6). Moreover, a 2004 US study of permethrin-resistant head lice isolated from patients in California and Florida showed no resistance to lindane but exhibited cross-resistance to piperonyl butoxide and low-level resistance to malathion (Yoon KS, et al. Pesticide Biochem Physiol. 204;80:192-201).

Unfortunately, the CDC does not track resistance patterns of scabies and lice to available treatments in the US and there are no current and adequately designed comparative clinical studies of lindane vs. other approved treatments in the US.

As it relates to safety and tolerability, the Zargari study previously cited showed no significant difference in the reported incidence of adverse events of lindane vs. permethrin—both treatments were equally well tolerated. In fact, 2 patients treated with permethrin experienced irritation after drug application vs. just one patient in the lindane group. Other published studies, including a postmarketing safety study involving nearly 35,000 patients, also have found no clinically meaningful differences in safety or tolerability between lindane and permethrin (Andrews EB, et al. American Journal of Public Health 1992). The issue of safety largely relates to differences in the pharmacokinetic profiles of these agents and the relative risks in situations where these medications are grossly misused. This topic is accurately and appropriately addressed in greater detail in the section on adverse events

Discussion of the California ban was updated to more accurately reflect the study detailed, providing a more neutral viewpoint. Eliminated editorial comment "marked decrease".

Human Health Effects

[edit]

Please note that Beta-HCH is an isomer of HCH not lindane, which is the gamma isomer of HCH. Statement corrected.

Cancer Risk

[edit]

This is a relatively complex issue and changes were made to correct and simplify the information while providing broader context for the reported data and positions that have been published. Review dates were also included because some of the experimental data that was relied upon in earlier reviews were later deemed scientifically flawed and less relevant by more current scientific standards. Please note that the lead statement does not reflect the science on this subject and was thus removed.

Discussion point on 1987 IARC classification was modified for accuracy. Please note that the IARC 2B classification was not for lindane specifically but the broader class of hexachlorocyclohexanes. All of the information provided comes from the referenced report.

Adverse reactions to lindane pharmaceuticals

[edit]

This section was revised to clarify the facts, which are well documented and supported by the cited references. Please note that seizures secondary to the use of lindane medications are quite rare and not common occurrences as has been implied.

Environmental contamination

[edit]

Section updated to reflect current information from authoritative scientific sources.

Regulatory Status

[edit]

Section revised to clarify recent changes to the Stockholm Convention.

The last paragraph was moved to the top of the section.

Blancer707 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yiloslime, I appreciate the simplification of information; however, the Stockholm Convention is not currently binding from a legal perspective in the US since it is not a participating member. Thus, the fact that lindane is FDA approved is highly relevant with respect to its legal status. With that said, I tried to clarify while keeping it short and sweet--your point was well taken. Blancer707 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of all the intricacies of lindane's legal status both domestically and internationally. The thing is, wikipedia strives to provide a global perspective,and it also strives to be useable and readable. Sometimes we have make tradeoffs between depth of information and brevity, especially in things like infoboxes. As it currently is (In 2009, the Stockholm Convention banned agricultural uses globally in 166 countries, but permitted pharmaceutical use for 5 more years), the infobox both accurate and short. This, in my view, the best compromise. If people want to know about it's legal status in the US specifically, they look for that info in the article itself--it's discussed in the LEAD, and the History, Lindane Medications, and Regulatory Status sections. No one is gong to be confused if the US status isn't specifically mentioned in the infobox, too. Yilloslime TC 17:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Subsequent Edits

[edit]

This page was reverted to the more accurate and balanced version dated 20 November, 2009. The global undoing of this earlier version to a less accurate more biased entry runs counter to the guiding principles of Wikipedia editing and does not serve the benefit of the reader.

First, the majority of edits made on 20 November, 2009 were to correct objectively inaccurate statements and to provide overall balance to the article—ie, a more neutral point of view. These edits were not only extensively researched but are also fully supported by the authoritative references cited. Please refer to the discussion notes, which provide the rationale for each edit.

Further, the length of the article was cited as a reason for the global change; however, the length of the article is in line with those of other chemical entries (see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Chlorine and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ammonia as two examples) and is not a sound reason for undoing all of the editorial corrections that had been made previously. Indeed, abbreviating the information on a scientific subject as complex as lindane skews this article towards bias and, again, does not serve the reader well.

If there are specific sections or statements that other contributors find to be in need of additional editing, changes should be made in a constructive way, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, that allow for the advancement of content quality. I am happy to assist in this regard and am open to constructive dialog on this subject matter so that a consensus can be reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blancer707 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained immediately above, the infobox is meant provide a brief overview of the topic. As such, it's not appropriate for it to have such a long, detailed explanation of it's legal status (i.e. "In 2009, the Stockholm Convention banned agricultural uses globally in 166 countries, but permitted pharmaceutical use for 5 more years. In the US, it is approved as the second-line treatment of scabies and lice, but banned for agriculture.") I have trimmed out the fat.[1]. Yilloslime TC 18:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a general note: keep in mind that this article is about Lindane in general--this includes both its use in agriculture and its pharmaceutical use. Your preferred version focuses disproportionately on it's pharmaceutical use. Furthermore, your version reads a little too much like a disclaimer on a pharmaceutical ad. We're here to write an encyclopedia on lindane: we need to write in clear, concise, and accurate prose, but we do not need to repeat at every opportunity that some studies say this, but others say this. Your version is accurate, as is mine, the difference is emphasis. And I think your version over emphasizes the pharmaceutical aspects of this topic and acknowledges but overly downplays the risks associated with it's use. I'll be trimming it down. Yilloslime TC 18:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit I have partially reverted the WP:LEDE:
  • The ATSDR reference states that all HCH isomers affect the kidneys and liver, so this has been restored.
  • "Lindane is a neurotoxin that interferes with [[GABA]" is more concise than "Lindane works as a neurotoxin by interfering with GABA".
  • "Limited data suggest that lindane may be an endocrine disruptor but additional research is needed to determine the relevance to public health," is too round about a way of saying that "It is unclear whether lindane is an endocrine disruptor".
  • "Data regarding carcinogenicity have been conflicting, though the most recent assessments indicate that lindane is not likely to pose a major cancer risk to humans," was removed because the LEAD already mentions that lindane "may be a carcinogen." The more recent ATSDR reference is also less equivocal about lindane's carcinogenicity than the removed statement suggested.
  • " based on acute animal toxicity studies " removed as too much detail for LEAD.
  • "It is presently banned in more than 50 countries, and in 2009 was included in the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants, which bans its production and use for agricultural purposes in participating (ratified) countries but with a specific exemption for use as a human health pharmaceutical for the control of head lice and scabies as second-line treatment." was simplified to: "In 2009 the production and agricultural use of lindane was banned under the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants. A specific exemption to that ban allows it to continue to be used as a second-line pharmaceutical treatment for lice and scabies." It should be obvious that the Stockholm Convention only applies to those countries that have ratified it; at any rate this explained in more detail in the body of the article.
  • "While the US is not currently a member country to the Stockholm Convention, it similarly called for the voluntary cancellation of registered agricultural products but continues to support FDA-approved medical uses of pharmaceutical lindane." removed as too much detail for the LEAD. US status and history is well covered in the body of the article. Also, why should US status be any more important than it's status elsewhere? Should we mention that India still uses it in agriculture in the LEAD too?
That's all for now, but I intend to may further revisions later. Yilloslime TC 19:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Reversions

[edit]

Dear Editor,

We are in complete agreement that this article should be balanced and accurate and I am happy to work with you to advance the quality of this page. However, I disagree with your characterization of my edits, which were in response to the edits that you and other editors had made previously. I am not the original architect of this article and have been working within the framework of what had already been created.

Moreover, while you repeatedly state that you are just “trimming the fat,” the reality is that you are selectively deleting well supported and highly relevant facts to support a single point of view. This form of editing is not only self serving and disruptive, but is also a disservice to the reader.

I further disagree that both my version and your version were accurate. Indeed, there were numerous false statements in earlier iterations of this article, which I took the time to research and correct only to find that you had globally reversed nearly all of them (and on more than one occasion). This type of editing is extremely disruptive. Similarly, there were many instances where highly relevant facts were left out--perhaps in the spirit of streamlining content – nonetheless, it’s misleading. For example, you state up front that in humans, lindane affects the liver, kidneys and nervous system. This statement is patently false. The liver and kidney effects you refer to relate to the findings from animal toxicology studies where rodents were fed high doses of lindane or technical-grade HCH (which as you know contain the more toxic alpha and beta isomers) over prolonged periods of time. Indeed, the primary reason for conducting animal toxicity studies is to establish safe levels for human use/exposure. In humans, the CNS is the primary system affected by exposure to toxic amounts of lindane. This is a well established and undisputed fact.

In response to your comments regarding specific edits, I note the following:

  • To reiterate, your edit regarding liver and kidney toxicity in “humans” is patently false. The ATSDR toxicology report notes specifically that the primary organ system affected in humans following exposure to toxic amounts of lindane is the nervous system, not the liver and kidneys: “In humans, the most commonly reported effects associated with oral exposure to γ-HCH are neurological. Most of the information is from case reports of acute γ-HCH poisoning.” This fact is well established and the literature replete with support, well beyond the citations included here. You further neglect to note that the liver and kidney effects you refer to (and as detailed in the body of the ATSDR Toxicology report on pages 35, 79-87 and 110) relate to findings from select animal toxicology studies, many of which did not involve lindane but rather the more toxic technical-grade HCH and beta and alpha isomers. As you likely know, animal tox studies are conducted to establish safe exposure levels for humans (e.g., national water criterion, agricultural tolerances, etc). It is unreasonable to expect the lay public to appreciate this fact and understand the implications to human health without further explanation. The statement was therefore corrected.
  • Your edit regarding how lindane works is misleading and does not “simplify” the communication in a meaningful way but rather creates ambiguity. It was therefore revised. Lindane was developed specifically to destroy parasitic insects and the section is about the chemical’s mechanism of action, not its human safety profile as implied. I refer to the wording used in other Wikipedia articles for other like chemicals-- permethrin and malathion--which also work by way of their neurotoxic insecticidal properties to kill parasitic insects—neither is referred to as a “neurotoxin”:
    • “Permethrin is a common synthetic chemical, widely used as an insecticide, acaricide, and insect repellent. It belongs to the family of synthetic chemicals called pyrethroids and functions as a neurotoxin, affecting neuron membranes by prolonging sodium channel activation.”
    • “Malathion is an organophosphate parasympathomimetic which binds irreversibly to cholinesterase.”
  • Your criticism of the statement "Limited data suggest that lindane may be an endocrine disruptor but additional research is needed to determine the relevance to public health" as being too round about was nearly a verbatim taken from page 139 of the ATSDR report that you cited. Specifically the report states “The amount of evidence is limited and further investigation is necessary to ascertain the relevance and impact to public health.” In my opinion, your statement over simplifies the subject; however, I have no problem expanding in the body of the article in the spirit of compromise.
  • With regard to carcinogenicity, please note that the edits were not based solely on the ATSDR report but rather a number of authoritative reviews and studies on this subject matter. Further, the chronology is relevant as the science has advanced over time and the more recent reviews taken on by the EPA and the WHO have accounted for these insights whereas those by the IARC and NCI have not. The statement was revised to address your concerns while preserving the integrity of the science.
  • Relative to the Stockholm Convention, I disagree that it is intuitive to the lay reader that this applies only to countries that have ratified the treaty, particularly given the language that the ban is global. I think this is misleading and implies that the chemical is banned worldwide, which is false. Again, I appreciate your attempt to simplify and agree that it could be shortened.

Lastly, as you continue to contribute to this page, please respect that Wikipedia is for consensus building and not for global deletions to the work of others. The edits made today are to increase the accuracy of the article, provide additional details that are relevant to this topic, and to enhance its readability. I have provided detailed support and rationales for each edit, and have respected your attempt to reorganize the information while making compromises where appropriate.

Blancer707 (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to Clarify and Correct Inaccurate and Biased Information

[edit]
[edit]

As of January 12, 2010, there were 152 signatory countries listed on the Stockholm Convention website. Information was corrected.

Introductory Section

[edit]

Regarding mechanism of action: This section relates to the chemical's mechanism of action (MOA), not human safety as implied here. The statement that "lindane is a neurotoxin" was revised to avoid ambiguity, and is in line with the language used in other Wikipedia articles for other like chemicals with similar MOAs. For example, “Permethrin is a common synthetic chemical, widely used as an insecticide, acaricide, and insect repellent. It belongs to the family of synthetic chemicals called pyrethroids and functions as a neurotoxin, affecting neuron membranes by prolonging sodium channel activation.” Same goes for Malathion: “Malathion is an organophosphate parasympathomimetic which binds irreversibly to cholinesterase.”

Regarding toxicity: The statement as previously written (in humans, lindane affects the ... liver and kidneys) was false and was therefore corrected for a second time. In humans, the primary body system affected by excess exposure to lindane is the nervous system, not the liver or kidneys. The section on Human Health Effects in this article notes the same. This fact is well established and the evidence undisputed. Indeed, liver and kidney effects, as detailed in the body of the ATSDR tox report (see pages 35, 79-87 and 110) related to findings from select animal toxicology studies involving chronic high-dose exposures, not human exposures. Moreover, many of these studies did not involve lindane but rather more toxic technical-grade HCH and the beta and alpha isomers. Indeed, animal toxicology studies are conducted to establish safe levels of a chemical for human exposure. Detailing results without this understanding is highly misleading and does not serve the lay reader well.

Regarding carcinogenic potential: The most current authoritative reviews on this subject by the EPA and the WHO have concluded that lindane is not likely to be a major human carcinogen. Older reviews by the IARC and the NCI did not take into account newer scientific insights. As a compromise, the statement was revised to include mutatenicity and to more objectively state the facts, which are detailed in the body of this article.

Regarding pharmaceutical use: Wording was awkward. Modified for clarity.

History and Use

[edit]

Changes to this section reflect grammatical refinements and addition of relevant information that was previously deleted.

Regarding agricultural vs pharmaceutical formulations: Information on lindane concentrations in various formulations was reinserted as it is highly relevant to the specific applications and exposure risks associated with lindane.

Regarding major uses: The fact that more than 99% of lindane uses have historically been for agricultural purposes is an important and relevant historical detail reported by many sources, including the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, that helps to set context for the global uses of this chemical. It has been reinserted.

Regarding agicultural bans: As worded, the statement was false and therefore corrected. Lindane is not banned internationally and is legal in many countries including the US and Canada. Rather, countries who have ratified the treaty have agreed to phase out agricultural uses of lindane, with a specific exemption for healthcare uses. This is not an intuitive point and needs to be spelled out for the lay reader. As noted by the Convention, the ban applies to “countries that have ratified the Convention” Source: http://www.pops.int/documents/guidance/beg_guide.pdf

Additional edits were to simplify and clarify the wording and information for the reader, including the statement regarding toxicity of the alpha and beta isomers.

Regarding FDA position: A statement regarding the FDA's position on lindane medications was added for accuracy and completeness of discussion on US history and uses.

Regarding resistance: Resistance is a major concern with scabies and lice treatments, which is why governments are advocating for the development of treatment alternatives. I am not clear why this information was deleted previously, but it has been restored here as it is a highly relevant public health issue and an important reason why second-line treatments are sometimes required.

Regarding FDA warning letter: I am not clear why this information is even included in this article—it occurred in 2007, has been resolved and relevant safety information provided in another section of this article. Perhaps someone can provide a fresh point of view on this. However, in the spirit of compromise, the paragraph was simplified and the information regarding the outcome ( which was deleted by a previous editor for unknown reasons) restored. This information is relevant to the public and to purposefully exclude it is misleading at best.

Regarding pending legislation: This paragraph was expanded for accuracy. The previous version implies to the lay reader that lindane is banned in Michigan, which is false.

Regarding the California analysis: Important details of this report were reinserted as they are highly relevant to the extent that conclusions can be drawn, particularly for such a narrow study. It is improper to report the authors’ opinions as facts without also describing key limitations of the analysis. This is basic research reporting 101.

As well, the study did not report a “marked” decrease. The editorialized remark was thus deleted. As an aside, the levels of lindane entering CA reclamation plants, as reported in this paper, never exceeded levels considered safe by current national water safety standards for lindane. Similarly, the statement that the decline in lindane water levels was "Dramatic" is an opinion of the Wikipedia editor, and not an objective finding of the study. Statement revised.

The opposing viewpoint expressed by the EPA is highly relevant to include here for balance. Why this was removed previously is unclear but biases the communication and does not serve the reader well.

Human Health Effects

[edit]

Information briefly expanded here from introductory statement above. Language is nearly verbatim from the CDC’s ATSDR toxicology report cited.

Regarding prenatal exposure to beta-HCH: The statement was deleted because this article as well as this section relates to the health effects of lindane, not other HCH isomers. To also clarify, the previous statement was inaccurate. Beta-HCH is not an isomer of lindane but rather an isomer of HCH. This was one of many corrections made previously that was reverted.

Regarding cancer risk: This section was reworked to more accurately reflect the available data and expert positions on this subject. The information regarding the EPAs cancer classification of lindane was also in error and was corrected. Similarly, the IARC 2B classification was not for lindane specifically but the broader class of hexachlorocyclohexanes. All of the information provided here comes from the referenced reports. The intent was to correct inaccurate information and to also provide more context for the data and positions that have been published over the years. Review dates were included because some of the experimental data that was relied upon in earlier reviews were later deemed scientifically flawed and less relevant by more current scientific standards. Please note that the lead statement regarding animal studies does not reflect the science on this subject and was removed.

Regarding adverse reactions: Section revised for accuracy and clarity. Previous version implied that seizures are common events vs the rare events that they are -- this is true for agricultural, occupational, and pharmaceutical chemical exposures. Also, it is standard practice to report common events first, followed by less common and rare systemic effects.

Blancer707 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Blancer707 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I can see[2][3] you've put a lot of effort into your recent revision of Lindane, and I appreciate the detailed explanation of your edits, above. And it's probably frustrating to see that hard work reverted in one fell swoop. But at the same time, sweeping, controversial edits are usually get reverted, so you hopefully you aren't too surprised that that's what's happened here.

I'm happy to work with you on this page, but rather than just making all your changes at once, I think a more productive route will be to take it slow, and focus on one or a few things at time. There's probably a lot of stuff in this omnibus edit that improves the article, but when the very first line of changed text is wrong (see below), it really casts doubt on everything that follows. So, if you don't have a conflict of interest, then I think the way we should proceed here is to go one or two things at a time. Why don't we start with the infobox? (see below).

Status under Stockholm Convention

[edit]

In this edit, Blancer changed the infobox text under "Legal Status" from "In 2009, the Stockholm Convention banned agricultural uses globally in 166 countries, but permitted pharmaceutical use for 5 more years." to "In 2009, the Stockholm Convention banned agricultural uses but permitted pharmaceutical uses for 5 more years. There are 152 ratified countries to the treaty." I prefer the original text, as it more concise and more accurate. The Convention is binding on countries that are Parties, and there were 166 Parties when Lindane was added to the treaty. There are 152 signatories which is not the same thing as "ratified countries to the treaty"--for example the US is one of those 152 signatories, but it hasn't ratified the treaty and so is not a Party and is not bound by the lindane ban. And as of today, there are 169 parties according to the Stockholm Convention website[4] so that's what the infobox really should say. Yilloslime TC 05:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Reference

[edit]

Choking Victim referenced lindane in infested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.215.161 (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions about the isomers

[edit]

How stable are the isomers with respect to each other? Do the Cl atoms flip to the other side? It also looks like Hexachlorobenzene has the same atoms connected to the same atoms. Do the various isomers transition to this molecule as well, or not?

If transitions occur, what is their halflife, and if not, what is the chemical/physical reason why the isomers and Hexachlorobenzene are stable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WHO comments 2015/06

[edit]

Moving text comments inserted by Manxe (talk · contribs) into article to here:

[ http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33236293 ] WHO says that lindane causes a cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma. There is nothing in this article on lindane to indicate its origin. The most likely production source of lindane is coal tar. There is nothing on the "coal tar" page of Wikipedia that identifies "lindane" as the ingredient of coal tar that is used as a medication to kill head lice. There is no cross link between the two pages. [ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Coal_tar ] Considering the cancer risk that has been proven, don't you think that it would be appropriate to include this information in both articles, and include the source of lindane as being coal tar?

The article in Lancet is here (free registration). The BBC News article is at the link above. I too was confused by the mentions of lice treatments. Shenme (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Lindane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Misnamed" in first sentence?

[edit]

I've restored the status quo ante. Please discuss here whether it should remain "misnamed", or be changed to "called". --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to have a reasonable discussion with someone who is repeatedly insulting me. If they will not withdraw their false accusation of vandalism, they should be compelled to do so. Benchijiguando (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is obviously vandalism.
Editing against the source,
edit warring over six months
after being warned by two editors that this is against the source
using the same edit summary repeatedly, describe, do not prescribe, which does not accurately describe Benchijiguando's edit
is vandalism. Benchijiguando has not responded on the edits which are at issue in those six months. Additionally Floquenbeam please explain your threat to block me for edit warring. Benchijiguando is 4RR and I am obviously not. Invasive Spices (talk) 9 June 2022 (UTC)
My warning that you could have been blocked for edit warring stands; it does not take 4 reverts to edit war, as it clearly says at WP:EW. You were reverting with no edit summary. Furthermore, I will probably page block you from this talk page and the article page if you call it vandalism again, as such personal attacks prevent productive discussion. You will note that Spencer, at AIV, also explained to you that it is not vandalism (that's two editors warning you, which apparently is some kind of threshold for you). See WP:VAND for what that actually means.
Also, pinging @Yilloslime: (although their last edit to this article was in January). Someone needs to actually start discussing the merits of the wording. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this is a storm in a teacup. One definitive account of the history of the discovery of lindane is Chapter 5 of Peacock's (ed.) book currently reference 14 in the article. I have a copy, which says in its first sentence "Benzene hexachloride, more accurately described as hexachlorocyclohexane, was probably first made by Michael Faraday in 1825....". Later this account says "large-scale production of crude BHC were initiated by Slade, the then ICI Research Controller, in the autumn of 1942, with a target of thirty tons....however, the Widnes work on the isomeric constitution of crude BHC had shown that the material previously tested at Hawthorndale [the ICI lab at Jealott's Hill] contained only 3–4% of the active isomer, since most of the gamma-BHC had been thrown out in the crystallisation clean-up process [!]". By 1949, the account continues, "commercial product....,'Mergamma' A, contained 1% mercury and 20% gamma-BHC". Later still, lindane was marketed without the mercury component and the Wikipedia article here is a discussion of this pure gamma isomer, as the Chembox makes clear. So, it is indisputable that BHC=benzene hexachloride was certainly one name used for products containing lindane. Equally it is indisputable that lindane=gamma hexachlorocyclohexane is not, chemically, C6Cl6 (benzene substituted with six chlorine atoms in place of the usual six hydrogen atoms, a material that could be called benzene hexachloride but actually has the IUPAC name hexachlorobenzene).

In view of the above, I suggest that the first sentence of the article describe the historic and factual situation as Lindane, also known as gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane (γ-HCH), gammaxene, Gammallin and benzene hexachloride (BHC) on the basis that commercial materials certainly were also known as benzene hexachloride=BHC and this is not a misnomer, even with hindsight. I have made this change to the article, as I don't see how anyone could reasonably object. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the strong feelings are all about. I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't include benzene hexachloride and BHC as other names. The question is just whether to also note that benzene hexachloride is a misnomer. This is not opinion or OR, rather it is supported by the existing inline citation. I believe that we should note that it's a misnomer, mostly so that anyone with basic chemical knowledge won't have to experience the cognitive dissonance of reading that lindane is known as both hexachlorocylohexane and benzene hexachoride, and have to wonder what the correct composition is. Yes, there are pictures and the structure is explained later, but if it doesn't clearly state that BHC is a misnomer, the anyone with a chemical education who reads that first sentence will momentarily think, "Huh?" Yilloslime (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the name "benzene hexachloride" was used by chemists from at least 1912 (van der Linden's work) when they just meant "that mix of stuff with formula C6H6Cl6 that we make by reacting benzene with chlorine in sunlight". Hexachlorobenzene was well known and called that several years before (e.g. DOI:10.1039/CT9058701360 from 1905) so it was also known that BHC was something different. Per MOS:LEAD, if we want to include the "misnomer" claim in the lead, we would need to explain why it is a misnomer somewhere in the main article. As I've already mentioned, I don't think it was a misnomer, just a slightly confusing name to modern eyes and I don't think it is worth dwelling on that. Incidentally, I find it amusing that the main manufacturing route for hexachlorobenzene became to use the remnants of BHC minus the gamma isomer in a further chlorination reaction: see US2773104 and US2792434. I'm going to add that information to our article on C6Cl6. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do people call a thing by a certain name? The answer to that question is objective and verifiable. Are those people wrong to do so? The answer to that is not objective and not verifiable.

Meanwhile I am still waiting for the retraction of and apology for the deeply offensive false accusation of vandalism made by User:Invasive Spices. When told that they were wrong, they failed to correct their behaviour, instead doubling down on the insult, and they also abused Wikipedia procedures to try to gain the upper hand in the content dispute they were seeking. I would be amazed if I am the first person they have behaved abusively towards in this way. This is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Benchijiguando (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user does not have the maturity to even respond. Their slinging of absurdly false accusations, to try and gain the upper hand in a content dispute, should have resulted in some sanction against them. If such infantile behaviour is tolerated, it will, without doubt, be repeated. Benchijiguando (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
…
@Floquenbeam: You will note that Spencer, at AIV, also explained to you that it is not vandalism (that's two editors warning you, No he did not. which apparently is some kind of threshold for you). This is unparseable. A falsehood plus an incomprehensible personal attack sums to unacceptable. Invasive Spices (talk) 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Productive discussion by User:Michael D. Turnbull and User:Yilloslime is happening here now (thanks to both for focusing on content); I don't want to obstruct that by discussing behavioral issues here anymore. If necessary, this can be brought up on user talk pages or noticeboards. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC) (resigning to fix a ping) --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt. Conversation moved ⇨ User talk:Floquenbeam#Lindane. Invasive Spices (talk) 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Benchijiguando has been blocked for being the "Best Known For" IP guy. XOR'easter (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sang-«gamma»" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Sang-«gamma» has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8 § Sang-«gamma» until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lindane&oldid=1194752651"