Dow & Monsanto Team Up On New Challenge To Veterans' Agent Orange Claims

The Agent Orange manufacturers aren't content with having poisoned a decade of Vietnam veterans with their deadly herbicide known to contain deadly amounts of dioxin.

Faithfully continuing their profitable anti-veteran campaign first begun in 1961 and reaching now into 2014, Dow and Monsanto again joined forces with the VA in June at the Institute of Medicine's C-123 Agent Orange hearing in Washington, D.C.

Their Objective: Block veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims, by preventing VA medical care and compensation for C-123 post-Vietnam veterans.

Between 1972-1982, these vets flew the Agent Orange spray airplanes for routine cargo and aeromedical evacuation missions, but the crews and maintenance workers didn't realize their aircraft remained contaminated ("heavily contaminated," according to USAF toxicologists.) In 2010, all C-123s were destroyed by the USAF as toxic waste.

Researchers Drs. John Ross and Michael Ginevan presented their error-ridden letter to VA Under Secretary Allison Hickey in January 2013. Sponsored in this disservice to veterans by Dow and Monsanto, these private-sector consultants apparently felt it inappropriate that VA provide care for the C-123 veterans' Agent Orange illnesses.

Ross and Ginevan have frequently sided with the VA and the Agent Orange manufacturers in opposing veterans' disability claims, and nothing is new here. They ignored most proofs the veterans submitted to the VA to substantiate their claims, such as the CDC and NIH findings, and twisted others in their attack.

One particularly glaring deception was their description of Patches (C-123K Tail #362) as not being representative of other Agent Orange spray aircraft. Indeed...the others were likely even more contaminated than Patches because they sprayed Agent Orange more recently than did Patches and their contamination was "fresher."

They found a way to twist another fact into a deception. Dioxin is well-known as a human carcinogen, even acknowledged as such by the VA. Ross and Ginevan attempted to mislead VA into dismissing the dangers of the dioxin remaining on the aircraft. Offered to VA was a pretense that scientists question whether dioxin actually is a carcinogen. Really? From VA's own web page;

"TCDD (the dioxin in Agent Orange) is the most toxic of the toxins, and classified as a human carcinogen by the EPA."

That alone should condemn Ross and Ginevan's letter into the VA's trash heap. But it won't. They played to VA's eager ears. Dow and Monsanto were only too happy to feed VA deceptions to continue their joint defense of Agent Orange.

Another Challenge to VA Definition of "Exposure" & VA Policy of Denying C-123 Agent Orange Benefits

The authoritative Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology is recognized as the premier scientific publication dealing with toxins and their impact on humans.

As you know from reading earlier postings, VA in 2012 introduced their policy-driven and wrong-headed redefinition of "exposure" only to bar C-123 veterans from Agent Orange exposure benefits. Because the various laws specify that a non-Vietnam War veteran need only prove exposure to military herbicides for a successful claim, VA focused on creating a phony way to deny the exposure. To make it go away with semantics, even though we'd had a decade of that exposure flying the contaminated C-123 warplanes.

VA opposed us by redefining the word. They put forward the incorrect and unscientific pretense that "Exposure=Contamination Field+Bioavailability." No proof of biological impact of the substance on the body (like caffeine in coffee increasing blood pressure) the VA pretends to mean equals no exposure. 

This is scientifically wrong. The most authoritative source is the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which defines exposure as the simple contact (or ingestion or inhalation) of a contaminant with the body. Remember, the laws and regulations make clear veterans need only establish the fact of exposure...that is what the VA seeks to make impossible by creating their own in-house use for that word.

Now, a highly respected professional society, the International Society of Exposure Science, has published their official ISEA glossary. There, exposure is defined as "contact between an agent and a target." No mention of bioavailability! Not here, nor elsewhere in science is bioavailability required to acknowledge exposure, because in fact, bioavailability flows from exposure.

And this flows from experts with the US EPA, the American Chemistry Council, and Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory. Dr.Valerie Zartarian with the EPA published the glossary in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology in September 2004.

It must be clear to everyone, including VA's Veterans Health Administration and their

Post-Deployment Health Section, that VA has undertaken a policy-driven redefinition of fundamental scientific terms and done so solely to prevent C-123 exposure claims.  Post-Deployment Health has even barred C-123 veterans claiming exposure from receiving Agent Orange Registry health exams. (source: W. Carter telecon with Deputy Director VHA Post-Deployment Health)

Nowhere else in science or medicine is "exposure" redefined as the VA has done. Now, the authority of the premier professional scientific organization addressing exposure issues, and the publication by an EPA scientist here of the glossary as a juried article, means VA's approach has been trashed.

VA will still deny claims, which is the VBA's fundamental mission. The Secretary promised the Senate that all C-123 claims were to be considered individually. Perhaps so, but these claims are all 100% denied regardless of proof submitted, and denied at the direction of VA's Compensation and Pension Service which tells raters that "regulations do not permit" C-123 claims to be honored. 

However, VHA's Post-Deployment Health, which directed Compensation and Pension Services to accept their warped manipulation of the word exposure,  now stands exposed themselves for their obvious falsehoods.

VA Denies Another C-123 Veteran Agent Orange Claim

Honoring its promise made us on February 28, 2013, the director of VA's Compensation Services (C&P) completed denial of my own C-123 Agent Orange service connection claim today. This completes C&P's 25 September 2012 advisory opinion provided the Portland VARO in which he directed opinions from toxicology scientists be disregarded because they weren't physicians.

The same advisory opinion also detailed the VA's one paragraph summary of the official finding of Dr. Tom Sinks, Deputy Director of the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Deliberately and evasively avoiding mention of Dr. Sinks' actual finding which stated "I believe that aircrew operating in this, and similar, environments were exposed to TCDD," C&P appends a sentence to that summary in a manner implying Sinks meant something altogether different: added was "In summary, there is no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects" - a conclusion completely opposite Dr. Sinks' finding! VA also conveniently ignored (ignored to better deny the claims!) the ATSDR finding that C-123 veterans now face a 200 times greater cancer risk, thanks to exposure aboard the contaminated airplanes. 

This unscientific and prejudicial editing of another federal agency's finding was discussed in person with C&P's director and his staff on February 28 at his offices, but without comment, modification, retraction, denial or anything...other than his statement that he can't be personally familiar with every piece of VA correspondence over his signature. I understand, but I did bring it to his attention (without response) in November 2012, before it was used to deny my VA claim. While selectively applied to C-123 veterans, thank God VA does not apply that mistake about TCDD to other Agent Orange-exposed veterans.

Agent Orange, and its toxic component TCDD, are generally thought to be somewhat harmful, and considered a human carcinogen and one of the most toxic toxins on the planet. The VA, paying billions in Agent Orange veterans benefits, might consider applying the above paragraph in reconsideration of all those expenses if, indeed, there is no evidence of TCDD being harmful. VA might wish, however, to first run the issue past the Congress, the veterans organizations, the courts, the Institute of Medicine and their own executives. Perhaps...the statement of TCDD being harmless is applicable only in the instance of denying C-123 veterans our claims.

Completely ignored in today's denial of my exposure claim are expert findings in my favor provided by the University of Texas Medical School (Dr. Arnold Schecter), the EPA, the NIH, Dr. Jeanne Stellman, Dr. Fred Bowman (Oregon Health Sciences University Toxicology Department) and other highly esteemed scientists. Ignored completely are the numerous juried scientific articles establishing the TCDD contamination of the C-123, the bioavailability of that TCDD, the routes of exposure as having been dermal, inhalation and ingestion, and dozens of other proofs. Best dealt with by the VA by ignoring them as opposed to acknowledging the fact of the matter...C-123 veterans were indeed exposed to Agent Orange.

VA Exposure Expert

The question of "exposure" is pivotal. The VA utilized its own special in-house extra-legal (even though the issue has already been adjudicated and resolved, and VHA is not free to redefine such things and VBA isn't supposed to approach veterans claims with a VBA predetermination for denial) definition of exposure, being in effect "no C-123 exposure is ever going to be acknowledged." Science, however, more correctly defines exposure as "the contact between a chemical or biological agent and the outer boundary of an organism." Quite simple, and according to the NIH adequate to establish that C-123 veterans were exposed to Agent Orange to the complete satisfaction of the law. 

Typical C-123 Veteran

The law? Forgettaboutit! The Agent Orange Act of 1991 and subsequent modifications, in particular the May 2001 VA promulgation of Title 38 (as detailed in the Federal Register) clearly spell out that VA will treat veterans exposed to Agent Orange outside the Vietnam "Boots on the Ground" group the same as the Vietnam veterans, and without having to establish medical nexus. Thus, given (1) our doctors' proof of Agent Orange-presumptive illnesses, and (2) the Air Force proof of the C-123 Agent Orange contamination, the only way for the VA to shoot down our claims is to (3) deny exposure. Deny, deny, deny.

Today, the VA Compensation Services locked on and fired, just as they promised they would for any C-123 veteran hoping to establish service connection for Agent Orange exposure.

Next step? Board of Veterans Appeals, at least, for any of our members surviving to present their claims after the typical five year waiting period which follows the two years wasted thus far.

Eglin AFB Veteran Wins Domestic Agent Orange VA Claim!

Just received from an AF veteran who served at Eglin AFB, Florida. Eglin was the principal field test facility for Agent Orange, and this veteran finally won VA recognition for his Agent Orange exposure. Eglin AFB still has 400 acres of dioxin-laden, fenced-off area due to this severe contamination. Congratulations...and note his emphasis on being persistent! Get your claim in, even if only via a general letter, and get your Agent Orange exam scheduled by contacting the Agent Orange Hotline - call 800-749-8387.

Just got the award letter today, saying that I got 20% for Diabetes II, 20% for radial nerve damage from removal of tumor left arm and 20% for the painful swelling and edema left arm. It only took 9 years, but Brothers and Sisters, you got to be vigilant and persistent in your fight to get the rights you deserve and were promised.I've a few other symptoms that are secondary, but now that they're recognized we can go on from there, as they're still in the exploratory stage right now.I wish to thank those on this site in helping me get the recognition, by providing advice, documents and direction. 

Dan Callaghan, Recognized Victim - Eglin AFB AO Exposure 

click: CDC - Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry Eglin AFB Contamination Study 

Chicago Area C-123 Veterans Needed for Interview!

We have fortunately attracted the attention of a network famous for caring about veterans' issues, and we hope for some great coverage next month.

For their reporters to look further into our C-123 Agent Orange claims they really want to interview any of our veterans or surviving family members in Chicago, or in the broader Illinois area. If that's you, or if you know where we can find such folks, please get an email to me or call!

And there's news coming out of Springfield, too!

     Wes

VA Releases "Scientific" Explanation of C-123 Dixoin Denials

Ever-eager to stomp our hopes into the ground, the VA on December 14 released an explanation of their investigation of the Agent Orange contamination of our C-123 aircraft and how they reached the determination that somehow, despite the aircraft contamination, we have not been exposed.

Readers with a scientific background will recoil in horror at this report being called "scientific". It is not. It was prepared with the predetermined objective of insuring a negative response to our exposure claims...and that ain't science, folks! Science requires being led where the facts take you, not cherry-picking data to make sure your report satisfies the boss.

Simply put their report is full of holes, not full of science.

It cites, first, a report prepared by then-Staff Sergeant Conway who inspected Patches in 1979. While respectful of all NCOs (I spent half of my career as one), I hesitate to base the health care of 1500 veterans upon the report of a 5-level NCO. Further, as confirmed by Prof. Jeanne Stellman of Columbia University's School of Public Health, that inspection did not test for dioxin. Well, duh...isn't that what this is all about?

Next, the VA cites the 1994 test on Patches at the AF Museum, but fails to note those toxicologists (Dr Ron Porter and Capt Wade Weisman) who determined that the airplane was "heavily contaminated" with dioxin. Dr Porter later testified in a federal court case that the C-123s were "a danger to public health." I think this rates another "duh".

The VA concludes by citing the 2009 Hill AFB report "Dioxin and Herbicide Characterization of UC-123K Aircraft - Phase I." However, to make sure their "research" properly reflects their predetermined conclusion, they do not mention that the author of that report himself insisted, on 26 October 2011, that no conclusions be drawn, one way or another, regarding aircrew exposure during 1972-1982! This is another solid "duh".

Finally, to reach for some scientific reason to bolster their denial of veterans' claims, the VA says because chemical wipes were required to release dioxin from the surfaces tested that implies flying personnel wouldn't have been exposed because of dermal protection. Guess these VA "scientists" forgot to read carefully the test protocols which later specified that water, not chemical, wipes would be used for testing. A final, solid "duh" called for here, right?

Good thing that the Armed Services are led by people with a sense of honor and intense dedication to doing their jobs right, rather than by civil servants who yield to their boss' dictating research results to insure veterans are denied well-earned benefits! And that's no duh!

New C-123 Agent Orange Website Launched!

Finally, with an afternoon blessed with peace and quiet, we got our web site launched!

The site, www.c123agentorange.com,is a more formal presentation of our Agent Orange exposure claims. It will yield different results on search engines than does this blog, plus many folks consider any blog to be more social than professional.

Let me know of any suggestions regarding articles, links, news about dioxin claims...whatever.

Request for Help from Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry

In August I asked the ATSDR for help and was passed off to the DOD...today I wrote again and asked for their compassionate action, not buck-passing.

November 5, 2011

c123kcancer@gmail.com

Christopher J. Portier, Ph.D.

Director, National Center for Environmental Health and

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Atlanta, GA  30333

Dear Doctor Portier,

In August you kindly responded to my request for help regarding the dioxin exposure experienced by Air Force C-123 aircrews. The C-123 was the plane which, until the year before we started flying it, was used for spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam. We flew them from 1972-1982.

I have to ask for your help. I have a crewmate, Master Sergeant George Gadbois of Warner-Robins, who is at Emory and who learned last Friday he has perhaps a year of declining health before his death from soft tissue sarcoma, lung cancer and brain cancer. Although he is retired Air Force, he has been denied VA Agent Orange benefits…not because he wasn’t exposed, but because the VA says he can’t prove it at least to a greater than 50% likelihood. Master Sergeant Gadbois was decorated for heroism in responding to a civilian chlorine explosion, but I’m afraid his heroism falters when faced with the VA obstructions.

We have had the final Catch-22 event, with a teleconference arranged by Senator Burr (NC) for me to discuss our aircrews’ exposure with VA representatives. The VA has decided, without specific research, that aircrews inside a “heavily contaminated” airplane could not be exposed via dermal contact because the skin is a good barrier. Neither could exposure occur via inhalation because there wasn’t much dust for the dioxin to adhere to. It seems to me that our skins were quite dirty and oily, adequate to permit transfer, and I certainly remember these cargo airplanes with dirt and dust flying everywhere.

The head of the Toxicology Department of Oregon Health Sciences University participated in the teleconference and his study, thus far, convinces him that we “most likely” were exposed. The same conclusion was reached by Columbia University School of Public Health.

The problem remains that the VA will not accept these experts’ opinions, but has said they would move only if the Air Force were to tell the VA that the airplanes were contaminated (nobody disputes this fact) and that the aircrews were exposed. The Air Force has said the VA has to make that determination as they will not. So the author Joseph Hiller would be pleased with yet another government Catch-22, but our aircrews are not amused with these agencies each referring us to the other for help…with the VA and AF already knowing that no action will be taken by either. When we flew the sick and wounded in aeromedical evacuation, we never tried to pass off the responsibility for action to others. Never.

I have been studying dioxin since my own cancer diagnosis in April, and cannot avoid the frequent references to both EPA and ATSDR in the literature. I have read your agency’s congressional mandate and mission statement carefully.

I ask that in response to your core value of compassion, that ATSDR look into our exposure issue.

I ask that in response to your goals of protecting the public from environmental hazards and toxic exposures and advancing the science of environmental public health, that ATSDR review the Air Force tests conducted on our airplanes and answer a simple question, vital to whether or not the VA will permit our veterans access to health care:

“Is it as likely to as not (the VA phrasing of an opinion) that aircrews flying “heavily contaminated” C-123 airplanes between the years 1972-1982 were exposed to dioxin?”

If this were a contemporary situation, I’m sure there would be rapid and conclusive government action…no airliner would be allowed to fly with dioxin levels 800% greater than building reentry standards. No agency would permit the public to be thus exposed.

I was Stan/Eval flight examiner for my crew position, and like other Stan/Eval flight examiners the safety of the airplane and the occupants was my primary military, legal, and moral responsibility…if I had known about the dioxin contamination I’d have been guilty of a courts-marshal offense if I’d allowed it to fly. These airplanes were so toxic the Air Force had to shred and smelt them, as they were too contaminated for landfill.  Dr. Ron Porter, the Air Force toxicologist who first surveyed them testified in federal court “they are a danger to public health.”

I’m a soldier, but I’m also a member of the public and deserving, as is Master Sergeant Gadbois, of ATSDR at least commenting specifically on the contaminants I’ve been exposed to, and whether or not I’ve thus been exposed.

Respectfully,

Wesley T. Carter, Major, USAF, Retired

Http://www.c123kcancer.blogspot.com

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

From: Wes Carter [mailto:rustysilverwings@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:56 PM
To: Anicich, Adam (CLS-Senate); Brooks_Tucker@burr.senate.gov
Cc: f; Arch Battista; Andrew B Lown; a208773; jrowan; 
Subject: Liaison Office Inaccurate Statements to Sen Burr Staff

Dear Mr. Anicich,

Thanks for your return call this morning and the agreement to look into my issue. I maintain that the VA responded to Sen. Burr's staff with inaccurate and misleading information. The "Letter of Congressional Liaison" is the summary of the issue from my perspective. As chair of our C-123K aircrew veterans, I have posted every document we've uncovered concerning the dioxin contamination of our aircraft at http://www.c123kcancer.blogspot.com

I have found no materials concerning our airplanes which fail to show them as contaminated with dioxin remaining from their spray missions in Vietnam.

Best regards (and thank you for your service!)

    Wes Carter, Major, USAF Retired

    Medical Service Corps

    VA 100% Service Connected

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. 

The suggestion that bare steel does not retain dioxin contamination over the years does not trump the fact that there were very few bare steel surfaces inside or outside the C-123. Instead, nearly every surface was painted and paint absorbs Agent Orange readily. Although the distillates would evaporate over the years, not the dioxin. And we began service on those airplanes the very year after their last spray missions, and without any decontamination, just broom swept and hosed out. The various fabrics and insulation, tons of it, absorbed Agent Orange. Agent Orange built up in residue in nooks and crannies everywhere, to the point that the depot maintenance experts said the floors and wings would have to be removed to get it all out.

How many tests does it take (and the Air Force did so many of them) to convince the VA that the airplane was contaminated? How many words do I have to type to make the argument perfectly clear? Are the Air Force’s own test results not adequate to move you?

How could the public servants in the Congressional Liaison Office mislead public officials with such intensity and firm dedication in trying to prevent veterans from receiving earned benefits and protections? Can you locate the many toxicologists who tested these airplanes and labeled them “extremely contaminated” so they can help you understand the obvious conflict with the VA’s characterization of the Air Force as having “an overly cautious mindset”? Does anyone, anywhere, use “extremely dangerous”(Air Force words) to mean “overly cautious” (VA characterization of Air Force position)?

Can you locate an ethical person in the VA to explain the Department’s position to me and to the veterans I flew with? We are not presenting a hypothetical situation of water containing dioxin somehow reaching our ship out at sea, but instead the PROVEN contamination of an airplane we were ordered to fly for a decade. And made sick thereby.

Respectfully,

 /signed/

Wesley T. Carter, Major, USAF, Retired
Medical Service Corps   http://www.c123kcancer.blogspot.com

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.

Please don't let it happen to you in presenting our concerns to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Even their own staff must have snickered at this effort with Senator Burr's people!

And please, what is happening? I was back in the hospital myself last week, and this week, and I'll be back again today. Like my crewmates, I'm gravely ill and would like to wrap this up before they wrap me up.

Regards,

   Wes Carter

--------------my letter to Senator Burr's staff follows: They are the folks who met with the VA and were told by the VA that our claims about Agent Orange exposure are groundless-----------------------------------

rustysilverwings@gmail.com
11 Oct 2011

Mr. Brooks Tucker
Senior Policy Advisor
Office of Senator Burr, North Carolina

Dear Mr. Tucker,

Thank you for explaining the results of your staff’s meeting with officials from the Veterans Administration regarding our aircrew exposure to Agent Orange during the decade we, as Air Force crewmembers, flew the C-123K/UC-123K “Provider”, previously used for spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam for Operation Ranch Hand. The VA’s characterization of the Air Force test results and the VA’s perspective of the Air Force position relative to the reuse of the surplus airplanes as expressed during your meeting could, perhaps, be described as a greatly overdone abundance of caution.

The Air Force and the General Services Administration, however, have instead officially described their position as cautious regarding the dioxin contamination…and absolutely not dismissive of the threat! In fact, totally the opposite as per their 2000 report to a federal judge in which both the AF and GSA both characterized these airplanes as being "heavily contaminated" by the dioxin on them. These two words were not used by a layman or a government attorney, but instead by the Air Force toxicologists who tested the airplanes. Certainly it should have been reasonable for the Air Force to be “cautious” regarding aircrew dioxin exposure, although it was not known to be contaminating our airplanes until the very first test in 1979 after we’d flown them for seven years. 


I would hope that the Air Force is “cautious” regarding any airplane, any crew, any possible hazard. In our case, the contamination having been established, the word should be alarmed!

Last week I asked experts for help regarding the VA statements that the surface aging of dioxin would make aircrew exposure to the toxin inconsequential. I sought opinions from two members of the Agent Orange Committee of the Institute on Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, and scientists at both Oregon State University and Columbia University.

In particular, I sought the advice of Dr. Fred Berman, head of the Toxicology Department of Oregon Health Sciences University. In his May 2011 report to the Secretary of the Air Force, he evaluated (and validated) the Air Force test results and provided the University’s finding that our aircrews had been exposed during the timeframe 1972-1982. Yesterday, he replied:

Major Carter, Regarding the stance that the VA is maintaining (that dioxins would have degraded within a short time after service in VN had ended), you could reason that, if indeed the dioxins had rapidly degraded, and in light of the fact that dioxins were detected in significant concentrations on and inside Patches in 2000, then aircrews would likely have been exposed to much higher levels of dioxin between 1970-1980 than suggested in my letter to the Secretary of the Air Force (i.e. The dioxin concentrations immediately after service in Viet Nam would have had to have been very very high to begin with). Fred Berman From: Fred  Berman <bermanf@ohsu.edu>

Please, Brooks, in your representation of us to the VA, defend the position that we have indeed been heavily exposed.Air Force tests done in 1994 on Patches, our most famous C-123K/UC-123K which my squadron flew, reported it"heavily contaminated" with 100% of the swipe tests showing positive for dioxin. Not hypothetical...not degraded, not aged, not anything except "heavily contaminated." This test was done twelve years AFTER we last flew the series. Nobody could believe the aircraft was more contaminated in 1994 than it was in 1972-1982...the VA's own faulty information about surface contamination and aging of dioxin would argue against that conclusion! And no laboratory report concluding an aircraft to be "heavily contaminated" could possibly be seen as in agreement with the VA's description of the Air Force's view of dioxin contamination being so insignificant that the Air Force shredded and smelted the entire valuable fleet for a merely hypothetical risk. 

Please note also that the airplane tested last sprayed Agent Orange in 1969, yet it still tested 100% positive for dioxin, "heavily contaminated" on every single surface examined in 1994. The test did not reveal modest contamination,hypothetical contamination, degraded contamination, significant contamination, or any contamination other thanHEAVILY contaminated. The C-123K’s were even MORE heavily contaminated when we flew them over a decade earlier. Please compare this finding with the suggestions from the VA reps who you met with and you'll see the error of their logic and the blatant effort at disinformation. One should consider their argument here a clear prevarication and deception.

Lieutenant General John Hudson, USAF Retired and Director of the National Museum of the Air Force, wrote me that "before my tenure as Director the aircraft (Patches, Tail 362) was found to be contaminated with dioxin (and) was decontaminated by a contractor." The decontamination, to make it safe for the airplane to be brought inside the Museum, cost $52,000, and required striping all paint from the exterior, removing all insulation and other dioxin-laden materials, and sealing the airplane for all but very limited interior access.

Please remember that we flew Patches, and our other dioxin-contaminated aircraft, in our normal lightweight flight suits, without hazmat protection, without respirators, and without post-flight decontamination. We flew the airplanes for hundreds of hours, we worked on them in flight and on the ground for thousands of hours. We ate in them. slept in them, and were very, very exposed in them. Further, in flight the incessant vibration of the aircraft caused particles to become airborne and thus inhaled.

In 1996 the 355th AMDS/SGPB at Davis-Monthan AFB contracted with Alta Labs to evaluate the aircraft stored at Davis-Monthan, and nearly all tested positive for dioxin (some results were lost, and some were tested incorrectly with the lab determining that actual dioxin contamination might actually be higher than their test results first indicated). In 1997 Armstrong Labs from the Air Force Institute for Operational Health completed tests on C-123K’s stored at Davis-Monthan with similar results but adding the Lab’s concern that the dioxin toxicity could be severe enough to also contaminate the ground beneath the airplanes. AMARC employees were at this point in time directed to wear rubber gloves, a face shield, at least a half-face respirator, and Tyvek coveralls to avoid dioxin exposure, per instructions of Dr. Ronald Porter, Air Force toxicologist.

In 1997, aware of the health threat posed by the toxin, HQ AFMC directed via their memo that

the surplus “dioxin contaminated aircraft” (their words) be sealed and relocated within a “fenced area within the…security area. They will be completely out of view.” (their words). The quarantine effort, necessary for preventing additional personnel exposure, was also done with the specified goal of reducing the public awareness of the 21 remaining “dioxin airplanes”. This effort cost $160,000. Mr. Thomas Lorman, HQ/AFMC/LG-EV, wrote in 1997 that these airplanes are “likely to be contaminated with dioxin from defoliation operations…The Air Force can be up front and warn owners of possible contamination. JAV states the Air Force is at great risk.” (emphasis mine). Certainly this leaps the VA’s barrier of “as likely to as not” regarding any C-123K aircrew veteran’s disability claims! The Air Force’s description of these planes as too toxic for a landfill should also mean that the VA’s barrier of “as likely to as not” regarding our exposure has been greatly exceeded.

In 2008, four aircraft were selected at random and each tested positive for trace levels (or higher) of dioxin, and the test cycle was halted to save the $750-1500 cost per airplane, as well as to prevent characterization of the surplus fleet as "100% contaminated." Messages were exchanged stating that because of the high visibility of "the Agent Orange airplanes", this round of testing could state that four of eighteen aircraft tested positive, rather than continuing the testing and getting an even higher and more visible percentage. Further, AFMC had already decided to destroy all the remaining aircraft.

Please remind the Air Force and the VA that the quarantine of the contaminated aircraft, in which they were placed in a separately fenced area with HAZMAT signs prohibiting access, cost over $150,000. This was not done "just in case" the airplanes were contaminated, but because the base safety officials required it, and both the base medical organization and the AF Surgeon General dictated that workers wear hazmat clothing, respirators, head covers and decontaminate after working. This level of protection is appropriate for "heavily contaminated, extremely dangerous, extremely hazardous" contamination...just as these airplanes were described by Air Force test results.

Remind the VA that the General Services Administration as well as the Air Force testified before a federal judge in 2000 concerning the government's cancelation of a C-123 sale. Both agencies told the judge that these airplanes represented a danger to public health. They were characterized by the Air Force toxicologist, Dr. Ronald Porter, as “extremely hazardous waste requiring special handling, and his recommendation was to decontaminate each airplane (this recommendation submitted 16 years after we last flew them, 16 years in which their degree of contamination was reduced) at a cost of $15,000 apiece. They did not state that the danger was hypothetical, “overly cautious” or that the danger existed only in Vietnam. These officials testified that the airplanes were contaminated and should not be sold. As you know, two had already been sold to Disney for movies. Continuing on Page 11 of the judge’s ruling, the Air Force reminded the federal judge, and the judge cited as a finding, eight dangers of dioxin contamination from these airplanes, crediting the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the United States Public Health Service.

The director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Dr. Christopher Porter, wrote me on August 11, 2011, saying our collection of dioxin contamination materials concerning the C-123K is “remarkable”, and recommending that the information be “carefully considered by the Department of Defense”. Because his Agency was cited in 2000 as part of the scientific proof that the surplus C-123K fleet was dioxin contaminated, I strongly recommend that Dr. Porter be consulted for his specific recommendation that the aircraft were indeed contaminated a decade earlier when we flew them!

I personally will pay the travel expenses for Dr. Fred Berman, Dr. Christopher Porter, Dr. Jeanie Stellman of Columbia, or any other reputable expert to be by your side at any future meeting with the VA. Invite them and let me know their expenses. Dr. (name removed) is on the Agent Orange Committee of the Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Science... very, very familiar with the C-123K situation, has studied the multitude of tests done on the airplanes, and states that the aircrews were exposed. As you probably know, members of the Agent Orange committee cannot independently publish on the topic, but they certainly can answer questions...so ask (name removed) at (email address removed for privacy)

Please also remember that Judge Stephen Cohn of the Board of Veterans Appeals denied the late Lieutenant Colonel Aaron Olmsted's VA claim for Agent Orange exposure. Aaron ("Tim") Olmsted's VA claim was denied by Judge Cohn who cited two deficits in the claim: As reported by Connecticut Public Television, in summarizing Olmsted's denial, Judge Cohn ruled:

 1. Olmsted couldn’t prove that the airplanes he flew were the ones used for spraying Agent Orange during Vietnam and

 2. Olmsted couldn’t prove that there was any (my emphasis) dioxin contamination on the airplanes.

He should have had available both proofs...the tail numbers of contaminated airplane assigned to our squadrons have been researched and confirmed by AFRC, and the contamination is established by multiple Air Force tests, although these documents were not available to Olmsted when he filed because they were "kept in official channels only." Denying a veteran necessary documents to approach the VA for medical care cannot be characterized, as the VA has done to you, as "an overabundance of caution." 

I remind you that I was a Stan/Eval flight examiner in my crew position, certified by the Air Force as one of the three most knowledgeable individuals in my AFSC, yet neither I nor any other crew member ever was "official channels" enough to be told of this contamination. It was manifestly my duty to have known everything affecting my aircrew and my student’s health and safety. I have spoken to several state fire marshals who agree with Oregon’s state fire marshal that withholding this kind of information about toxin-endangered employees is a crime. Consider having a senior firefighter from the D.C. department or the Pentagon sit in with your next VA meeting. The only concern I'd have if having genuine toxicology or public health experts with you as the VA "explains things" is that the laughter from them over VA efforts at misinformation would disrupt your otherwise serious meeting.

As you know, the Air Force in 2010 finally smelted the toxic aircraft. In their approval memo, AMARG officials (505 ACSS and 74 CEG) stated “this can be done discretely. This option avoids all contact with or exposure to the public and the aircraft are not made available for commercial sale. This option can happen quickly. Smelting is necessary for these 18 aircraft so the Air Force will no longer be liable for ‘presumptive compensation’ for anyone who ever works around this “Agent Orange” metal…If the Air Force wants quick and quiet disposal, the Navy option is preferable.”

I am offended that these individuals took “quick and quiet” actions to prevent our veterans’ justified claims for “presumptive compensation”, especially considering that our exposure had already taken place.

Senator Burr and Mr. Tucker, you can see that our aircrews worked with this “Agent Orange” metal for a decade. We have been sickened by it as well as by the VA’s construct of any argument at hand, twisted out of context as much as necessary, to insure denial of our proven exposure. I am amazed that they can twist the Air Force initial test results ofPatches being “heavily contaminated” into merely, as you put it, “an overly cautious mindset.” In all the documents I’ve uncovered from the Air Force, there has been no such timid phrase used…the phrases used by the Air Force have been “Agent Orange airplanes”, “extremely contaminated,” “heavily contaminated”, “extremely dangerous”, “danger to the public” and similar language. These should be the words also used by the Department of Veterans Affairs in addressing our concerns.

We are gravely ill from this disaster. Please defend us with all your ability.

Respectfully,

For the Veterans of the C-123K

Wesley T. Carter, Major, USAF Retired

Medical Service Corps