The claim by Dow that inhalation does not lead to increased body burden would seem to be directly contradicted by a recently published study in New Zealand of a population around the (former?) DOW Ivor Watkins plant in Paritutu, New Plymouth, New Zealand. The results of serum testing indicate quite strongly that exposure to an operating plant can lead to significantly higher body burdens, particularly where the emissions are not subject to adequate controls. See  http://www.moh.govt.nz/dioxins   and in particular the serum test results.

In Belgium when they introduced constant sampling (AMESA) they found that incinerators were putting out 25 to 30 times as had been indicated by the periodic sampling by prior arrangement between monitoring authorities and polluters like DOW. The relevant paper (" Underestimation in dioxin emission inventories" and others are at  http://www.becker-messtechnik.de/amesa/eng/publications.htm  

Does Dow even have rapid quench and constant sampling like AMESA (see http://www.becker-messtechnik.de/amesa/eng/amesa.htm for info on AMESA)?

While cancer is important, dioxin is believed to have harmful effects on development at levels well below the levels that might be suspected to cause or promote cancer and the protection from non-cancer effects should be the appropriate focus. See the Powerpoint presentation by Birnbaum of US EPA on this issue.

Paul Hanly
Rhodes NSW Australia
(near a former Union Carbide plant undergoing remediation )
http://rhodesnsw.org