Secretary of Veterans Affairs: "Agent Orange and Vets: A 40-Year Wait

Agent Orange and Veterans: A 40-Year Wait (first published August 30, 2010.) The Secretary states VA policy about Agent Orange being harmful, a position now disputed by VA consultants and by Veterans Health Administration.

Secretary Eric K. Shinseki
August 30, 2010

With the unwavering support of President Obama, VA is transforming to meet its 21st Century responsibilities.  Advocacy, on behalf of every generation of Veterans, is central to this transformation.

Agent Orange was a blend of herbicides used by the U.S. military, during the Vietnam conflict, to deny concealment to enemy forces.  More than 19 million gallons of herbicides were sprayed to remove foliage and undergrowth.  The most common, Agent Orange, was sprayed in all four military zones of South Vietnam.

Heavily sprayed areas included the inland forests near the Demilitarized Zone; inland forests at the junction of the borders of Cambodia, Laos, and South Vietnam; inland forests north and northwest of Saigon; mangrove forests on the southernmost peninsula of Vietnam; and mangrove forests along major shipping channels southeast of Saigon.

The issue of Agent Orange’s toxic effects on Veterans, who served in Vietnam, has simmered for decades.  Its insidious impact on those exposed to it has become increasingly apparent. (emphasis added) That growing awareness has resulted in the Congress’, this Department’s, and the Institute of Medicine’s previous validations of some 12 diseases, which, to date, have been granted presumption of service connection for those exposed to Agent Orange.

Last October, based on the requirements of the Agent Orange Act of 1991 and the Institute of Medicine’s report, “Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2008,” I determined that the evidence provided was sufficient to support presumptions of service connection for three additional diseases: Parkinson’s Disease, Hairy Cell and other Chronic B-Cell Leukemia, and Ischemic Heart Disease.  After a public rulemaking process, we are now issuing a final regulation creating these new presumptions.

This action means that Veterans who were exposed to herbicides in service and who suffer from one of the “presumed” illnesses do not have to prove an association between their medical problems and their military service.  This action helps Veterans to overcome the evidentiary requirements that might otherwise make it difficult for them to establish such an association in order to qualify for healthcare and other benefits needed as a result of their diseases.  The “Presumption” simplifies and accelerates the application process and ensures that Veterans will receive the benefits they deserve.

As many as 150,000 Veterans may submit Agent Orange claims in the next 12 to 18 months. Additionally, VA will review approximately 90,000 previously denied claims from Vietnam Veterans for service connection for these three new diseases. All those who are awarded service-connection, and who are not currently enrolled in the VA health care system, will become eligible for enrollment.

Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam, including its inland waterways, between January 9, 1962 and May 7, 1975, are presumed to have been exposed to herbicides.  If you know a Veteran who may have been exposed to herbicides in service and who suffers from one of the diseases that may be presumptively service connected, the Veteran or the Veteran's family can visit our website to find out how to file a claim for presumptive conditions related to herbicide exposure, as well as what information is needed by VA to determine disability compensation or survivors’ benefits.  Additionally, VA’s Office of Public Health can answer questions about Agent Orange and VA’s services for Veterans exposed to it. (blogger: Actually, they construct redefinitions of exposure to prevent exposure claims.)

This rule is long overdue.  It delivers justice to those who have suffered from Agent Orange’s toxic effects for 40 years.  I have been invited to testify before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee on 23 September to explain these decisions, and I am happy to do that.  It was the right decision, and the President and I are proud to finally provide this group of Veterans the care and benefits they have long deserved.

VA is committed to addressing the health care needs of Veterans from all eras.  Forty years from today, a future Secretary of VA should not be adjudicating presumptive disabilities associated with our current conflicts.  Change is difficult for any good organization, but we are transforming this Department to advocate for Veterans.  We will not let our Veterans languish without hope for service-connected disabilities resulting from their service.

VA Has a Penchant for Denial

However, the VA has taken an official position that there is no evidence of any long-term problems associated with these incidences. The laissez faire opinion from the VA shows a shocking lack of respect for the issue itself, let alone the disturbing disregard for our veterans.

During Vietnam, soldiers were informed that Agent Orange was safe. The truths about Agent Orange are still being revealed today, even after 51 years of the war’s ending. Our veterans, their children, and the Vietnamese people have suffered from cancers to physical deformities.

Ironically, the VA does acknowledge that, “Veterans who were closer to burn pit smoke or exposed for longer periods may be at greater risk. Health effects depend on a number of other factors, such as the kind of waste being burned and wind direction.”
Eric K. Shinseki was Secretary  of Veterans Affairs until replaced by Secretary McDonald

Christmas Morning Reflections From a C-123 Guy

"Aren't you bitter?" she asked me. She meant bitter about the VA officials so dedicated to preventing veterans' access to medical care. She meant about the AF officials over the years who dealt with the contaminated C-123 fleet but never bothered to worry about the health of the crews already exposed.

We'd both awakened early this Christmas morning. As we waited for grandbabies to wake up and come to cuddle, our conversation under the warm covers drifted to the theme of the Christmas Eve services we attended here in snowy Denver. That pastor's metaphor addressed having to be led, each of us, many times in our lives - and how we all depend on unseen others, and God, to carry burdens when we are heavy laden.

My wife's question wove the Christmas message into our C-123 battle with the Veterans Administration. I thought about her question while framing an answer (contemplation and preparation are usually not parts of my conversational skill group) - and it was "no, not bitter. Disappointed, tired, weary of the vast amount of information about dioxin and toxicology to deal with - but not bitter."

Even after watching dear friends like Gabby Gadbois die, I'm not bitter. Even after learning of disease heaped upon disease in all the hospital stays I've had this year, with a PICC line still dripping medicine into my heart - not bitter.

Not bitter because there is much to be grateful for, and mostly for others carrying such a mammoth part of the load I'd otherwise be crushed beneath. First and foremost, grateful for my wife picking up responsibilities she'd never imagined having to manage by herself...and not because of any lack of qualification (she's got several more graduate degrees than I do) but by the sheer effort she must expend. All the housework, all the yard work, coordinating refurbishing contractors, leadership as an ordained elder in several church programs, Shelly's House for offenders...and caring for me hand and foot. Literally, as I cannot even put on that my own shoes and socks. She is my rock and my foundation.

So the bitterness leaves me altogether. What I conclude, however, is that we're dealing with people not like us. Not like the officers and NCOs I've served with. Not like George Gadbois. Not like Mike Walker. Not like Bob Boyd or Tim Olmsted. So many VA and Air Force officials just are not like us.

I don't believe I have ever served with an officer who would make battle against us as have the VA officials who sat around the conference table twice this year. I know I have never served with officers and NCOs who would learn of such a health hazard as our exposure yet somehow not to notify the crews involved or accept an order to hide the information from them. "Hell, NO" would have been the response from anyone I've ever known. Not the kind of American officer or American NCO that this Nation trusts us to be and hopes we will be faced with hard decisions.

We are not the kind of officers who would have tolerated Abu Grahib. We are the officers who in honor would have stopped it, at pistol point if necessary. We are not the officers who would fail our wingman - ever. We are the soldiers who truly carry our honor and our country's values into the military. Trash haulers, perhaps. Freeloaders - never. We are American soldiers. We were the kind of solders who mastered basic,  flight school, survival schools, the misery of SERE school up at Fairchild, and seemingly unending trips away from the family...all we wanted was to serve.

VA decision makers? Not to paint them all with the same brush, but too many are not at all like us. "Benefit of the doubt?" They pretend, nothing more.

A Request of VA and USAF leadership: Don't laugh because of our airplane - it is what you ordered us to fly. We've all flown many other planes, but somehow, like Medal of Honor holder Joe Jackson, we remain "C-123 guys" just like the C-123 will forever remain "the Agent Orange airplane." We flew the plane we were tasked to fly because AF leaders we trusted said that old bird, and our skills aboard it, were vital to the nation's defense. We certainly proved it during REFORGER exercises! Guys like Gail French proved it bringing in Tail #707 in flames, earning the DFC the hard way. Guys like Charlie Brown who came back from Hanoi proved it by putting on a flight suit again and quietly served with us. We earned the Airborne's Iron Mike award! The Army truly loved us, and after all the Army was JOB ONE as our primary customer in wartime. Of course, it would have been very nice if the C-123 had been engineered with some sort of commode and at least a Mr. Coffee! Maybe even an autopilot? Alas.

Merry Christmas from Wes

Agent Orange? Nobody knew the bill we'd be handed over this mess, but it is what it is. The intolerable part, the painful part, is now being treated as pariah by the VA - treated thus by people who are not like us. Fellow vets, don't be bitter. We are trying hard to carry the issue and we have so many helping carry the load with us - American Legion. Vietnam Veterans, leaders like Senators Burr and Merkley with their staffs, scientists and physicians across America.

Who knows? We might even have a secretly sympathetic ear somewhere within the VA...an ear which may someday hear our voices, out here in the wilderness where we trying, trying so very hard not to be bitter.

Dear VA, USAF, fellow Veterans and your families - God Bless & keep you, and Merry Christmas.

Veterans to the VA - help us find a way

Dear VA - From Us to You:

Isn't there any way leaders within the VA's Compensation and Benefits or Public Health organizations can assist us in narrowly focusing on this problem, and helping our exposed veterans get care while excluding those not involved with C-123 hands-on duty?

Tell us. We're listening, and want to drop this matter from the public forum as soon as possible. Our agenda is honorable and our request just. You're not being fair to us.


Respectfully,

    Your Fellow Veterans

C-123 Veterans Respond to VA Undersecretary Allison Hickey

Voice of the 74th AES, 731st TAS & 901st OMS

Honorable Allison Hickey
Undersecretary for Benefits

The Undersecretary for Benefits Allison Hickey graciously wrote us about the VA's perspective on C-123 veteran exposure to dioxin. We disagree in many places with General Hickey's letter but much appreciate the attention she has given our situation. We ask for reconsideration in our response to her, posted below:

(continued to page 6...click to read further)

VA Leader Responds to C-123 Agent Orange Exposure Concerns

Recently my own benefits application was rejected by the Director of the VA Compensation Services on the faulty basis that the highly respected scientists confirming our exposure were unqualified to make observations because they are scientists and not physicians. His letter will be interesting to the VA experts who, too, are scientists and not physicians.

Also prohibiting C-123 veterans' access to VA medical care is Under Secretary for Benefits Allison Hickey, herself a retired Air Force general officer and pilot. Her letter to the C-123 veterans was received 3 October:

Her introduction of secondary exposure was a surprise. While our aircrews certainly did have secondary exposure to TCDD aboard the C-123, our main exposure was instead primary and mostly dermal. We physically touched military herbicides which remained on the aircraft following their Agent Orange spray missions during Vietnam. Primary!  As well as secondary. And while dermal absorption of TCDD can be slower because of the skin barrier, dermal generally includes the ingestion route was well. 

Too bad there wan't any place on the C-123 to wash our hands!

Remember readers that our exposure, while it may have been "low concentration," was long-term...a full decade and many, many years before the first official tests which established the aircraft as "heavily contaminated." The airplanes were much more toxic when we flew them than later, after the dioxin had degraded.

Every study about dioxin which touches upon long-term and short term exposure stresses the fact that long-term low dose exposure like ours is even worse than short-term, high dose exposure.

Our absorption of dioxin added up. We sure wish the logic of our exposure added up to the VA also!

Is VA Approval of C-123 Crews' Agent Orange a Budget-Buster?

No. Not at all. In fact, compared to the far larger numbers involved with Blue Water Navy veterans, and Vietnam Veterans We're barely a theoretical drop in the bucket and VA budget-watchers need not panic if our veterans are ever granted service-connection for dioxin exposure aboard our contaminated aircraft in keeping with our "Boots on the Airplane" claims.

Our very small numbers of aircrew, maintenance and aerial port personnel total perhaps only 1500-2000, not the hundreds of thousands from the other groups. But besides the fewer number of potential claimants for VA medical care and pensions, we note:
1. A far larger percentage of our members were career Reservists or Active Duty than the case with Blue Water Navy or the Vietnam ground forces. This means many of us eventually qualified for the military's TriCare as do other military retirees. Seeking care from TriCare instead of the VA means little or no impact on VA budget
2. A large number of us are already receiving some VA disability benefits, often for the same issues associated with Agent Orange. Thus, no additional impact if for the same issues

3. A large number of us receive military retirement pay as Reservists or Active Duty retirees. Even with a 20-year letter, any VA pension benefits are offset by military retired pay. The overall impact on the Treasury is nil, even though the VA might end up paying a veteran rather than the Air Force, and only more senior enlisted and officers whose retired pay exceeded their VA disability pay would see any impact.
4. Since retiring our aircraft in 1982, a number of our veterans have already died and will not receive either VA medical care or pensions.
5. Nearly all of us are now in the Medicare age range and might not elect to approach the VA for medical care. Many live too far from VA medical facilities to seek convenient care there.
6. Having scattered across the country over the decades, not all of our veterans will ever get word of any VA benefits eligibility.
7. A very large percentage of our veterans are also Vietnam veterans and thus already fully eligible for Agent Orange benefits.

But forget all the above! It is just not the job of these VA administrators to stand in the way of qualified veterans to protect their budgets. Congress has the job of providing the VA necessary resources to meet veterans' needs...VA administrators instead should restrict themselves to insuring all eligible veterans receive all appropriate benefits!

Bottom line: we're the veterans. We served honorably in especially hazardous situations. Turns out we encountered a hazard aboard our C-123 which poisoned us and which the VA now must treat us with compassion and justice. This will begin with their allowing at least the possibility that exposure did occur.

...and from the Blue Water Navy Veterans' site: 

We're not talking about dollars. We are talking about human lives. We are talking about separating the piles of dead, alive and wounded people -- people who have made a contract with the U.S. Government to agree to be trained and shipped off to some foreign land to fight for, and possibly die for, the U.S. Government. There is a middle ground between those two extremes, and those are the wounded and others sickened in the Nation's service. They are individuals who fought and did not die, but found themselves somewhere in the middle with varying degrees of injuries. These wounded veterans need to be cared for. They are a 'cost of war' and require this country to take care of them for the remainder of their lives. They often need to be compensated because their wounds and disabilities keep them from returning to the active workforce to make a living to pay for the necessities of life for themselves and their families. They automatically assume that the U.S. Government will be gracious enough to regard them as veterans so they can receive this compensation, along with health care and other benefits that have been devised by a department of our government specifically in existence to care for these wounded veterans. They generally assume that this care they receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs will be life-long and of such a quality that they are as comfortable as possible as they live out their lives with the limitations of their wounds, whether those are mental or physical. 

But we're mistaken! 

John Paul Rossie, Executive Director (Blue Water Navy Vietnam)

VA Reneges on Promised C-123 Agent Orange Study!

Once again breaking faith with veterans, the VA's Public Health organization caved to political pressure and brought dishonor to their organization by canceling arrangements for an Institute of Medicine study of C-123 TCDD contamination. Promised to leaders of the C-123 Veterans Organization at their April meeting hosted by Senator Burr's staff, the study was to assess the contamination of C-123 aircraft and the exposure by aircrew, maintenance and aerial port personnel.

But last week the VA's Senate Liaison Office (Mr. Carter Moore) informed senators that the study is canceled in view of the very mild conclusions reached by the recent USAF School of Aerospace Medicine study. That study claimed that, while many tests established C-123 contamination by Agent Orange, somehow veterans weren't exposed to "enough" TCDD to cause long-term health damage. This is despite tests establishing "heavily contaminated" aircraft which scientists testified were "a danger to public health."

Lucky veterans. Perhaps the VA suggests our famous Nomex green bag flight suit and BDUs, like Superman's costume, stop speeding bullets as well as dioxin contamination.

War Plans from this point:
1. FOIA the VA materials re: earlier meetings
2. FOIA the USAFSAM materials in depth to establish VA-directred false results
3. Peer review of USAFSAM report by outside experts
4. Continued individual submission of Agent Orange exposure claims by all C-123 veterans followed by BVA appeals of denied claims
5. Re-visit American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America & Disabled American Veterans leaders
6. Editorial coverage (thanks, J. Harris, for MOAA article!)
7. Congressional pressure
8. Essay in Journal of the Society of Toxicology regarding VA's phony poster display in San Francisco, and twisting of the situation to prevent veterans' claims

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:



Columbia University - Expert Support for C-123 Agent Orange Exposure Claims!

Here is the text for the recent letter of Independent Scientific Opinion received from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. It directly challenges the VA's November claims against us, and validates the 1994 Patches study as well as making the vital conclusion: we were exposed to dioxin! (Bold face emphasis added by webmaster)

News received today: staffers from the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee will be meeting with senior leaders from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry late February to discuss the ATSDR's challenging response to the VA's C-123 position (that crews weren't exposed.) We owe much to Senator Burr's staff, particularly Mr. Brooks Tucker, himself a combat veteran.

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

Department of Health Policy and Management 

600 West 168th Street – 6th Floor 

New York, NY 10032 

February 7, 2012 

Wesley T. Carter (Major, retired)    

Dear Major Carter, 

I am writing this letter in response to your request for assistance in 

establishing evidence of likely exposure to Agent Orange and other military 

herbicides during your years of service as a crew member on C-123 “Provider” 

aircraft. A large number of the Provider aircraft on which you flew had previously 

been used for herbicide missions in Operation Ranch Hand in Vietnam. They 

returned from Vietnam heavily contaminated with herbicide residues.  Indeed, 

their contamination levels were so great that, as a final resolution to the 

contamination problem, it is my understanding that the aircraft were shredded by 

the Air Force in order to avoid further exposure of either military personnel or 

civilians. 

In my opinion, there is every likelihood that you would have been exposed 

to both airborne herbicides and their contaminants, as well as come into contact 

with surfaces contaminated by these toxic substances. In my opinion, the extent 

and manner of exposure is analogous to that experienced by many Vietnam 

veterans, with service in-country.  Such in-country Veterans are eligible for Agent 

Orange-related compensation should they develop a disease that the VA deems 

to be related to such exposures.  My further understanding is that you have 

developed one or more eligible conditions and thus, in my opinion, you should 

qualify for appropriate compensation, just as if you were an in-country Vietnam 

veteran. 

I feel well qualified to render this opinion.  I have extensive experience in 

evaluating exposure opportunity arising from military herbicide exposures.  I 

served for nearly a decade as the Exposure Consultant to the Special Master for 

the Eastern District Court’s Agent Orange Veterans Payment Program.  I was the 

Principal Investigator of the National Academy of Sciences contract for a $5 

million dollar study on developing a methodology for evaluating exposure to 

herbicides in Vietnam. The funding for this study was from the Veterans 

Administration.  My methodology has been strongly endorsed by the Institute of 

Medicine in three separate major published reviews. I am currently the exposure 

consultant on several federally funded health studies that involve evaluating 

herbicide exposures. I have recently been appointed by the Province of Ontario 

to a special panel to evaluate the historical use of 2,4,5-T in the province.  My 

work on military herbicides and other occupational and environmental health 

issues has been widely published and cited in prestigious peer reviewed journals.  

My professional expertise has been recognized in the academic community, as 

well.  I am Professor Emerita and Special Lecturer at Columbia University and 

since 2007 I have also held the position of Professor of Environmental and 

Occupational Health Sciences at the SUNY-Downstate Medical Center in 

Brooklyn N.Y. 

In order to render this opinion, I have carefully examined several scientific 

studies of contamination of C-123 aircraft that had been deployed to Vietnam in 

Operation Ranch Hand, as well as technical guidance documents issued by the 

Department of Defense with regard to indoor and surface contaminants.  I am 

also relying on my extensive research of existing records of herbicides used and 

their consequent exposures in Vietnam (see for example, 1).  

In my opinion, it is highly likely that you and other crew members were 

exposed to the herbicides and to their highly toxic contaminant, 2,3,7,8-

tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (dioxin, for short), although it is not possible to estimate 

the precise levels of exposure because of the failure of the Air Force to carry out 

proper assessments of contamination levels prior to assigning the contaminated 

aircraft to post-Vietnam military operations.  I base my opinion on several sets of 

measurements that were eventually carried out by United States Air Force 

technical personnel (references 2 and 3). The 1979 Air Force air samples clearly 

establish that the herbicides were airborne and hence could be inhaled. The 

1994 wipe samples of surface residues show that the levels of dioxin present 

greatly exceeded the maximum recommended levels of exposure set in the 

technical guidance provided by the U.S. Army Center For Health Promotion And Preventive Medicine regarding potential exposure to indoor contaminants  

(reference 4 ). The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry concurs 

in this opinion (reference 5). 

I have reviewed the Veterans Administration website (reference 6), which 

states: “VA has concluded the potential for long-term adverse health effects from 

Agent Orange residues in these planes is minimal. Even IF crew exposure did 

occur, it is unlikely that sufficient amounts of dried Agent Orange residue could 

have entered the body to have caused harm.”  The VA further states “But in the 

dry form – for example, adhered to a surface – Agent Orange residue cannot be 

inhaled or absorbed through the skin, and would be difficult to ingest.”  These 

statements, to be blunt, are technically flawed and show insufficient 

understanding of surface contamination and its potential toxic effects, 
as well as of the various routes of entry of toxic substances. The VA 
statements appear to have been made without 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.  The VA also states “Crew members had reported smelling strong odors but these odors may be attributed to various chemicals associated with aircraft. TCDD, the contaminant in Agent Orange, is odorless.”  In fact, the investigations carried out by the Air Force, following the crew complaints 
of odors, showed measureable quantities of the military herbicides in the air. (See reference 2.) There is no requirement that dioxin be the only exposure that qualifies for compensation.  

Indeed, nothing more than the 1979 measuresments are needed in order to 

establish that crew that flew the C-123 Provider aircraft were likely to have been 

exposed to military herbicides. 

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, Vietnam and exposures have NOT 

been limited to dioxin. 

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. 

      Sincerely, 

     (signed)

References cited 

                                                

      Jeanne Mager Stellman, PhD 

      Professor Emerita & Special Lecturer 

   (email removed for privacy) 

1

 Stellman, JM, Stellman, SD, Christian RC, Weber, TW and Tomasallo, C. The extent 

and patterns of usage of Agent Orange and other herbicides in Vietnam. Nature,422, 

681-687, 2003. 

2

  Conway, William W. Aircraft Sampling Westover AFB MA. Technical Report 79-59. 

USAF Occupational & Environmental Health Laboratory. Brooks AFB TX. September 

1979. 

3

 Weisman, WH and Porter, RC. Consultative Letter AL/OE-CL-1994-0203, Review of 

Dioxin Sampling Results from C-123 Aircraft, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH and 

Recommendations for Protection of Aircraft Restoration Personnel. USAF, Armstrong 

Laboratory, Brooks AFB, TX.  19 December 1994. 

4

 U.S. Army Center For Health Promotionand Preventive Medicine.  Technical Guide 312 

Health Risk Assessment Methods and Screening Levels for Evaluating Office Worker 

Exposures to Contaminants on Indoor Surfaces Using Surface Wipe Data. June 2009 

(http://phc.amedd.army.mil/topics/envirohealth/hrasm/Pages/EH RAP _ 

TechGuide.aspx) 

5

 Sinks, Thomas. Official Correspondence to Wesley T. Carter. Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).  Atlanta GA. January 25, 2012. 

6

 http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/residue-c123-aircraft.asp 

VA Releases C-123K Dioxin Exposure Denial

On 17 November the VA released their determination that the C-123 aircrews had not been exposed to Agent Orange residue left on the aircraft following Vietnam.  This seems to be the first time the VA has launched a preemptive strike concerning veterans' Agent Orange claims, but it is understandable given their determination to prevent any further impact on an already-overtaxed budget. It is unfortunate that they have  claimed that a threshold now exists where even a small amount of dioxin exposure is to be held harmless by the VA. It is also unfortunate that this position flies in the face of current research, especially concerning long-term exposure to dioxin, even in low-dosage situations.

Our next steps will focus on challenging this newfound position, with assistance from the various universities and professional societies which have offered their assistance.

Fortunately, the Air Force has not dropped the case and continues their investigation into aircrew exposure,  led by experts at the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine.

Friends, we need help on this effort. Every one of us lives in a state with many medical schools...these schools are filled with experts we can invite to help us. The VA respects professional letters from chemists, physicians, toxicologists. A recent US Army benefits hearing had the officials constantly stressing to the veteran that they'd accept his doctor's statement that his Agent Orange-type illness was "most likely" due to his Agent Orange exposure while performing depot maintenance on Army helicopters in the states!

We don't have to (and shouldn't) ask our doctors to prepare a phony letter about us...but we have every right to ask that our physicians state that we have an Agent Orange-presumtpive illness, that your records indicate exposure to Agent Orange while serving as a crew member, and that the illness is at least "as likely as not" caused by your exposure.

Ideas welcome...let me know! Meanwhile, get into gear and contact your local universities' experts to ask their help in a letter campaign.