Vietnam War Agent Orange Spray Ops Approved 57 Years Ago Today

THIS DAY IN POLITICS

U.S. launches spraying of Agent Orange, Jan. 18, 1962

By ANDREW GLASS

 

01/18/2019 08:32 AM EST

After a period of testing, on this day in 1962, President John F. Kennedy gave final approval to “Operation Ranch Hand” — a massive UC-123K effort to defoliate the forests of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos with an herbicide known as Agent Orange.

It involved the spraying of an estimated 20 million gallons of powerful herbicides over rural South Vietnam to deprive Viet Cong insurgents aligned with the communist government in Hanoi of food and vegetation trail cover. To a lesser extent, areas of Cambodia and Laos were also sprayed. The U.S. Air Force flew nearly 20,000 UC-123K sorties from 1961 to 1971.

During the decade of spraying, more than 5 million acres of forest and 500,000 acres of crops were heavily damaged or destroyed. Some one-fifth of South Vietnam’s forests were sprayed at least once — at up to 50 times the concentration that would be deployed for normal agricultural use.

Kennedy insisted on approving individual spray runs until November 1962, when the president authorized Military Assistance Command, Vietnam and the U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam to approve them.

Previously, top administration officials had debated whether to allow the destruction of crops, at the risk of violating the Geneva Protocol, which the United States had signed in 1925. However, Dean Rusk, the secretary of State, had told Kennedy on Nov. 24, 1961, that "[t]he use of defoliant does not violate any rule of international law concerning the conduct of chemical warfare and is an accepted tactic of war. Precedent has been established by the British during the emergency in Malaya in their use of aircraft for destroying crops by chemical spraying.”

In early 1964, members of The Federation of American Scientists began to object to the use of defoliants. The American Association for the Advancement of Science passed a resolution in 1966 calling for a field investigation of the Vietnamese herbicide program. In 1967, 17 Nobel laureates and 5,000 other scientists signed a petition asking for the immediate end to the use of herbicides in Vietnam. The administration ignored it.

The spraying program led some 3 million Vietnamese to suffer health problems caused by exposure to Agent Orange, including a million birth defects. Additionally, the toll on members of the U.S. military who handled the chemicals or were deployed in and around the targeted drop zone areas during the war caused another 2.8 million personnel and their offspring to suffer from its long-term affect — chiefly various cancerous conditions. Post-Vietnam C-123 veterans were also affected but granted disability benefits only after June 19, 2015.

While Operation Ranch Hand ended in 1971, its impact is still being felt today. The Veterans Administration recognizes a long list of diseases associated with exposure to Agent Orange. Vietnam War and C-123 veterans who were exposed and suffer from one of these conditions receive automatic presumptions of a service linkage, making them eligible for treatment at government expense, without the need to positively prove that such connections exist.

SOURCE: “This Day in Presidential History,” by Paul Brandus (2018)

Camp Lejeune Marines Get Toxic Exposure Protection At Last! C-123 Veterans Helped!

WE HELPED! The example of the way VA addressed our Agent Orange toxic exposures in 2015 was looked at very carefully by the VA in its approach to the terrible water contamination problem at Camp Lejeune.

Late last year, acting on advice from the Institute of Medicine and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,  Secretary McDonald and the Department of Veterans Affairs proposed a series of protections for Marines and other personnel stationed at Camp Lejeune before 1987. Included are members of the Reserve Components serving there a minimum of 30 days in total. Compensation for their illnesses could reach several billions dollars.

I read the proposed new rules and on behalf of our association commented throughout as you will see in the summary copied from the Federal Register. We especially note the role of the ATSDR in helping Marines just as they helped us, and express our thanks to them for the great job done helping the Corps this day.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amends its adjudication regulations regarding presumptive service connection, adding certain diseases associated with contaminants present in the base water supply at U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (Camp Lejeune), North Carolina, from August 1, 1953, to December 31, 1987. This final rule establishes that veterans, former reservists, and former National Guard members, who served at Camp Lejeune for no less than 30 days (consecutive or nonconsecutive) during this period, and who have been diagnosed with any of eight associated diseases, are presumed to have incurred or aggravated the disease in service for purposes of entitlement to VA benefits. In addition, this final rule establishes a presumption that these individuals were disabled during the relevant period of service for purposes of establishing active military service for benefits purposes. Under this presumption, affected former reservists and National Guard members have veteran status for purposes of entitlement to some VA benefits. This amendment implements a decision by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that service connection on a presumptive basis is warranted for claimants who served at Camp Lejeune during the relevant period and for the requisite amount of time and later develop certain diseases.

VA C-123 Hot Line: 1 (800) 749-8387

Use it. They pay for the call, and even with a little rocky startup, VA staffers are trying hard to give vital, expert, reliable information to all callers. Got a question...run it past those experts. In most cases, they can tell you exactly where your claims or appeals are in the system.

VA C-123 Hot Line: 1 (800)  749-8387

CDC: Full HAZMAT Suits Should Have Been Used on C-123s Due to Agent Orange Contamination

It is official: CDC analyzed test results of C-123s previously flown for spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam, and issued the following conclusion to the Institute of Medicine on June 16. The IOM is reviewing C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposures.

CDC wrote:

Above: CDC Report to VA/IOM, page 6

Above: AF inspectors at C-123 Quarantine Site, 2009. Wearing HAZMAT protection as 

specified by base safetyofficials. In 2014 CDC concluded full HAZMAT should have been required for 

crews flying and maintaining the C-123s between 1972-1982, however AF elected not to inform 

aircrews of lingering Agent Orange contamination or any safety precautions. (USAF Photo)

C-123 Contamination - Hill AFB Deception

Below is one of the source documents about DOD C-123 deception..the actual request to withdraw the C-123s from any recycling and this memo was followed by message traffic approving "the quiet way, the Navy way" for shredding and smelting. Now, AF, DOD and VA all deny that the C-123s remained contaminated after Vietnam. The deception is that the C-123s were "the Agent Orange airplanes" until the first veteran's claim. Then, all the exposure hazards and contamination seem to have been dismissed...magic? Or policy? Or deception? The AF suggests the C-123s were safe between 1972-1982 so crews weren't exposed, but after decades of surplus storage in the desert had to be destroyed "because of Agent Orange contamination during the Vietnam War," as this memo states.

CDC – ATSTR Again Addresses Camp Lejeune Drinking Water: New Report Released

(letters posted to Camp Lejeune stakeholders about drinking water contamination saga) Dear Sir or Ma'am:

On December 4, 2013 the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's (ATSDR) "Evaluation of exposure to contaminated drinking water and specific birth defects and childhood cancers at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina: a case--control study" was published (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/sites/lejeune/update.html). You will receive a hard copy of the ATSDR fact sheet summarizing the results of this study in the mail in the coming weeks. ATSDR's study evaluated whether or not maternal exposures to drinking water containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at Camp Lejeune increased the risk of certain health conditions. The study used ATSDR's previous water modeling efforts to estimate past exposures (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/sites/lejeune/watermodeling.html). VOCs were commonly used as solvents for cleaning machinery and weapons, for dry cleaning, and some are found in fuels. This study is the first of several health initiatives that ATSDR is expected to complete in the next several years. For more information about these studies, visit http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/sites/lejeune/ or call (800) 232-4636 . Since 1991, the Marine Corps has supported the health initiatives conducted by various scientific agencies. We are also working diligently to identify and notify individuals who, in the past, may have been exposed to the chemicals in drinking water. For more information about these efforts or to update your contact information, please see:http://www.marines.mil/clwater/, call  (877) 261-9782  or e-mailclwater@usmc.mil. For the complete report and for information about studies being conducted by ATSDR, visit http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/sites/lejeune/ or call  (800) 232-4636 . To contact Veterans Affairs to learn more about health care benefits, please visit http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/camp-lejeune/or call  (877) 222-8387  (Healthcare) or  (800) 827-1000  (Benefits).  Sincerely,            /signed//        The Camp Lejeune Historic Drinking Water Program

DOD Denies Request to Designate C-123 as "Agent Orange Exposure Sites"

In May, the C-123 Veterans Association requested the Department of Defense to designate the already-destroyed toxic C-123 fleet as "Agent Orange Exposure Sites."

This designation is used by VA claims officials in denying exposure claims from C-123 veterans, as well as throughout the Internet and especially, on VA pages. DOD has refused, citing VA and USAF reports.

Why is this important? Because VA cites the absence of C-123s on the DOD list as their reason for denying claims.

Why is this ridiculous? Because DOD says they don't maintain such a list, and in particular, cites the VA as their authority for determining C-123s weren't contaminated. DOD also cites the 2012 USAF C-123 Consultative Letter which was flawed in so many scientific areas that it stands discredited. For instance, the Consultative Letter could never have withstood peer review and publication!

Next step? We again ask DOD's help. Framing our request around their response to our May inquiry, we'll ask that DOD realize that the issue of the amount of dioxin contamination is irrelevant. We'll ask that DOD weigh the role of OSD and AFMC officials in their efforts to destroy the C-123s to prevent veterans' claims. We'll ask that DOD weigh the USAF Office of Environmental Law's recommendation in 1996 to "keep all information in official channels only." And finally, we'll ask that DOD accept the fact that numerous other federal agencies have concluded C-123s were contaminated and the crews exposed.

Let's hope our request reaches somebody who actually wore a flight suit at some point in their careers, somebody who can weigh the importance of this argument.

Newest set of flight documents scanned, ready for download

Paul Bailey's collection of flight orders and Form 5s has been merged with those from Steve Caraker
and John Riley. We're getting some good information for everyone to cull through and find the papers necessary to substantiate YOUR service aboard one of the former Agent Orange spray aircraft. Other folks, like Al and Gail Harrington, and Joe Butler, have papers on the way.

Here is Paul's set of Form 5s

Here is Paul's set of flight orders

Here is our latest spreadsheet tying everything together -dates, crews and tail numbers

VA Disputes "Exposure" by C-123 Veterans - Ridiculous!

It depends on what your definition of "is" is.  - President Bill Clinton
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
like us!

Let's turn to the experts, however. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, EXPOSURE is defined"

Exposure

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.

VA & Air Force Both Miscalculate C-123 Exposure!

This is basic toxicology: The routes of exposure to dioxin contamination are: 
(a)oral 
(b)inhalation 
(c)dermal
(d)all the above, simultaneously

A. Both the VA and the AF reports which address C-123 aircrew dioxin incorrectly dismiss oral exposure to the dioxin which contaminated our C-123 aircraft, even though all aircrew must have had oral exposure from hands touching faces, eating aboard the aircraft, etc. In an approach new to science, and immediately criticized by recognized experts throughout the fields of toxicology and epidemiology, the AF and VA suggest that for the first time, contamination does not equate to exposure!

B. Both the VA and the AF reports incorrectly dismiss inhalation exposure to the dioxin which contaminated our C-123 aircraft. Although the 1979 and 1994 tests, among others, did not assess air samples, later tests did and showed only some C-123's contaminated enough to permit low-levels of inhalation exposure. Let's not forget (although both AF and VA reports ignore the fact!) that no air samples were taken until nearly forty years AFTER we started flying these aircraft...and air contamination must have been much more intense in the earlier years, even though both VA and AF ignored that fact.

C. Both the VA and the AF reports then incorrectly dismiss dermal exposure to the dioxin which contaminated our C-123 aircraft. Both agencies erroneously suggest that the skin is a near-perfect barrier to exposure...what the VA invented a new concept of "dry dioxin transfer" to address. But...

• no attention is paid by either agency to the fact that the C-123 had no sanitary facilities
• no attention is paid by either agency to the fact that aircrew, maintenance and aerial port personnel worked in a sweaty, oily, dusty environment, usually for long duty periods, without being able to wash
• no attention is paid to the fact that virtually every other scientfiic resource dealing with dioxin considers surface contamination to equal dermal exposure - because the skin is NOT a near-perfect barrier to dioxin as erroniously suggested by VHA
• no attention is paid in either agency's report to the fact that vibration while aloft greatly agitated dust particles and encouraged thereby inhalation, ingestion, and dermal exposure
• no attention is paid to the fact that aircrew worked in every area of the aircraft during missions
• no attention is paid to the fact that aircrew frequently slept overnight aboard the aircraft during tactical deployments

And a brand-new observation arises when we read peer-reviewed articles about dioxin, such as Dr John Doull's "Acceptable Levels of Dioxin Contamination in an Office Building Following a Transformer Fire, published by the National Research Council and cited by many subsequent writers, including Wade Weisman and Ron Porter as they conducted the 1994 contamination study of Patches at the Air Force Museum.

Doull makes the point that exposures can be cumulative, and can be simultaneous (dermal at the same time as inhalation and ingestion). If exposures are simultaneous such as while aboard the C-123, Doull states "the associated risks will increase by a factor of 2 with the assumption of a linear dose-response relation at low doses." Both the AF and VA reports ignore the fact of our simultaneous and cumulative exposure to dioxin!

The VA and Air Force reports dealing with C-123 dioxin contamination are faulty in many respects, most importantly because they clearly were written with the predetermined objective of dismissing any possibility of aircrew exposure. They are faulty also in their unscientific assumptions - and it is obvious that while every assumption made is to deny exposure possibility, no assumptions are made which admit that possibility. These reports ignored outside scientific experts, such as those at Columbia University and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, who already postulated that aircrews were "most likely" exposed. Thus we have one government agency (ATSDR) diametrically opposed to two others VA and AF).

The VA report on the C-123 was issued first, and the Air Force report then followed and piggy-backed on much of the VA material. The VA then re-issued their report citing the Air Force! Science does not progress when one report cites the other which cites the first! Absurd! Almost as absurd as Dr. Al's article in which he cites himself ten or twelve times in the recent AMSUS publication. There, he denies dioxin exposure issues by citing the authority of having previously denied it himself!

There is much to learn about C-123 aircrew exposure to dioxin as presented by the Veterans Administration and the US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine. Unfortunately, these two reports are too slanted to take on their face and subsequent peer-reviewed articles can be expected to correct their deficiencies.

VA Offers New Perspective on Veterans Agent Orange Exposure Issues!

Yesterday the VA's Public Health folks released a new perspective on C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure at this month's San Francisco meeting of the Society of Toxicology. While they still maintain exposure was unlikely, the door seems slightly ajar - they state C-123 veterans' claims will be judged individually. This is much more positive than the impression we were left with following the March 8 meeting hosted by Senator Burr in Washington DC, where they reported that all our claims "would probably" be denied. If this is so (oh, dare we hope?)...thank you, VA, for a more open mind on this issue!
What I find highly disappointing is their report's reliance on the 1991 data from one scientist (who took leave from the AF and accepted money from the chemical industry for writing articles implying the harmlessness of Agent Orange!) The VA data are in conflict with contemporary ATSDR toxicological profile for TCDD dermal absorption, as well as reports from the Institute on Medicine.
Isn't it reasonable to conclude that the Department of Veterans Affairs is committed to their position that Agent Orange contamination of our aircraft was unlikely, rather than being willing to consider newer and more authoritative research which agrees with our exposure? Every new discovery, every new opinion from non-VA sources which says aircrews were exposed the VA automatically rejects, rather than looking for a good possibility of a path to provide our veterans earned benefits.
These people are supposed to be scientists. The whole evolution of modern science started with, and still depends upon, scientists being eager to accept findings which both argue with and argue against their initial thesis. I can't find "science" in what they are doing...only political obstruction.
These people should remember true science was born only when Western civilization stopped trying to shape observations upon researchers' predetermined beliefs.

Here's the link to their release, entitled
                 "Agent Orange: The 50-Year History & the Newest Chapter of Concerns:



New Support from Columbia University! Agent Orange Exposure!

4th Issue - download now

 Note: 4th Issue of our C-123/Agent Orange newsletter, now available for download. 5 pages, 13 MB. Click here!

--------------Today's Exciting Developments------------

Just received from Columbia University's School of Public Health - their comprehensive analysis of the VA's voodoo science anti-veteran position regarding our Agent Orange exposure from the toxic C-123s we flew and maintained!

In it, the university destroys the VA's invention of "dry dioxin transfer", and also confirms the original toxicity reports described in the 1994 Air Force Museum study done on Patches (Tail #362). Columbia reports, stating that "there is every likelihood you have been exposed" and "the extent and manner is analogous to that experienced by many Vietnam veterans." Elsewhere the writer states "it is highly likely that you and other crew members were exposed to herbicides and their highly toxic contaminant dioxin.

And here is the clincher: "These statements (by the VA), to be blunt, are technically flawed and show insufficient understanding of surface contamination and its potential toxic effects, as well as the various routes of entry of toxic substances. The VA statements appear to have been made without any knowledge of standard practice for assessment of contaminated surfaces and uses terminology, like 'dried Agent Orange residue,' that does not reflect insight into the nature of surface contamination."

And finally, "The inconsistency in the VA's policy with respect to military herbicide exposures is not defensible. No minimal levels of exposure to herbicides have been set for veterans who served in-country... and exposures have NOT been limited to dioxin." Remember here that the VA in December said while we "may" have flown contaminated airplanes, there likely wasn't enough dioxin left on them after Vietnam to cause long-term health effects. It has always been the case (except for this new VA idea) that dioxin contamination equals dioxin exposure - and the VA is wildly off-base to invent anything otherwise.

This letter and the earlier ATSDR letter don't leave much doubt, do they? The VA position has been hammered by every knowledgeable professional who has taken the time to look into it, and their position against us simply falls apart. True, they have all the cards regarding making a decision to treat us or not, but it is totally clear that any decision to prevent our dioxin-injured crews and maintenance folks from getting care is a VA policy and budget decision, not a decision based on law, science or regulation!

Mr. Secretary, "Boots on the Airplane" for presumptive Agent Orange exposure - that's all we ask.

Open Letter - Request for Help from Institute of Medicine Agent Orange Committee

To the Members of the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences,

To: Doctor Richard Fenske, Chair and (in turn) Dr Erin Bell, Dr Scott Burchiel, Dr Janice Chambers, Dr Naihua Duan, Dr Peter Gann, Dr Mark Goldberg, Dr Nancy Kerkvliet, Dr Stephen Kritchevsky, Dr Michele Marcus, Dr Linda McCauley, Dr Alvaro Puga, Dr Jeremy Shefner and Dr Hollie Swanson

Dear Members of the Committee,

On behalf of Colonel Arch Battesta, Colonel Ken Wheeler, Colonel Joseph Curley, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Bailey, Lieutenant Colonel Bob Karpinski, Lieutenant Colonel John Harris, Chief Master Sergeant Charles Fusco, Major Al Harrington, Major Gale Harrington, Brigadier General Mike Walker, Major Stephen Clancey, Master Sergeant Steve Caraker, Master Sergeant George Gadbois, the late Master Sergeant Bob Boyd, Colonel Dee Holiday, Lieutenant Colonel Gail Sorenson and her late husband Lieutenant Colonel Art Sorenson, Lieutenant Colonel Ed Kosakoski, our families and an estimated 500 others similarly situated,

We seek the emergency assistance from the Committee in the form of your recommendation to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense that the dioxin-contaminated aircraft we flew be designated Agent Orange-contaminated sites. Each of the aircraft we seek to have so designated can be identified by historical records, contamination surveys and physical presence of Agent Orange spray apparatus. Agent Orange toxins remained in each of these aircraft until they were destroyed in 2010.

In 1972 the Air Force Reserve began flying the C-123K/UC-123K “Provider” aircraft previously used for Agent Orange spray missions in Vietnam. Dioxin contamination persisted on these aircraft, at least eleven of which were assigned to the squadrons we flew with. Numerous tests by the Air Force in 1993 and later established the harmful levels of dioxin contamination remaining on the surplus aircraft, all then retired after ten years of our use flying missions worldwide. Military concern about the established contamination led the decontamination by destruction of the remaining aircraft by melting them into scrap metal ingots. Air Force and GSA testimony before a federal judge on a 2000 private lawsuit had the aircraft described as “extremely hazardous”, “extremely contaminated” and “extremely dangerous.”

Veterans who flew the Provider during the years we did not suspect its contamination later turned to the Department of the Air Force to help identify the aircrews and maintenance personnel so they could be notified of their likely exposure to dioxin, but the Air Force responded they lacked the ability to identify the personnel involved. Earlier, for some reason, The Air Force Judge Advocate General responsible for the Office of Environmental Law (and her supervisor) recommended restricting information about the aircraft contamination to "within official channels," perhaps appropriately concerned with the reaction of exposed aircrews. 

Speaking personally, this writer would have been concerned, but if I'd been alerted in 1996 when this JAG officer's recommendation was made, I would perhaps have better responded before my cancer, heart attack, heart surgery, diabetes and peripheral neuropathy surfaced in a two month period sixteen years later. I had surgeries for acute peripheral neuropathy, an Agent Orange-presumptive illness, in 1975 and 1976, following my assignment to fly the C-123K.UC-123K starting in 1974. Certainly, what health precautions I would have taken should have been my decision to make, not her decision to keep me from knowing about.

Our group of veterans submitted the several Air Force test results to the Oregon Health Sciences University with the question…"does the dioxin contamination shown on the aircraft tests equate to exposure to dioxin by the aircrews and maintenance workers assigned to those aircraft between 1972-1982?"  The OSHU responded “Most Likely”.

Anecdotal sworn testimony from experienced maintenance workers in the 901st OMS establishes the intense effort after Vietnam to scrape the remaining Agent Orange residue from the aircraft, especially the sub-belly and wing interior sections, with DOD advice being that the residue was harmless and remove the residue and reduce the foul odors to scrape the residue with putty knives, then wash with Dawn dish soap and rinse thoroughly. Yet still, twenty and thirty years after the last Agent Orange spray missions, the aircraft tested in the Air Force words “extremely hazardous”, "extremely dangerous" and "heavily contaminated."

We earnestly seek the Committee’s immediate help. There is no controversy regarding the Air Force’s own tests establishing the presence of harmful levels of contaminants on our airplanes, and there is no controversy regarding eleven of our squadron’s 26 aircraft having been used for Agent Orange spray missions. The OSHU concludes that our exposure while flying and maintaining these toxic aircraft was “most likely” to have occurred. There is no hypothetical situation here...no question about whether we could have been exposed hundreds of miles out at sea or thousands of feet aloft...we point to the multitude of Air Force tests which establish our intense and intimate contact with this contaminated airplane, to the OSHU study, to your own common sense.

We don’t know your procedures or guidelines, but as a small group of veterans with a non-controversial argument for having been exposed to dioxin, we seek your help in whatever manner appropriate, so long as it is soon enough to help our sick veterans seek care through the Department of Veterans Affairs. If you have a different procedure to seek your help, tell me how to proceed. If you are organizationally restricted from what we request, what other help can you give us? 

Hopefuly and Respectfully,

For the C-123K/UC-123K Veterans of 1972-1982

Wesley T. Carter, Major, USAF Retired

 www.c123kcancer.blogspot.com
email: rustsilverwings@gmail.com

NIH Offers Their Thoughts about C-123K Aircrew & Agent Orange

(received from NIH via electronic mail, June 10, 2011). We're grateful for her response, but had hoped for something more supportive on the specific issue of whether being in an Agent Orange-contaminated aircraft would likely have resulted in exposure to dioxin. The best I can figure is that her letter explains that dioxin comes from various sources and the exposure from contaminated UC-123K aircraft is uncertain...even though we simply asked whether there was a likelihood of exposure, not what the contribution of that exposure to "body burdens of dioxins in this population" might mean. The VA requires exposure to Agent Orange/dioxin to be established and the NIH response carefully avoids any position on this.


I am especially disappointed because Dr. Binbaum has a great reputation for being so passionate about the risks to the public of TCDD!

Dear Wesley T. Carter, Major USAF Retired:

We would like to thank you for clarifying your request for our comments on the issues related to dioxin exposures of crewmembers of the Air Force C-123/UC-123K aircraft.  We have focused on the issue of potential Agent Orange and dioxin exposure of the crewmembers.  Human exposures to dioxins occur through contamination of our food, air, soil and dust.  The proportion of exposure from a particular route or source is situation dependent.  For the general population, dietary exposure due to microcontamination of the food supply with dioxins is the predominant route.  There are instances, particularly occupational, where human exposure and body burdens are influenced and increased above background due to contact with dust or contaminated surfaces.  In the case of the crewmembers of the Air Force C-123/UC-123K aircraft, there may have been occupational exposures to dioxins from contaminated surfaces.    However, the extent of this exposure and its contribution to body burdens of dioxins in this population is uncertain. 

                                                                       

Sincerely,

Director,

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

& National Toxicology Program

---

From: Wes Carter [rustysilverwings@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 11:25 AM
To: Birnbaum, Linda (NIH/NIEHS) [E]
Subject: Doctor Bimbaum's letter re: Air Force Aircrews and Agent Orange

2349 NW Nut Tree Lane

McMinnville OR 97128

June 10, 2011

Dr. Linda S. Bimbaum, Director
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences & Nat’l Toxicology Program

Dear Doctor Bimbaum,

Thank you so very much for the courtesy of your response to my request for help regarding Agent Orange exposure by crewmembers of the Air Force C-123/UC-123K aircraft, first used for spraying Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. I certainly appreciate and respect the caution with which you worded your letter…it most certainly is a worrisome issue and I find nothing in your letter with which to disagree.

But, fortunately for veterans of the Vietnam War itself, the Department of Veterans Affairs has resolved any controversy by simply establishing, in accord with law, recognition of the Vietnam veterans’ exposure, however theoretical or hypothetical. They have, in accordance with the law, assigned the principal decision making about Agent Orange exposure to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, and have with NAS determined that a specific list of illness (“Agent Orange presumptives”) receive service connection should a veteran contract that illness. Thus, we do not approach you or NIH for any policy decision or research conclusion.

Our hope in turning to you was not to address the issue of whether Agent Orange was harmful or not, nor whether veterans exposed to dioxin and other toxins on Agent Orange directly caused any veterans’ specific illness. The law frees us from that struggle, thank goodness! Neither do we even have to show abnormally high dioxin blood concentrations, as the Department of Veterans Affairs merely asks a veteran to show exposure, and to evidence one of the recognized “presumptives” such as prostate cancer or ALS.

What we seek…what we earnestly implore of you, is a far simpler response: if the Air Force tests have shown the aircraft “heavily contaminated and “extremely dangerous” (in the words of the reports and the Air Force officers who received them) in accord with the reports we’ve already sent you, is it reasonable to state that it is as likely as not that the veteran aviators have been exposed to those contaminants? I am a humble history teacher who ended up in a flight suit for 26 years, but it makes sense to me. If I were around flower pollen, touching it and breathing it suspended in the air of a confined airspace such as an aircraft, I think I’d end up with some pollen in and on me. 

I also feel that is a reasonable and logical conclusion regarding the contaminants left in our planes which we flew for ten years and in which we spent thousands of hours. May I have a simple sentence in agreement or disagreement with this?

Alternately, it would be as effective to state that in your opinion, having read the Air Force test results and the description of the C-123/UC-123 as “heavily contaminated” and “extremely dangerous”, that you would not like to fly in it for ten years and work in it for thousands of hours because of an obvious concern for dioxin exposure. It is too late for us and for our flight nurses…our duty placed us aboard those airplanes for a decade, flying cargo and aeromedical evacuation missions all over the world, and we have experienced what exposures there were, good or bad. That was our duty, nobody knew the situation at the time, but they do now, and we need to give the VA a simple conclusion…we were in an airplane the Air Force itself states was heavily contaminated, and thereby were exposed (or in the VA’s precise wording, “were as likely to as not”) to dioxin. Then they will treat our guys if the specific illnesses are present.

Forgive me if I’ve already sent them to you, but attached are a couple Air Force test results showing the dioxin testing, the press release showing the military had to melt the remaining airplanes into scrap metal ingots because no economical way of decontamination was identified, and a conclusion prepared by the Oregon Health Sciences University in which they did conclude in our favor.

I apologize for turning to you again when you’ve already spent a good deal of time in carefully considering our request. I ask that you narrow our request to the simple issue as I raised it above…that would be all we need to get medical care, and it would not mean NIH establishing policy, not debating rights or wrongs…nothing except a simple answer. And it is not a trick question.

Your suggestion that we turn to our Air Force doctors is a good one which we can’t do. We’re retired and most of us now on Social Security…the Air Force won’t even examine a retiree for Agent Orange exposure. They tell us to turn to the VA. The VA says for us to prove we’ve been exposed to Agent Orange. Somehow I hear in this circle of indecision a new chapter being typed for “Catch 22” by Joseph Heller! Please help us have our chapter turn out okay, won’t you?

Again my thanks.  Help if you can.

Respectfully,

Wesley T. Carter, Major USAF Retired

-----Original Message-----
From: Birnbaum, Linda (NIH/NIEHS) [E] <birnbaumls@niehs.nih.gov>
To: rustysilverwings@gmail.com <rustysilverwings@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 9, 2011 3:08 pm
Subject: Response to Agent Orange Exposure Concerns

Dear Sirs:

Please see the attached letter of response to your concerns about exposure to Agent Orange and dioxins in service personnel, that was sent to NIH-Listens.