What We Need for VA Agent Orange Service Connection

VA leadership, in particular Dr. Michael Peterson, shot at nearly every claim we advanced during last Friday's teleconference. The VA experts have in addition actually suggested three ways they'd consider our C-123 Agent Orange claims:

 1. if the Air Force scientists who conducted the tests in 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000 or 2009 would step forward and state it is likely that aircrews were exposed to dioxin during our 1972-1982 duties aboard the aircraft or 

2.if scientific interpretation could be offered explaining the exposure to the aircrews from the dioxin on surfaces in the aircraft, or from the dust therein, or 

3.the Air Force should inform the VA that it is "more likely than not" that aircrews were exposed to dioxin during the timeframe of our service aboard specifically-identified Agent Orange spray aircraft

 Dr. Fred Berman, head of the Toxicology Department at Oregon Health Sciences University (and a pilot!) has already made that conclusion. So has Dr. Jeannie Stellman of Columbia University's School of Public Health. Thank goodness for these "wingmen" in this effort, and God Bless them!


Our group of C-123 flyers has scattered to nearly every state in the country. Your state has a state university and nearly every one of those universities has an associated medical and/or veterinary medicine school...with experts who can interpret the test data we've gathered from the Air Force, and help advance reasonable justification for our having been exposed.


Our country is rich with private universities such as Harvard, Dartmouth, Yale, Tufts, Princeton, Rutgers, Emory, Vanderbilt, Stanford, Carnegie-Mellon, MIT, Boston University, Northeastern, Northwestern, and so many others. Universities full of experts able to analyze the Air Force C-123 test results and explain with the prestige of their institutions behind them, in writing addressed to the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, that the dioxin which contaminated our C-123s "more likely than not" exposed the aircrews.


So you need to get involved! You need to gather our set of Agent Orange documents, and start walking the halls of your local university to find these experts. There will be a wonderful Dr. Berman or Dr. Stellman-type person you can find who will help. From what I've seen since April, so many academicians are willing to help...we just have to find them.


From the Air Force, we need organizations like NCOA, AFA, MOAA, ROA and the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States to contact the Chief of Staff of the Air Force to advance our cause. We need the Air Force to task the School of Aerospace Medicine to look over the data and report whether there is a reasonable interpretation of it to allow our VA claims to go forward. 


I feel the military and the General Services Administration already stated the C-123s were the source of our dioxin exposure. Report after report, from 1994 on, details the testing and label the aircraft "heavily contaminated," "extremely dangerous, extremely hazardous, extremely contaminated" and "a risk to public health." The problem is these reports didn't detail that our physical contact with the contaminated surfaces in the C-123 should be considered "exposure" for the VA's purposes.

VA Teleconference re: C-123 & Agent Orange

Conference with VA Officials Held 1100 Hrs 27 Oct

We had our conference with the VA's Environmental Health and Benefits Administration folks today, and boy, I got handed my head on a plate.


But most graciously! Thanks to Brooks Tucker, Sen. Burr's staffer and Mr. Carter Moore from the VA's Congressional Liaison Office, Dr. Michael Peterson, Chief of the VA's Environmental Health and Mr. Jim Sampsel of the Veterans Benefits Office, supported by many of their very knowledgeable professionals, discussed the wide range of C-123 Agent Orange issues. Bottom line: they feel we have no basis for argument.


For over an hour these folks explained the finer details of dioxin exposure and answered, with grace and patience, my layman's questions. It was great to learn that Dr. Peterson is a retired AF 06, Brooks and Carter are combat veterans, and Dr. Wendy Dick of Peterson's staff is herself a "tanker doc"...former AF flight surgeon.


Dr. Peterson noted that I'd developed the same type cancer as my father and that familial history plays a role, meaning medical issues. I interjected that indeed it does...I have our family history of five generations of military service, of being warriors, and that I am more proud of that than worried about familial medical trends. 


Are these nice folks against us? No, they are not. However, not a single suggestion was made about how we can get help, other than to go back to the Air Force. The references to "gray area" seemed always to mean not that the benefit of the doubt would rest with the veteran but instead, the VA.


Are they going to help us? No, they are not. Not unless convinced of new scientific evidence, or in response to new laws, or in response to the Air Force stating that our aircraft were contaminated with dioxin when we flew and that we were contaminated thereby. Again, not a single suggestion of how anything can be interpreted in support of our position. Their mission yesterday was to oppose us, not support us.


As followers of our blog know, we point to the 1994 AF study of Patches which reports 100 of the swipe samples positive for dioxin, and describes Patches as "heavily contaminated." Dr. Dick dismisses that with an explanation that samples were taken using solvents, and the hazmat precautions recommended were because restoration personnel were likely to be grinding metal and doing other dust-creating activities. 


They were not receptive to our response that solvents were used to gather swipe samples because that was the testing protocol selected by the investigators back in 1994, not receptive to the argument that even our skin has solvents on it to which which dioxin would love to attach, or that dioxin-laden dust would be ingested from the dust constantly created in working the aircraft, in its vibration aloft, hard landings and other workaday causes. 


Dr. Peterson explained, along with Mr. Sampsel, that the VA has to look at PROBABILITY. In big, capital letters. Unlike "boots on the ground" Vietnam veterans and Blue Water Navy vets, both of which groups have their presumptive exposure established by law, we must prove the probability that, not only were the aircraft contaminated, but that we were actually exposed thereby. That there was somehow physical introduction of dioxin into our bodies. A vector.


And that they maintain is a case yet to be made. The VA dismisses the 1994 Weisman-Porter study of Patches, saying it has no specific relevance to our 1972-1982 duty days (tests from the other years were not discussed). 


I kept asking whether or not a veteran is obliged to prove only two points...dioxin contamination and Agent Orange presumptive illness, and I believe their negative answer is built around the big obstacle...probability. Not possibility.


My points offered: multiple AF tests stressing the aircraft being "heavily contaminated, extremely hazardous, extremely dangerous, extremely contaminated" and "a threat to public health". Two authors of four reports the VA provided us stated, yesterday by telephone, that no inference could be drawn one way or the other regarding aircrew exposure 1972-1982, leaving most of the cards on the table being the Air Force's own tests.


It seems to boil down to the Air Force. We'd hoped to have two very knowledgeable experts join the teleconference to explain what they earlier told me was their continuing belief that their tests had relevance to our aircrew exposure years earlier. The two gentlemen did not call in to participate. We were offered the skillful and generous support of Dr. Fred Berman, head of the Toxicology Department of Oregon Health Sciences University who contributed mightily to our position.


Dr. Berman has spent months studying the Air Force reports and written the Secretary of the Air Force that aircrew dioxin exposure aboard the C-123 was "most likely." Not just possible or theoretical, but MOST LIKELY. Columbia University School of Public Health and others concur.


This hour-long conference concluded with an understanding that the next move belongs to the Air Force. Without DOD stating that the crews were aboard dioxin-contaminated aircraft, VA won't budge towards service-connection. Without the Air Force stating that their tests "most likely" indicate the probability of aircrew exposure, the VA sticks with its view that no exposure happened.

So remember, dear readers, that the Air Force (Secretary of the Air Force as well as Surgeon General of the Air Force) has directed us to turn to the VA to get help on our C-123 aircrew dioxin exposure. The VA has told us to turn to the Air Force to get help on our C-123 aircrew dioxin exposure. Catch 22. 


That's right...there's only one catch: Catch 22. The VA would consider allowing us Agent Orange medical care if the AF says we've been exposed. The AF says "Go talk to the VA!"

Yossarian - frustrated C-123 flyer!

When Brooks Tucker asked if the VA and AF were talking, there seemed to have been such conversations. When I asked if the VA would directly solicit an Air Force response, that wasn't of interest. 


If only we'd had the authors of the Patches study on the phone with us. Hopefully, we can ask for their input, then ask the AF to stand behind all the reports that Brooks and the School of Aerospace Medicine have done over the years. I know both of them care and are sincere.

The folks from the VA are extremely experienced at dealing with Agent Orange issues. One gets the feeling they are expert enough to construct a truthful argument one way or the other if they wanted to. They have decades of background, not only in their professions, but in explaining to Congress and veterans the whys and wherefores of dioxin exposure. They can always toss bigger missiles against us.


So we turn back to AFRC/CC General Stenner and the AF Chief of Staff and ask that they not leave our flyers alone in this struggle.  Where's our wingman? 


Air Force, get behind us, ask the report authors to explain the relevance of their studies to aircrew exposure, and simply get VA to designate "boots on the airplane" as adequate presumptive eligibility for our crews! 

VA Congressional Liaison Offers Teleconference re: C-123 Agent Orange

The teleconference organized by the VA's Congressional Liaison Office is set for 2PM Eastern on October 27, and limited to those invited by Brooks Tucker of Senator Burr's office.


Senator Burr will be represented by Mr. Tucker. Major Wes Carter, USAF Ret. (74th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron, 439th MAW) will represent the C-123 aircrews from all squadrons. Offering expert toxicology information and interpretation of Air Force tests will be Dr. Fred Berman who heads the Toxicology Department of Oregon Health Sciences University. Explaining the VA position that C-123 dioxin contamination is not a health concern for aircrew veterans will be Dr. Michael Peterson, Chief Consultant, Environmental Health, Veterans Health Administration, Mr. James Sampsel of the Veterans Benefits Administration will explain why the VA cannot permit medical care for aircrew C-123 dioxin exposure and AO illnesses.


Our C-123K veterans only ask that since we can provide persuasive evidence from a host of government and scientific sources as to the dioxin contamination of our airplane, and can prove that we flew aircraft specifically identified as contaminated with dioxin, that the VA accept disability claims from those who also have Agent Orange-presumptive illnesses. I thought those were the ground rules described on the VA web site...perhaps not. Doesn't it seem wrong to deny veterans benefits not because of the abundant evidence of eligibility provided by the veterans but merely because of VA policy to prohibit such claims? 


Perhaps we can draw some comfort from the assurances of Dr. Peterson that we haven't been exposed to dioxin after all. 

VA Responds to Concerns re: C-123 & Congressional Briefing

Yesterday, in a highly unusual response to our concerns being voiced to the VA's Congressional Liaison Office, we were invited to have a teleconference with Senator Burr's staff, the VA Agent Orange experts, and the CLO. We've accepted the invitation and await the details. Maybe something can get moving!!!

their email follows:

Mr. Carter:

Thank you again for bringing your concerns to me, and allowing the VA the opportunity to assist.

After speaking with Mr. Carter Moore, our subject-matter expert on environmental hazards, and Mr. Brooks Tucker, Sr. Policy Advisor for National Security and Veterans Affairs to Senator Burr, I believe we are better positioned to assist with your concerns.

The Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) Office of Public Health was the organizational unit that provided the briefing with Congressional Staff on the subject of environmental hazards. It was not the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs.

Pending your agreement, we would like to set-up a time for a phone conversation between you, Mr. Tucker, and Mr. Moore to further discuss the details of your concern. Mr. Moore is very 

knowledgeable on the issue, so I think it would be appropriate to hold the discussion. We are also able to include folks from VHA’s Office of Public Health to ensure that you and your Veteran colleagues receive comprehensive and complete answers to your concerns.

Would this be something you are interested in?

If so, the point-of-contact would be Mr. Carter Moore at (202) 461-xxxx. Please let me know and we will be happy to assist and facilitate this meeting.

Thanks.

V/R,

Adam Anicich

Assistant Director

Congressional Liaison Service

United States Department of Veterans Affairs

Our complaint to VA Congressional Liaison Office re: Misleading Senator Burr

The VA's Congressional Liaison Office is the interface between that Department and both Houses of Congress. They recently sent representatives to meet with the staff of North Carolina's Senator Burr, ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Unfortunately, these folks totally twisted facts and figures in their effort to insure veterans who flew and maintain the C-123K are kept from receiving Agent Orange exposure benefits. C-123 veterans' position is that there is a preponderance of evidence confirming our dioxin exposure, certainly well past any threshold the VA might have in affording us the benefit of the doubt. Thus this letter to the CLO Assistant Director: (Oct 26 note--we've been corrected in that it was NOT the CLO meeting with Sen. Burr's staff but rather other VA officials. The CLO has, however, very kindly arranged a teleconference with their experts so we may learn more. Thanks, Carter and Adam!)
-------

12 October 2011

Mr. Adam Anicich
Assistant Director
Congressional Liaison Service
United States Department of Veterans Affairs
189 Russell – Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Anicich,

Members of your staff recently discussed with Senator Burr’s staff the Agent Orange contamination of airplanes my Air Force squadron flew between 1972-1982. This plane was the C-123K, used for spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam until 1971. Our crewmembers’ concern is that the aircraft remained contaminated with dioxin after the war and exposed us to the typical Agent Orange presumptive illnesses.

The VA having denied all claims from our veterans on this issue, I asked my Senator and his staff to evaluate the materials explaining our position and to bring them to the VA’s attention. Your staff responded, in a meeting with Mr. Brooks Tucker, with information I believe was misleading and structured not to be truthful but rather to deny any Agent Orange contamination, constructing whatever argument that might be necessary, however inaccurate. I acknowledge that the details provided Senator Burr by your staff may have originated from the Air Force but the VA has adequate expertise in this subject to have more correctly informed the Senator.

In particular, I object to your representatives characterizing the Agent Orange contamination of the C-123K, saying:

“The scientific analyses of the dioxin TCDD in Agent Orange indicates that it has a very short lifespan once it dries or binds on a surface like metal. In VA’s opinion, it is highly unlikely that TCDD would remain present in a harmful form for a duration of time that would allow it to be persistently present on metal surfaces for years after it dried on that surface. 

Given the lack of testing done on the C-123s in the years following the Vietnam War, it is impossible to determine if TCDD was present in a harmful state during the years you and others were flying and maintaining those aircraft. VA views the Air Force actions relative to the clean-up of Patches and the decision to not sell mothballed C-123s as indicators of an overly cautious mindset within Air Force legal circles that desired to avoid any potential for liability if the aircraft were placed in a museum or sold to a private entity.”

What the heck does a 2000 decision not to sell contaminated C-123 airplanes, already tested as positive for dioxin and labeled by the experts as “heavily contaminated, extremely dangerous, extremely hazardous, extremely contaminated” have to do with our exposure back in 1972-1982 when we flew them? It would have aided us to know of the contamination back during our duty days, but times were more innocent then regarding dioxin. But not now…the airplanes have been repeatedly and expertly tested past any court’s requirement of proof of having been contaminated with dioxin. Multiple expert sources have established that the aircrews aboard them for hundreds and thousands of hours were exposed.

Our Rebuttal of VA Comments to Senator Burr of North Carolina

Our letters to staff of North Carolina's Senator Burr and the staff of Commander, Air Force Reserve, which is supposed to have held a conference call with VA officials (no word back yet on any results). Letter to AF first, letter to Senator second.

--------------------------------------------

Dear Major Broussard,

Senator Burr's staff met with some reps from the VA regarding our C-123K problems, and were told that our Agent Orange exposure didn't happen because the post-Vietnam lifespan of dioxin on metal is short. The VA failed to tell my senator's folks that most of the airplane interior was not bare metal, but painted, and Agent Orange and its dioxin contamination soak into paint, and also soak into the insulation, wiring, web seating, etc, as well as the aviation-grade aluminum (which is more porous and which absorbed dioxin more readily than polished steel). 


They stated that the Air Force was concerned about the Agent Orange contamination of the C-123 in an effort to be overly cautious. They failed to note that the Air Force tests establishing the airplanes as "heavily contaminated, extremely dangerous, extremely hazardous, extremely contaminated" were done in 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2008, years before the airplanes were determined to be too toxic for a landfill and with smelting them the only option left. These tests did not use timid words like "cautious"...the official Air Force words were instead "extremely dangerous" and "extremely hazardous." 

The VA people seemed to say because time had passed by the point the aircraft were destroyed thirty years after their retirement, we couldn't have been exposed to dioxin in 1972-1982 (beginning the year after air airplanes' last Agent Orange spray missions during Vietnam), all the tests establishing contamination notwithstanding.

The VA cited the absence of tests done between the retirement of the C-123 in 1982 and their destruction in 2010, failing to note volume upon volume of official Air Force tests as well as Air Force-contracted tests, every single one of which reported positive for dioxin contamination.

A snow job. If it had been done by any military officer aware of the various tests I'm describing, it would be called dishonorable and a prevarication.

AF Museum Confirms Patches Dioxin Decontamination (Tail 362)

In his response to our letter asking about Patches and the dioxin contamination discovered on it during the 1994 testing cycle, the Director of the National Museum of the Air Force, LtGen John Hudson responded:

"It is my understanding that long before my tenure as Director the aircraft ("Patches", C-123K Tail #362) was found to be contaminated with dioxin, was de-contaminated by a contractor, and determined to be clean and safe to human health".

Nothing dramatic here, as the airplane has been tested over the years by the Air Force and found to be "heavily contaminated" in 100% of the swipe samples, but we are grateful for General Hudson not taking the now-standard dodge of referring our veterans to the VA for the VA's automatic denials. 


Thanks, General. That's called leadership. Its what you rightfully demanded of us and what we rightfully expect of you and our other leaders.

VA Deceives C-123 Veterans in FOIA Response

Another interesting day. It began with receiving an FOIA response from the Department of Veterans Affairs. In May, I had requested all materials known to the Secretary's office regarding the Tom Philpott article about us...that reporter revealed the toxicity of the C-123K and the problems we've had bringing it to the attention of senior AF and VA officials.


Here's the principal issue: Tom was promised responses to inquiries he made to HQ USAF and the VA. In the case of the VA, he spoke with Mr. Josh Taylor's associate Mr. Steve Westerfield, who promised Philpott (as reported at the end of the article) that the VA would carefully look into the issue. We've never had a response from Taylor so I asked for their info via FOIA. Now, over five months having past, the VA's Ms. Gwendolyn Smith ("Alternate FOIA Officer" for the VA) tells us:

NO RECORDS FOUND

This office queried a number of business lines pertaining to your request. The records containing this information are not located in our office.

Here is the language of my May request:

2. Copies of emails, memos, marginal notations or documents and any other materials prepared or received by Mr. Josh Taylor concerning Agent Orange contamination of C-123K aircraft.

So how could this happen, especially after national publication of our story, after emails floating back and forth between us and the VA, GSA and DOD, after IG complaints and all the other turmoil? How could the VA response to my FOIA come back boldly stating "No Records Found"? 


Easy. Two possibilities. First, perhaps they lied and falsified their FOIA response. Or second (and more likely) perhaps they used carefully crafted and misleading language to avoid the request. Here's how: Since there is absolutely no way that Mr. Josh Taylor didn't have at least some of the materials requested in my FOIA, the only way to avoid releasing them is to factually state, as above, that the "records containing this information are not located in our office." They don't say the records don't exist...they simply say the records are not in their office...the FOIA office. They say nothing about Mr. Taylor's office, or any other place the materials might reside. This is an example of what Air Force Academy cadets, in their Honor Code Handbook, are taught amounts to PREVARICATION...QUIBBLING! Using half-truths to form a lie by sliding around the margins of truth!


The VA didn't even acknowledge the 320-page binder we sent the Secretary, containing the Air Force test results, consultant reports, emails within AFMC, etc. This also should have been part of their FOIA response. (Oct 26 note: the VA has released Mr. Philpott's email to the VA seeking comment - and for some reason, a press release about the Blue Water Navy.)


Taylor, whose representative personally spoke with Mr. Tom Philpott during the preparation of the Gannett newspaper chain article which appeared in dozens of newspapers nationwide, must have logged their conversation, perhaps made notes during the interview, perhaps reported to his supervisors, perhaps (dare we hope?) actually done what he promised and what he is paid to do..."to carefully look into the issue". 


I am amazed that the VA and all our fellow citizens expect military officers to be bound by our inflexible code of honor but don't seem have one themselves. Our military code which, if not already part of our personal character, is spelled out in detail in the UCMJ as well as in two centuries of military tradition. Look at Mr. Taylor's promise to look carefully into the issue, and his failure to do so...perhaps, his decision even as the words were spoken to AVOID doing so. Honorable? 


In the military, an officer stating in the national press that he would do something would result in that something getting done, or the officer is in grave trouble. We call it honor. Sadly, in the VA, no such standard of honor seems to exist which would interest Public Relations wonks to actually do what they promise. Even if they are government employees assigned to do so. Even if, as with Mr. Taylor and Mr. Westerfield, it is their job to provide the truth to the press so that the press can properly exercise its constitutional duties. 

VA Deceives Sen. Burr's Staff re: Agent Orange & C-123

Correspondence Thursday regarding a meeting in which senior staff of North Carolina's Senator Burr (ranking member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee) discussed our C-123 Agent Orange issues with representatives of the Veterans Administration. The VA put forth an argument denying the possibility of our exposure during the years 1972-1982 by saying that the surface contamination of the aircraft decades later when stored at Davis-Monthan would have lessened.

Does that make sense to anyone? To say that airplanes MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN contaminated in 2010 so they therefore weren't contaminated in 1972? What about the multiple Air Force tests done over the decades between 1972-2008 in which every single test reported POSITIVE for the presence of dioxin.

The VA wonks are using a hypothetical argument that dioxin would have decayed over the decades to claim we couldn't have been exposed the very year after the last spray mission. I'm working here to find a word other than "liar" to fairly describe such a statement!

Here is the response we sent Sen. Burr's office to the summation they provided of their meeting with the VA:
-------------

To: Tucker, Brooks (Burr)
 Subject: Sen. Burr's Staff report - meeting with VA and VA position re: C-123 Agent Orange

Thanks for responding.  They mislead you. Please remind them that Air Force tests, done in 1994, determined the aircraft "heavily contaminated"...Air Force words! Further, additional tests done in 1996, 1998 and 2000 showed continued contamination. These tests cannot be ignored! The VA can't pick and chose which facts to use to deny us service connection 

Hypothetical dioxin degradation on surfaces in direct sunlight hasnothing to do with our flying these airplanes right after their last spray flights...nothing to do with the contamination throughout each aircraft. A half-baked VA concept of surface dioxin degradation cannot trump multiple Air Force tests PROVING contamination. To accept the VA position one would have to say each of the scientific Air Force tests done over the decades didn't exist, or were in error.  Professor Jeanie Stellman of Columbia University School of Public Health has told the VA that Agent Orange can degrade as the volatiles age, but not dioxin! It remains. On some surfaces, it can remain for decades.   

Tell them that we flew the airplanes NOT decades after Vietnam, but just ONE YEAR after they stopped spraying Agent Orange. We started flying them in 1972 and flew them for a full decade. The contamination of the dioxin on the aircraft was not only on metal surfaces, but in nooks and corners, ducting, hollow tubing, insulation, fabrics (this old airplane had fabric everywhere!) and pooled under the floor as well as in the wings.  

IMPORTANT: Dioxin contamination of painted surfaces is also much more dangerous than dioxin on plain metal, and nearly every metal surface in our aircraft was painted, thus retaining dioxin longer because the toxins soak into paint more readily than into solid metal. This is why complete paint removal is required as part of the dioxin decontamination, as was done on Patches.

 Finally, they may have an opinion which they leap to in preventing our claims, but the Oregon Health Sciences University Toxicology Department and the School of Public Health at Columbia have reviewed the Air Force tests, concluded that they are scientifically acceptable even though a decade or more old AND THAT OUR AIRCRAFT WERE CONTAMINATED AND OUR CREWS WERE EXPOSED!   

The VA and Dod have as their usual source of the surface lifespan info Dr. Alvin Young, who previously insisted that there are no harmful effects of Agent Orange. With the Congressional action to remove the decision making from the VA and place it in the domain of the National Academy of Sciences, that leaves Dr. Young without an effective argument...so now he uniformly insists that there is no dioxin present in most of his reports. He is discredited by most authorities in this field, even though he is the person who has been in it so very long. Dr Young is the gentleman who sarcastically described our Agent Orange-contaminated C-123 crews as "trash haulers, freeloaders", "looking for a sympathetic congressman for tax-free dollars." His attitude must disqualify him from influence regarding our claims.  

In the case of our aircraft stored at Davis-Monthan (the Boneyard), perhaps decades of the aircraft sitting in the desert sun did degrade the dioxin present on the exterior surfaces of the C-123K/UC-123K airplanes...but that hypothetical degrading did not take place between 1972-1982 when we flew, and it did not take place INSIDE the aircraft where our duties placed us for thousands of hours. Further, tests done during the decades the aircraft were store continued to show their toxicity. The aircraft did not go into storage until 1981-1982. Our exposure was over a decade BEFORE the first Air Force test on Tail #362 reported 100% of the swipe tests as positive for presence of dioxin. Our exposure was two decades BEFORE the first Air Force test on Tail #362 directed personnel not enter or work around the aircraft without hazmat protection.  

You mention "the lack of testing on the C-123s in the years following the Vietnam War". CORRECTION: there were tests, many of them, each of which established the toxins present. Air Force tests done in 1979, Air Force tests done in 1994, Air Force tests done in 1996, Air Force tests done in 2000, Air Force tests done in 2008, Air Force tests done in 2010...what lack of tests are they talking about? All these tests showed Agent Orange present. No tests done FAILED to show Agent Orange present. The words used by the Air Force..."HEAVILY CONTAMINATED, EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS, EXTREMELY DANGEROUS, EXTREMELY CONTAMINATED"...perhaps these should be strong enough to convince the VA that it is "as likely to as not". 

And I assure you, even accepting their thought that Agent Orange has a very short lifespan...we flew them within a year of their last spray missions! We flew them with dioxin contamination.  If the Air Force prohibited sale of the aircraft in 2000 to prevent a risk to public health, it is impossible to avoid the absolute fact that OUR health was affected decades earlier, with the contamination more intense. Further, Ranch Hand aviators flew their missions for 11 months while in-country. We flew our missions in these contaminated aircraft for A DECADE! Our exposure may have been less intense but it was over a much longer period. Please press as strongly as you can on this. 

We need you and Senator Burr to help us. An expert in dioxin contamination from any reputable laboratory or university would have laughed those guys out of your office! 

          Regards,    

Wesley T. Carter, Major, USAF, Retired    http://www.c123kcancer.blogspot.com- 

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Tucker, Brooks (Burr) <Brooks_Tucker@burr.senate.gov> wrote: 

Mr. Carter: 

I and a colleague from the Veterans Affairs Committee investigative staff met with VA officials yesterday to discuss their position on the post war status of C-123s. From what we were able to learn, the scientific analyses of the dioxin TCDD in Agent Orange indicates that it has a very short lifespan once it dries or binds on a surface like metal. In VA’s opinion, it is highly unlikely that TCDD would remain present in a harmful form for a duration of time that would allow it to be persistently present on metal surfaces for years after it dried on that surface. 

Given the lack of testing done on the C-123s in the years following the Vietnam War, it is impossible to determine if TCDD was present in a harmful state during the years you and others were flying and maintaining those aircraft. VA views the Air Force actions relative to the clean-up of Patches and the decision to not sell mothballed C-123s as indicators of an overly cautious mindset within Air Force legal circles that desired to avoid any potential for liability if the aircraft were placed in amuseum or sold to a private entity, 

They provided us with a review of an Air Force study that compared long term health of Ranch Hand personnel with health of other aircrews who flew C-130s in Vietnam. We are studying that report.   

Brooks D. TuckerSenior Policy Advisor  

National Security and Veterans' Affairs 

Office of Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) 217 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510202-224-3154202-228-2981 Fax 

brooks_tucker@burr.senate.gov 

HQ USAF Denies Having Any C-123 Agent Orange Documentation!

In a response received last month regarding our earlier FOIA in which we sought any and all C-123/Agent Orange documents from Headquarters, USAF, we have been told that no such documents exist!


Please note that this is in conflict with other FOIA responses from 75ABW (Hill AFB) in which Air Staff approval was mentioned in several places regarding the final destruction of the remaining surplus C-123K/UC-123K stored at Davis-Monthan. Somebody is misleading us!


So what happened? Why does one Air Force organization mention Air Staff inquiries and approvals in various memos, some of which were prepared by or sent to general officers at Hill at AFMC, and yet no such records are available from HQ USAF? Apparently, the requested materials have either been destroyed or withheld from release. If the latter, this would be despite the requirements of the FOIA and in conflict with the letter from HQ USAF stating no such documentation exists.


Hard to believe, right? Hard to believe that 21 dioxin-contaminated aircraft...in storage and causing a threatened $3.4 billion fine, described in federal lawsuits, news articles, memos from Agent Orange consultants to the Secretary of Defense, beaucoup documents flowing between HQ AFMC, USAF/SG, GSA, etc...hard to believe they could be destroyed without HQ USAF documentation! Hard to believe that, earlier, over $120,000 was spent to "quarantine" these contaminated airplanes without HQ USAF approval, which surely must have been given! Indeed, hard to believe this entire mess!

John Harris - his VA Peripheral Neuropathy Claim Experience

John writes: My Peripheral Neuropathy story is this; I had numbness in one foot. I thought it was the result of knee replacement surgery. I had a neurologist perform a series of nerve tests.

Agent Orange & Cancer

Agent Orange and Cancer

About 3 million Americans served in the armed forces in Vietnam during the 1960s and early 1970s, the time of the Vietnam War. During that time, the military used large amounts of mixtures known as defoliants, which were chemicals that caused the leaves to fall off plants. One of these defoliants was Agent Orange, and some troops were exposed to it. Many years later, questions remain about the lasting health effects of those exposures, including increases in cancer risk.

This article offers a brief overview of the link between Agent Orange and cancer. It does not offer a complete review of all evidence -- it is meant to be a brief summary. It also includes some information on benefits for which Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange may be eligible....and eligibility extends to other veterans able to establish their exposure to Agent Orange.

Agent Orange & Peripheral Neuropathy

What is peripheral neuropathy? 

Peripheral neuropathy is a nervous system condition that causes numbness, tingling, and muscle weakness by involvement of the peripheral nervous system, that is, nerves outside the brain and spinal cord.

Why are Vietnam veterans concerned about peripheral neuropathy?  Does Agent Orange/dioxin cause it?

Agent Orange & Type 2 Diabetes

Vietnam veterans (and others like us with established exposure to dioxin) with type 2 diabetes are eligible for disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) based on their presumed exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicides. In 2000, the VA added type 2 diabetes to the list of "presumptive diseases associated with herbicide exposure." That action followed a report from the National Academy of Sciences that found "limited/suggestive" evidence of an association between the chemicals used in herbicides during the Vietnam War, such as Agent Orange, and type 2 diabetes.

The evidence of a link between exposure to Agent Orange (or dioxin, the problematic contaminant in Agent Orange) and diabetes is modest. Most of the association between Agent Orange and diabetes comes from studies of people who lived near or worked at manufacturing plants that produced large quantities of Agent Orange dioxin. In those cases, there appears to be some relationship between Agent Orange exposure and increased insulin resistance, the precursor to type 2 diabetes. In general the exposure that Vietnam veterans had to Agent Orange was much less than in the populations studied by scientists. Still, the VA has added diabetes to the list of conditions for which Vietnam veterans are eligible for disability compensation.

What is Agent Orange and what is dioxin?