Why Were The C-123s Destroyed by USAF in 2010?

C-123 HAZMAT Quarantine Area

Because they were toxic. Because veterans might learn of the toxic exposures and turn to VA for
medical care (AF agreed this was to be prevented.) Because USAF sworn testimony in federal court was that the airplanes were "a danger to public health" and could never be sold or parted out.

Apparently, being a threat to public health had no bearing on whether the crews who flew them years earlier might need to be alerted to toxins and their health concerns.

And the planes also had to be destroyed...quickly and quietly...because of a threatened $3.4 billion EPA fine. $32,000 per day, per airplane. Good thing the EPA had never been fully informed of the Bone Yard's special C-123 HAZMAT quarantine area, but the toxic airplanes couldn't sit behind that "restricted access" fence forever. There were even concerns that rainwater off the airplanes might contaminate the soil beneath them.

But $3.4 billion was a stand-alone major focus, and compelled action. Unless they could continue the cover up, a $3,400,000,000 for an EPA fine is not a mistake Hill or Davis-Monthan AFB officials wanted to have on their annual efficiency reports – not much efficiency in such a monumental fine. So the planes had to be destroyed, and it had better be done very, very quietly.

And it was. Nobody noticed. Ever. And the exposed veterans didn't notice, either, and didn't know we'd been exposed to harmful levels of dioxin until years later. A great success for Hill AFB Public Affairs.

In 2014, a VA consultant told the Institute of Medicine the C-123s were destroyed "because they were obsolete." He did not mention the fact that in 2009 he'd personally recommended destruction of the airplanes due to their toxicity and to prevent veterans' claims.

Here's the AF memo detailing concerns about the EPA fine:

VA Redefines "Exposure" to Block Agent Orange Exposure Claims

OSHA, CDC, NIH and all the others...not quite good enough for VA. At least, not when VA is casting about for something to use to prevent veterans' exposure claims.

To other federal agencies, exposure is defined as contact between a chemical (of any type) and the outer boundary of an organism. CDC, in about the same manner, defines exposure as:

Exposure: Contact with a substance by swallowing, breathing, or touching the skin or eyes.

OHSA defines occupational exposure...the kind experienced by C-123 aircrews, as:

Occupational Exposure means reasonably anticipated skin, eye, mucous membrane, or parenteral contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials that may result from the performance of an employee's duties. 

But the VA needed to create its own definition. Not that there was anything incorrect or unscientific in standard medical or scientific definitions of exposure...its just that VA needed to create a definition to prevent exposure claims. All the other, scientifically correct definitions were, in fact, accurate but that was exactly why VA needed to create its own. Accuracy, and scientific correctness, were what VA saw as the problem in standard definitions of exposure.

VA needed to change the meaning of the word to prevent exposed veterans from qualifying for treatment of Agent Orange exposures.  Here's what the VA invented in their Post Deployment Health Section of Veterans Health Administration, in response to staff members insisting that no C-123 veterans would be permitted to have their Agent Orange exposure claims approved:

Exposure = contamination field + bioavailability.

As VA's Office of General Counsel explained, VA hasn't needed to define the word "exposure" before. There hadn't been any need, because  for one thing, VA never pretended to have the regulatory or scientific authority, or the need, to create its own unscientific and policy-oriented definition of the word. For nearly every situation, the standard reference of Dorlands Medical Illustrated Dictionary was ideal for every occasion.

But that need to come up with VA's own definition, however unscientific, arose just as soon as C-123 veterans pointed out the 1991 Agent Orange Act, and the multiple postings in the Federal Register all very clearly specify "exposure' as the single qualification for veterans to be able to seek VA medical care for Agent Orange-related illnesses.

So VA couldn't easily escape the obligation, oft-repeated, of honoring exposure claims and thus it simply changed the definition of the word...at least, within the VA. That's how the DOD, USPHS, CDC,NIEHS, EPA, NIH, OSHA, WHO, and all other government agencies consider C-123 veterans to have been exposed to Agent Orange, but the VA uses its private, and very unique, redefinition just so that the vets' claims can be denied.

Recent C-123 IOM Study Project: Views of Others

From others in Federal Government, commenting on the C-123 study project VA issued to the IOM
last month:

"It is important to note that the Federal Government possesses organic scientific resources and expertise that has already concluded these aircraft likely posed a health hazard and the aircrew were likely exposed to dioxin. The introduction and arguable necessity of a non-governmental body to opine to the Federal Government on this topic should raise some questions, if not only because it involves additional time and cost to the taxpayer to execute a contract for a purpose which may be unnecessary and unjustified given the scientific facts already known and the Federal statute already in force."

Already having issued findings supporting C-123 exposure claims are the CDC/ATSDR, NIH/NIESH, US Public Health Service, and numerous physicians and scientists outside the government.

Veterans Urge EPA to Release Dioxin Cancer Study

from INSIDEEPA.COM

Veterans, Environmentalists Seek Final EPA Dioxin Cancer Assessment

Environmental and veteran groups are preparing to petition EPA to finalize the agency's long-delayed assessment of the cancer risks of dioxin and are cultivating congressional support for the effort that could lead federal and state regulators to further strengthen cleanup goals for the contaminant at sites around the country.

Sources with the Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) and the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ) say the groups are drafting a petition they will circulate at a series of meetings with veterans and also through the groups' websites calling for EPA to finalize the cancer portion of the reassessment of dioxin's health risks, which the agency drafted in 2003, and pledged last year to finalize "expeditiously."

Dioxin is a category of persistent and accumulative chemicals inadvertently created through industrial processes that involve incineration and also through the burning of trash and forest fires. It was a primary ingredient in the herbicide Agent Orange used during the Vietnam War.

Last year, EPA released the non-cancer portion of the reassessment of dioxin health risks, prompting EPA scientists to calculate a stringent health goal of 50 parts per trillion for use in determining cleanup levels for the common contaminant in soil. Although EPA, at the time, promised the expeditious release of the cancer portion, advocates say they have received no specific indication of when the cancer document will be finalized (Risk Policy Report, April 17, 2012).

In addition to the veterans and environmentalists, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) is also planning to push EPA to finalize the cancer assessment. Markey, who served in the House of Representatives before being elected to the Senate, has previously written to EPA asking the agency to release the dioxin health risk assessment.

A spokeswoman with Markey's office told Inside EPA that Markey's staff has spoken with environmental groups about renewing pressure on the EPA, focusing on the release of the cancer portion of the reassessment, and also for updated cleanup goals for dioxin contaminated soil at waste sites.

Markey "will continue to urge EPA to take action on this and as well [he] will continue to monitor the work in communities around cleanups," the spokeswoman said.

A source with the Community Advisory Group (CAG), which is assisting EPA with the Dow Chemical Co.'s cleanup of the Saginaw-Tittabawassee River in Michigan, says action on the long-delayed cleanup increased considerably after EPA released its reassessment of dioxin's non-cancer risks last year. 

The cleanup there is focusing on containing dioxin-contaminated sediment in some parts of the river and cleaning others. But the source also says cleanup goals for the river remain unclear and that additional information on dioxin's toxicity could help ensure the river is cleaned to the appropriate level. The source says, however, the cleanup is not waiting for updated information on cancer risk, and that it is unclear when that part of the reassessment may be issued.

The extent to which dioxin causes cancer has been a concern since at least 1985 when EPA, in a prior assessment, called dioxin a probable human carcinogen. In the 2003 draft reassessment, EPA strengthened the language, calling dioxin "carcinogenic to humans," though since that time, the agency has issued new guidelines for classifying chemicals' carcinogenicity.

Also, in 2006, the National Academies of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council found the 2003 draft reassessment underestimates uncertainty concerning the health risks of dioxin and might overstate the chemicals' human cancer risk, according to a 2006 NAS statement. The NAS urged EPA to re-estimate dioxin risks using several different assumptions, before finalizing the reassessment.

EPA says on its website that it will complete the cancer portion of the reanalysis "as expeditiously as possible" and that the document will include a reevaluation of available cancer mode-of-action data and also will have improved cancer dose-response modeling that includes justification for the approaches the agency takes.

EPA's website says almost every living organism has been exposed to dioxin but that by working with states and industry the agency has reduced known and measurable dioxin emissions in recent years. Those efforts have reduced air emissions of dioxin by 90 percent so now most Americans have only low levels of exposure, according to the agency's website.

The VVA source says dioxin exposures through Agent Orange continue to cause adverse health effects in the children and grandchildren of Vietnam War veterans. The CHEJ source says dioxin exposure poses risks for people near contaminated sites and that the chemicals are also present in fatty foods such as hamburger meat and dairy products because airborne dioxin blows to farmland and is consumed by cattle.

The push that VVA and CHEJ are planning comes a year and a half after EPA's pledge to finalize the cancer reassessment expeditiously, and grows out of dozens of meetings the VVA has held and will continue to hold to educate the group's 70,000 members around the country on the health effects of dioxin exposure.

During the meetings, the VVA is also collecting reports from veterans and their children and grandchildren on continued effects of dioxin they say are occurring as a result of exposure to Agent Orange decades ago. The group plans to use those accounts to push for legislation requiring additional research on dioxin's health effects, and as part of the call for EPA to finalize the cancer reassessment.

"We've been talking to various people on the Hill and these meetings are ongoing," the VVA source says, adding that meetings with VVA members have recently been held in Michigan, California, Louisiana and Pennsylvania. The group plans to begin circulating the petition, now in draft form, in the coming weeks, at upcoming meetings and on its website.

The CHEJ source says finalizing the reassessment of dioxin's cancer risk could prompt federal and state regulators to strengthen cleanup goals for contaminated sites, though it is not certain that cleanup goals will change since the results of assessments are not legally enforceable, allowing cleanup decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis.

That cleanups are not required to follow the newest and best science is a key frustration for environmentalists, the source says.

New C-123 YouTube Video - "Death of the Provider" Spring 2013

Just uploaded today and ready for viewing, "Death of the Provider" addresses the dioxin contamination of the post-Vietnam War C-123 fleet. These aircraft were flown between 1972 and 1982, then retired to the Air Force desert boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB and mass-destroyed in 2010.

Initially, there were no worries about Agent Orange contamination. That changed when tests were completed in 1994 at the Air Force Museum and later, in 1997 on the boneyard's C-123s, and toxicologists deemed them "heavily contaminated" and "a danger to pubic health."

Eventually there was nothing to do but destroy them, as decontamination was impracticable, if it would work at all. EPA rules permitted the shredding of the airplanes into scraps the size of a cell phone, and the mess was all then smelted into aluminum ingots.

The newest video deals with the destruction of these airplanes and calls for action with Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA, illogically, pretends that service aboard the dioxin-contaminated C-123 somehow did not expose the veterans. Science says otherwise, and our struggle for service connection continues!

note: see our earlier YouTube video of an overall survey of the C-123 Agent Orange contamination issue. More videos follow, dealing with the Air Force Consultative Letter of 2011 and the VA's position denying service connection for Agent Orange exposure. An amazing saga of aviation history.

JSRRC Visit Successful!

On February 27, I visited with the Army's Joint Service Records Research Center, positioned at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Met by their chief, Mr. Domenic Baldini, we reviewed the concerns of C-123 veterans over a cup of coffee, and Mr. Baldini graciously let me bend his ear as long as I felt it a good exchange.

My key objective was to review with Mr. Baldini the extensive set of official documents...Air Force, GSA, NEA, CDC and so many other sources...pointing to the dioxin contamination of the C-123 transport we flew between 1972-1982. So long ago!

Mr. Baldini took special pains to detail his mission: it is to serve as the archivist of the military services regarding Agent Orange and PTSD. He is not a scientist to evaluate data, he is not even an historian who can review two documents and reach a third (and logical) conclusion from contemporary data (A plus B equals C...he might understand that but cannot report such a thought process, however logical.) He only reports what official US government documents describe. As Joe Friday on Dragnet says, "Just the facts, Sir."

Of note here is our insistence that JSRRC understand no mention was made back in 1972-1982 in unit histories of the 439th TAW or its subordinate units because (1) we were told the 1979 survey of Patches was proof nothing was wrong and (2) nobody worried about Agent Orange, especially once we were told none was on the airplanes, and thus no mention was made in official unit histories. I know...I supervised the unit historian for the 439th Tactical Airlift Wing (MSgt Marshall Hathaway) and spent hours getting the history into a format General Haugan would accept! Still, even with the absence in this particular document of record,

Further suppressing the paperwork needed by JSRRC was the mysterious step taken by the Air Force Office of Environmental Law in 1996, directing that "all information be kept in official channels only." That wrapped up information about C-123 contamination until 2011 when it was finally released via FOIA to the veterans. Too late to help avoid health issues. And remember - this was somehow, NOT a coverup! Right! Roger that!

I stressed JSRRC should include other contemporary and subsequent documents to conclude whether or not the C-123 fleet was contaminated, and if possible, reach a conclusion about the veterans' exposure. In particular, we reviewed the 1979 Conway and 1994 Porter/Weisman reports, each of which was positive for contamination by military herbicide. Further proof was in the many USAF toxicological studies of the stored surplus C-123 fleet, the January 2000 GSA court case where the USAF toxicologist testified under oath before a federal judge that the C-123 fleet was "heavily contaminated and a danger to public health."

Mr. Baldini repeated his duty as an archivist, able to address only official USAF documents, so I laid them on the table (having earlier provided hard copy as well as a DVD).

The result: Mr. Badlin expects that JSRRC will be able to provide a more comprehensive response to VA inquiries about C-123 veterans' claims, no longer simply stating no materials exist to substantiate the veteran's assertions. Otherwise, the claim is doomed, with VA using the JSRRC negative response as adequate proof to deny. Mr. Baldini works with Mr. Jim Sampsel of the VA's Compensation Services, and I've had the opportunity to meet with him. We were assured in 2011, well before other federal agencies and university experts concluded we've been exposed, that C-123 veterans are not and will not become eligible for VA Agent Orange benefits and their perspective has not changed. Nor will it. Even when regional offices suggest approval, such claims receive an "advisory opinion" insuring they will be denied.

Still, at least JSRRC is to be congratulated for its honesty and dedication to provide VA and each veteran a comprehensive detailing of its examination of the claims. The 15 JSRRC researchers (they need MORE!) are to be congratulated and thanked. All we asked for was a fair shake...we flew the airplane, there are officials reports about its contamination, and we want that history documented to the VA so that if our claims are denied, it will be for reasons other than the truth of our service! JSRRC will give us that fair shake from now on, and the VA will utilize other steps to prevent claim approvals.

Ya gotta wonder: there are so few of us C-123 veterans. The VA broadly swung open the benefits gate to PTSD and other Agent Orange groups, yet even when we provide expert medical, scientific and appropriate federal agency supporting opinions, the VA insists it will abide only with the views of its own scientists.

DOD Document Supports C-123 Dioxin Dermal Exposure Claims

Yesterday a scientist with the US Army Public Health Command forwarded to me one of their important documents titled "Health Effects of Dioxin Exposure." I found these parts especially informative, when viewed in light of the VA's insistance that there is no possibility (only from the VA perspective, not from that of other federal agencies or the scientific community!) of our dermal exposure from service aboard the contaminated C-123 transports.

The VA says we could not have been exposed to dioxin on the airplanes via dermal exposure because the skin is a near-perfect barrier. How reassuring.

The Army, Navy and Air Force, in preparing "Health Effects of Dioxin Exposure," state "Dioxins can be absorbed through food, air (inhalation), or through the skin."

The VA says we couldn't be harmed by dioxin, which, according to Compensation and Pension (C&P), "In summary, there is no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects. How reassuring.

The Army, Navy and Air Force, in preparing "Health Effects of Dioxin Exposure," state "...dioxins are considered to be carcinogens by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Agency." Similarly, except in the case of C-123 veterans, the VA says dioxin is a carcinogen. 

Gosh, was there something special about those Nomex flight suits? Like Superman's cape and costume, were we magically protected? Is dioxin like kryptonite?  Or does the VA ignore science, medicine, law, logic and other federal agencies in their determination to prevent C-123 veterans' valid Agent Orange exposure claims?

Amazing...forty years of "those Agent Orange airplanes" except the minute the first veteran's exposure claim reached their desks, and suddenly, by magic and not by law, science, logic or medicine, the airplanes were perfectly safe, perfectly clean. According to the VA. And only the VA.

Health Effects of Dioxin Exposure 

For Service members 

Important Facts:

• Dioxins are chlorine-containing chemicals that are

considered environmental pollutants.  While often associated

with burning, dioxins are produced by a wide variety of  

industrial processes.  Dioxins can be found in the air, water,

soil, and foods throughout the world.  

• Incomplete combustion resulting from low burning

temperatures and reduced oxygen availability is a primary

source of dioxins.  Open-pit burning of trash, especially

plastics, can produce dioxins.  Dioxins are also found in

tobacco smoke and car exhaust.

• Foods we consume are the main source of our exposure to

dioxins.  Foods high in saturated fats tend to have higher  

levels of dioxins.  Dioxins can also enter the body through

the air we breathe (for example, in smoke).

• All people are exposed to small amounts of dioxins. The

health effects, if any, associated with these low levels of

exposure are not fully understood.

What are dioxins?

Dioxins are complex, toxic chemicals containing carbon,

hydrogen, oxygen, and chlorine.  They tend to stay in the

environment for long periods.  Although dioxins are released by

volcanic eruptions and forest fires, most dioxins are unwanted

by-products of human activity including industrial processes. 

These include smelting, bleaching of paper pulp, manufacturing

of herbicides/ pesticides, and exhaust from internal combustion

engines used in most vehicles.  Open burning of trash and other

materials is a primary source of dioxins throughout the world --

especially low temperature/low oxygen fires that burn materials 

(such as plastics) containing chlorine.  Incinerators usually are

better for burning waste, because they increase the temperature

and oxygen levels for more complete and efficient burning, 

 thus reducing the amount of dioxins produced.  Dioxins vary 

in their ability to cause harm to people.  While some dioxins 

are very potent, others are less so, or are not harmful at all.     

How can I be exposed to dioxins? 

Because dioxins are found widely throughout the 

environment in the air, water, and soil, nearly everyone is 

exposed to dioxins in small amounts.  People living near 

incinerators that are not operating correctly or who live or 

work close to hazardous waste sites that contain dioxins 

could have greater exposures.  Dioxins can be absorbed 

through food, air (inhalation), or through the skin.  

Most of the dioxins in our bodies come from our food.

   

Because dioxins easily dissolve in fat, foods high in fats tend 

to be higher in dioxins.  The saturated fats in dairy products, 

meat, and some fish and other seafoods are major sources 

of dioxins.   Dioxin levels in foods vary according to where 

the foods were grown or raised (more dioxins are in the 

foods where levels were higher in the environment).  

Although rumors have circulated that dioxins could migrate 

into foods from plastic containers used in microwave ovens, 

the FDA reports that this does not occur. 

(http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2002/602_plastic.html). 

What health effects can be associated with 

exposure to dioxins? 

The amount (or dose) of dioxins people are exposed to 

determines the amount in their bodies.  The amount of and 

 the specific types of dioxins present, determines the 

potential health effects.  As levels of dioxins in the body rise, 

the risk of health effects increases.  Because dioxins 

dissolve in fats, they are often deposited in fatty tissues in 

our bodies and stay in place for long periods.   Although 

rare, people who have been exposed to very high levels of 

dioxins may develop skin rashes or a severe acne-like 

condition called “chloracne,” which can be a serious 

disfiguring condition.  Chemical workers, who have had high 

exposures and therefore large amounts of dioxins stored in 

their bodies, appear to be at increased risk of developing 

cancer.  Many forms of dioxin are considered to be 

carcinogens by the US Environmental Protection Agency      

(EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO).    

      

Page 2 

Laboratory animal studies involving both low and high dioxin

exposures have identified developmental and reproductive

problems. There are also indications of problems with the

immune and nervous systems, but human studies are not

conclusive.  More research in laboratory animals, including

studies involving long-term, low-level exposures to dioxins, is

needed in order to better understand the risks dioxin exposures

pose to people.  

Studies of military veterans who were exposed to herbicide

orange (also referred to as Agent Orange), which was

contaminated with dioxins, have reported a variety of health

problems, some of which have been attributed to exposure to

dioxins.  Herbicide orange was used during the Vietnam War to

kill foliage and make it harder for the enemy to wage war without

being seen. (For more information, see  

http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/benefits/herbicide/).  

How can exposure to dioxins be prevented?

Because dioxins can be released during low temperature

burning, open burning of trash should be avoided whenever 

possible.  Sometimes this is not possible during 

deployments.  When open burning is required, measures 

should be taken to reduce individuals’ exposures to smoke 

and potentially to dioxins.  These steps include eliminating 

certain types of  materials (like plastics) to be  burned; using 

properly operating incinerators; and locating burn operations 

downwind so the  smoke blows away from areas where 

people are located.  

 The amount of dioxins in one’s body can be gradually 

reduced by choosing to eat foods less likely to contain 

dioxins.  For example, one can limit consumption of high-fat 

foods and liver, since they tend to contain higher levels of 

dioxins, and also reduce the amount of foods that are eaten 

that come from locations known to contain higher levels of 

dioxins, such as seafood from certain bodies of water.  

There is also recent research that suggests that consuming 

some natural chemicals in vegetables might block the effects 

of dioxins.  In general, following Federal Dietary Guidelines 

may also reduce dioxin levels in your body.  People should 

also stop smoking, or never start, to ensure better overall 

health and to reduce dioxin exposure.

Long-Term Dermal Exposure to C-123 Agent Orange

DANGERS OF DIOXIN EXPOSURES: ABSORPTION THROUGH THE SKIN.

Traditionally, people concerned about the toxicity of chemicals have mainly worried about the mouth and lungs as a means of entry into the human body. Now new evidence suggests that absorption through the skin may be an important way for some chemicals to enter the body. In addition, the skin of babies may allow more toxics to pass through it than the skin of older humans.

Researchers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences studied the absorption of dioxins and furans in mice and rats. They discovered several new aspects of chemical absorption by the skin: (1) the skin presents a more effective barrier against some chemicals than against others; (2) mice absorb a greater percent of dioxin when lower doses are administered than when higher doses are administered; (3) young adult rats absorbed a greater percentage of the administered dose than did middle-aged rats.

In the past, the theory has been that the skin (which has a total area of 1.8 square meters in the adult human) has served as a passive barrier to chemicals. Now it is apparent that the skin is very active in metabolizing (biologically altering) chemicals and that these metabolic processes affect the way the body absorbs (or does not absorb) a particular chemical. Sweat glands, sebaceous glands (which produce oils), and hair follicles can all contribute to the way chemicals are absorbed through the skin.

Chemicals administered at low doses are more effectively absorbed through the skin than are chemicals administered at high doses. Mice receiving 0.3 micrograms of dioxin per kilogram of body weight absorbed 40% of the dose; mice receiving 32 to 320 micrograms of dioxin per kilogram of body weight absorbed less than 20% of the dose. This may be important for human exposures, which usually occur at low doses over long periods rather than in high doses over short periods.

Three month old rats (young adults) absorbed 16% of dioxin applied to their skin; nine-month-old rats (middle-aged) absorbed less than 5% of a similar dose.

Dr. Linda Birnbaum, who directed the research, says that her work shows that acute toxicity from skin exposure to dioxins and furans is "unlikely." Chronic (longterm) toxicity is a different matter: That's where "you're going to have the potential to build up a body burden" of the toxic chemicals, she says. Her work with young rats also concerns her because there is evidence that the skin of human babies is much more permeable than skin of adults.

The importance of this work to C-123 crews is this: our exposure was cumulative and over a very long term. This paper argues AGAINST the VA pretense that we had no dermal or inhalation exposure to dioxin. Any risk assessments that have been done without considering skin absorption should be redone in light of the new findings.

Get: David Brewster and others, "Comparative Dermal Absorption of 2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Three Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans." TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY, Vol. 97 (January, 1989), pgs. 156-166. Reprints are free from: Linda S. Birnbaum, Systemic Toxicology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle, North Carolina 27709; phone (919) 541-3212. Ask Ms. Birnbaum for a copy of her unpublished paper on absorption of dioxins by young rats, which she presented at a meeting of the Society of Toxicology in Atlanta, GA, the week of Feb. 27, 1989.
--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

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. 



Outside the scope of this teleconference, our small group working on this issue feels compelled to add an additional concern. We expect to eventually prevail (or at least, our widows will) regarding "Boots on the Airplane" so that if we can show service aboard a contaminated C-123 and proof of an AO illness, a claim can be put forward to the VA. Our new effort will be to uncover the confusing reason for the intensity of the VA's dedication in denying our claims....Questions arise:

• why did the Air Force take drastic measures to destroy ("the Navy way...the quiet way" as Mr. Boor of the 505th puts it)the surplus C-123 fleet specifically to prevent aircrews' Agent Orange exposure claims? 
• What right did AF have to take any action designed to prevent qualified veterans from putting claims forward to the VA as cited by Mr. Wm. (Buddy) Boor of the 505th?
• why did versions of the 75 ABW/PA press release about the destruction edit out mention of Agent Orange and dioxin?
• why is the Blue Water Navy's highly theoretical argument regarding Agent Orange reaching out to sea from contaminated Vietnamese rivers accepted by the VA but our proven exposure to dioxin on the airplane ignored by the VA? Where's the benefit of the doubt here?
• why did the Air Force, once dioxin contamination was scientifically established in 1994, fail to notify aircrews of their exposure to hazardous substances, in violation of both state and federal laws?
• why did the Air Force Office of Environmental Law, in 1996, recommend information about the dioxin-contaminated aircraft "be kept in official channels only?"
• why did the Air Force, having scientifically tested and labeled the surplus contaminated aircraft as "extremely dangerous, extremely hazardous, extremely contaminated" and a "threat to public health", one requiring employees to wear hazmat protection...why did the AF support the VA in characterizing AF actions as merely the result of "an overly cautious mindset" so that the severity of decades of Air Force tests, reports, correspondence and actions would be minimized or disregarded when weighing veterans' claims?
• why did the Air Force fail to reveal the dioxin contaminated C-123K/UC-123K aircraft stored in quarantine at Davis-Monthan during the Arizona State EPA Hazardous Material Survey team visit?
• why did the Air Force Office of Inspector General dismiss the aircrew's complaint without investigation?
• why did the Air Force Office of Special Investigations at Davis-Mothan fail to investigate complaints made by knowledgeable officers regarding the Agent Orange issue?
• why did State Department and the AF Security Assistance Center fail to notify foreign governments of sales to them of dioxin-contaminated C-123s? Is that why the VA opposes veterans claims for service aboard those contaminated aircraft..to minimize visibility?
• what role did the attitude of the Senior Consultant to the Office of Secretary of Defense have regarding efforts to prevent aircrew Agent Orange claims? Did his statement labeling them as "trash haulers, freeloaders" affect Air Force actions?
• why were FOIAs to the Air Staff, Air Force Board of Correction of Military Records, Air Force Surgeon General, School of Aerospace Medicine and Air Force Security Assistance Center not answered as required by law?
• why did the VA brief Congress about C-123s and Agent Orange, stating that there had not been any dioxin tests on the aircraft after Vietnam, and fail to reveal the many Air Force tests that were completed?
• what would the VA, EPA, USAF and other agencies say if Patches, in its 1994 degree of contamination, were to be returned to flight status...safe, or unsafe?
• After HQ USAF/IG rejected the aircrews' IG complaint regarding C-123 dioxin contamination it was refiled with DOD/IG in June. Their regulations describe an investigation cycle taking not more than 3 months, yet by the end of October why still no response?

Audie Murphy, the most decorated soldier of World War II (and a Texas National Guardsman) was a great soldier and not-so-great husband. His widow Mrs. Pamala Murphy, passed away last month in California. She dedicated her life to serving veterans, working as patient liaison at the Sepulveda Veterans Hospital full-time until age 87. She gave every veteran the same respect she had for her distinguished husband. (BTW, the first VA hospital I was ever in was Audie Murphy VA Medical Center, San Antonio TX). Audie Murphy was young...so young that after the war he could portray himself in To Hell and Back as a 16-year old kid! His best movie was The Red Badge of Courage...interesting to have a genuine hero like him explore the character's fear and cowardice with such understanding and passion. 


Great input from Ranch Hand veterans, the elder statesmen of Agent Orange issues, who on 20 May offered us a reference about dioxin which is excellent reading. Dioxin comes from lots of sources. 


I have been trying to get various AF leaders to comment on the Narrative and the reports generated by the AF about C-123K contamination. Everyone, including EPA, keeps bouncing inquiries back to the VA. It is a knee-jerk reaction and gets a hot potato off their desk, but I sure wish we could get input one way or the other. 
Several 74th and 731st members have their AO/dioxin paperwork in with the VA, and the New Hampshire  State Department of Veterans Affairs VSO considers it a solid case very likely  (for his particular client) to get approval on the first pass, and virtually certain on appeal. Hard to deny the AF reports about contamination, hard to deny exposure to that contamination when flight orders place a veteran aboard the contaminated aircraft for years, and hard to deny the numerous AO-presumitives...but still the VA will try very, very hard to do just that...deny the claims! 


Potato (and onion) farmer Paul Bailey is traveling this next week but still working on getting health information and flight orders from everyone and building a data base for us. John Harris has been super about digging up other influential folks, ROA leadership, 731st veterans, and paperwork of use to us. One important thing we're looking for now is any VA denials of application for service connection from aircrews on Providers submitted between 1972-1982. 

We need to better understand the approach the VA took on denying applications. General Walker had prostate cancer and applied for service connection but was denied...others have as well and we need to get info. I will be submitted an FOIA to the VA on that today but a response will be a month or more away. 


Please...if you have a VA application which has been denied, please copy me on it after blocking your personal information! If you know the survivors of folks who've died of AO presumptive illnesses (such as MSgt Bob Boyd, General Walker and Lou Paskovitz) please contact them and offer information from our group...they might benefit from our efforts and I need their input if they'd be kind enough to correspond.