It depends on what your definition of "exposure" is. - US Department of Veterans Affairs
It seems to be that silly. The VA has fought C-123 veterans' claims to a standstill, countering our official proofs of contaminated airplanes and claims of having been exposed while flying and working on them.
"No Exposure" cry out the VA experts as they claim the impossibility of exposure via "dry dioxin transfer." Because the VA has already accepted the burden of providing Agent Orange exposure benefits to Vietnam vets with "boots on the ground" as well as to other vets able to prove their exposure to military herbicides outside Vietnam. the selected tactic is to pretend there is no exposure when the veterans come up with solid proof of contamination so as to prevent any successful claims...by people
Let's turn to the experts, however. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, EXPOSURE is defined"
|Definition: Contact made between a chemical, |
physical, or biological agent and the outer boundary
of an organism. Exposure is quantified as the
amount of an agent available at the exchange
boundaries of the organism (e.g., skin, lungs, gut).
It seems perfectly clear...if we as aircrews, aerial port maintenance personnel came into physical contact with Agent Orange (actually, the C.F.R. reads "military herbicide" of which Agent Orange is but one), be it dried, shaken, stirred, upside down, inside out or blended and tied in a pretty bow...whatever...if we touch it we have been exposed and meet the requirements of the law. There is no mention of "bioavailability," quantities, any amount of toxin or anything else in the law or C.F.R.s. It is only in the VA's mindset.