Report: Scientists Confirm Veterans C-123 Agent Orange Exposure

There are two foundations for C-123 veterans’ Agent Orange claims (legal and scientific) and we’re going to look into the scientific basis. But first the legal: under the 1991 Agent Orange Act, and the Federal Register of 8 May 2001, all veterans exposed to military herbicides will be treated the same as are Vietnam veterans.

The Basis for C-123 Agent Orange Veterans Claims 

The C-123 aircraft were contaminated with Agent Orange following their Ranch Hand spraying operations during Vietnam, and aircrews, maintenance and aerial port personnel after the war were exposed while flying and maintaining the toxic airplanes between 1972-1982. Agent Orange, especially in the earlier years of the Vietnam War, was contaminated with dioxin, also known as TCDD. TCDD is a known carcinogen, and considered the most toxic of the toxins. Not a good thing in our airplanes!

Exposure to a toxin such as TCDD is via inhalation, ingestion or dermal routes. C-123 veterans experienced all three routes, but base claims on dermal exposure and inhalation. Generally, dioxin exposure is most readily via ingestion, then inhalation, then dermal routes.

In 1979 Air Force testing first confirmed the presence of “military herbicides” on the C-123, although no testing was completed for dioxin. The first comprehensive scientific testing of that same C-123 was fifteen years later in 1994 at the Air Force Museum, where the warplane was found to be “heavily contaminated” and “a danger to public health” by the Air Force toxicologists Drs Ron Porter and Wade Weisman. Using standard hexane wipes, they detected high levels of dioxin on all test surfaces, and consequently mandated HAZMAT protection for museum personnel working around that airplane until decontamination, which required three attempts, was decontaminated.

The 1994 Porter/Weisman data was joined by test results on airplanes stored at the Air Force boneyard in Arizona, where tests were completed between 1999 and 2009. These tests continued to show the toxicity of the warplanes, although degrading over time since the last Agent Orange spray missions completed in 1971.  Air samples were generally acceptable and wipes continued to report dioxin contamination.

Unable to justify decontamination of the aged airplanes and forced to address their disposal in some manner, the Air Force ordered all C-123s destroyed as toxic waste in 2010. At that point no further testing was possible, although two former spray aircraft used as museum displays may someday be examined (Pima Air Museum, AZ and the AF Museum at Warner-Robins AFB, GA). 

Thus, only the testing data already existent is available to analysis. When the veterans learned of the C-123 contamination via the Freedom of Information Act results in 2011, their inquiries to the Department of Veterans Affairs were immediately, and apparently without any even-handed analysis, rebuffed with VA insistence that the airplanes could not have exposed the veterans.

The veterans, convinced by the 1994 Air Force test results, turned to recognized experts in universities and government agencies to find confirmation of their exposure.

The first of these was Dr.Fred Berman of Oregon Health Sciences University Toxicology Program. Berman, himself a licensed pilot, examined the results of Porter/Weisman and concluded veterans were exposed. Addressing the Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. Berman wrote:

“It is my professional opinion that…aircrew veterans who flew these aircraft in the same time period)were exposed to harmful levels of dioxin in the course of aircrew duties. I opine that exposure was intense, and long-term, and that cited illnesses are as likely as not to be associated with the aircraft's dioxin contamination.”

Berman had earlier participated in a teleconference between scientists, VA staff and veterans on the issue of C-123 exposure, and in his independent expert opinion dismissed the VA’s contention that the “dried dioxin” on the aircraft could not have exposed the aircrew. In particular, he noted that there was no support in scientific literature for precluding exposure to dry, or surface dioxin, and that two of the authors cited by the VA had themselves stated their articles did not address aircrew exposure and were not relevant to that issue. 

Dr. Jeanne Stellman was also consulted by the C-123 veterans, and she, too, provided an in-depth analysis of their exposure. Dr. Stellman is world-famous in dioxin issues, a decades-long focus of her professional career in public health. Her conclusion paralleled that of Dr. Berman. She confirmed their exposure in her message to the veterans:

“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, it is highly likely that you and other crewmembers 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.”

Dr. Stellman also concluded C-123 veterans were exposed more than ground soldiers were in Vietnam, and somewhat less than aircrews in the wartime Agent Orange spray operations. She strongly and directly criticized the VA’s “dry dioxin transfer” position (which VA used to argue against the veterans’ exposure) by writing, “These statements, to be blunt, are technically flawed and show insufficient understanding of surface contamination. Concerned about the poor science procedures followed by the VA, and acting on behalf of fifteen of her physician and scientific colleagues, Dr. Stellman wrote the Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs to challenge the government’s position on C-123 veterans.

Further support for the veterans’ exposure claims was offered by the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Deputy Director Dr. Tom Sinks, whose opinion was later joined by that of the ATSDR Dr. Christopher Portier, confirmed the C-123 exposures. While lamenting the paucity of available testing data, Dr. Sinks, and later Dr. Portier, wrote:

“I believe that aircrew operating in this, and similar, environments were exposed to TCDD.”Considering the dioxin concentration, they wrote “This average value exceeds the Army (Technical Guide 312) screening level by182 times and is equivalent to a 200-fold greater cancer risk than the screening value.”

Further agreement with the veterans’ claims to have been exposed were provided by Dr. Wayne Dwernychuk, retired chief scientist of the Hatfield Group, the leading engineering and environmental group specializing in Agent Orange. Dr. Dwernychuk concurred with the findings of Berman and Stellman, and the ATSDR, and using the VA’s preferred language reported the group of C-123 veterans “is more likely than not to have been exposed.” Dwernychuk in addition, particularly challenged the statement used by the VA's director of Compensation and Pension in denying a veterans’ exposure claim, where the government stated “there is no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes adverse health effects”. “This statement I find blatantly disingenuous” wrote Dr. Dwernychuk.

Among the physicians examining the C-123 exposure issue are Dr. Arnold Schecter, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Medical School. Dr. Schecter is perhaps America’s leading physician specializing in Agent Orange, and offered his opinion:

“There is no doubt in my mind, as a physician who has studied Agent Orange and dioxin in Vietnam and in the USA since 1981 that you have had, as a result of your work in the military, to above background exposure to TCDD from work in fixed wing aircraft previously used for Agent Orange spraying missions.” “In my professional opinion you are at increased risk for illness from the dioxin in Agent Orange because of your exposure to it from your military service.”

The US Public Health Service also reviewed the C-123 Agent Orange issue, and Dr. Aubrey Miller’s expert finding on behalf of that agency was:

“Regarding the association between dermal exposure and effects that seems to have been a matter of some dispute, it is my opinion that the scientific evidence is clear. Dermal exposures, including exposures to contaminated equipment or secondary exposures through contaminated clothing, tools, vehicles, etc. could result in absorption that would be problematic.”

Another expert offering her careful review of the exposure issue is Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director of the National Institutes of Health/National Toxicology Program. Her opinion:

“According to the narrative, exposure is assumed based on wipe-tests demonstrating high dioxin concentrations in the C-123K's. While contact with the aircraft results in exposure to dioxins, the magnitude of these exposures is uncertain.”

Each of these authorities has volunteered their independent expert opinions and findings, while the VA position against veterans’ exposure was written by staffers assigned to do so as part of their jobs. 

Observers might compare the CVs of the VA staff to those of the independent experts...those writing for the VA are hard to even find, if at all, in Google Scholar while the independent experts, like Shecter, Birnbaum and Stellman, total hundreds of pages of CV references and thousands of pages of scholarly contributions to this field. Isn't it clear...people opposed by the senior scholars of their profession! Imagine a court setting with opposing "experts" and the obvious differences between them...no court would fail to side with the veterans, and indeed, no BVA will fail to award service connection for a C-123 veteran but we simply don't have the years waiting for BVA justice!

Supporting the C-123 veterans’ claim to have been exposed aboard the toxic C-123 fleet are federal agencies such as the EPA, NIH and CDC, and prestigious universities and independent experts. The scientists named here have stressed to the veterans that they’re not advocates for one view or another, but instead neutral observers whose opinions are based on the science involved, not the politics. And the veterans note that gives their conclusion about exposure even more weight.

The C-123 veterans ask the VA to yield on its predetermined disqualification of these airman from Agent Orange medical care. Congressmen and senators are asked to stress to the VA our complete qualification under the law for the care we desperately need for our Agent Orange illnesses.

(note: source documents for each issue dealt with are downloadable from www.c123kcancer.blogspot.com)

-- http://youtu.be/JtFQ1svAp

CDC Stands Up For C-123 Veterans on Agent Orange Exposure

In January 2012 we received an opinion confirming our Agent Orange exposure on the C-123s from the ATSDR, part of the Center for Disease Control.. This was a big step for us, giving scientific as well as federal agency merit to our claims with the VA. The Army operates the Joint Services Records Research Center to advise the VA on veterans claims and whether official documentation exists to support them, It has been responding to VA inquiries with negative answers. 

This letter of 6 March 2013 was requested by the JSRRC from the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to clarify further their initial finding letter about that aircraft were contaminated and our veterans exposed---and without any reservation ATSDR again said YES in this letter to JSRRC authorities. This time, to make sure their point was clear, the ATSDR director himself rammed their point home...which was, the C-123 veterans were exposed...heavily!

Unfortunately, VA advised Wes Carter and Marlene Wentworth during our meeting them at Compensation Services on 28 February 2013 that no such information from US Government agencies is acceptable in the VA's evaluation of veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims. This flows from the VA's earlier determination by its Health Benefits Administration forbidding C-123 claim approvals - the VA has implemented a policy that there actually was no exposure to Agent Orange by any veteran, including Ranch Hand and others with "boots on the ground" excepting only those with diagnosed chloracne. A recent addition of "bioavailability" to VA requirements means, because no veteran other than those with chloracne can prove individual bioavailability, therefore no veteran has ever been "exposed" in the VA's perspective.

Still, this and other documents certainly spell success in other forums such as the Board of Veterans Appeals and federal court. So take heart...not everyone in government is determined to deny us quality VA medical care (which I'm blessed with for the next two weeks here in Seattle), and thank God for men like Dr. Portier who lends his professionalism to our cause!

Domenic Baldini

Chief, Joint Services Records

Research Center US Army

Records Management and

Declassification Agency

Dear Mr. Baldini:

On January 25, 2012, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) sent the

attached letter to Wesley T. Carter, USAF Retired. Major Carter had contacted ATSDR seeking

an opinion about his potential exposure to 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) while

flying C-123 aircraft from 1972-1982. The letter represented the opinion of ATSDR and our

subject matter experts.

The ATSDR letter to Major Carter included several important findings. Information contained

within parentheses have been added for explanation:

• ATSDR calculated an average value of 6.36 ng TCDD/100 cm squared

for the three C-123 interior the wipe samples three collected on November 20, 1994. 

This calculation was based on information from a consultative letter from Capt Wade Weisman

 & Ronald Porter (see footnote 3 in correspondence to Major Carter).

• This value is 182 times higher than the screening value established by the United States

Army Center for health Promotion and Preventive Medicine — Technical Guide 312.

(see footnote 2 in correspondence to Major Carter.) [Levels below a screening value are

often considered acceptable. Levels above the screening value are often considered

unacceptable because of an associated health risk.]

• ATSDR pointed out that the average value of the three wipe samples represented a 200-

fold excess cancer risk above the screening value established by the Department of the

Army.

• ATSDR stated that the office worker scenario used in Technical Guide 312 likely

underestimates the daily exposures of Air Force flight personnel inside confined

contaminated aircraft but that this depends upon exposed skin surface area, duration of

exposure, hand washing, and food intake as well as airborne dust].

• ATSDR stated that TCDD levels on-board contaminated planes were likely higher in

1972-1982 than in 1994 when samples were taken.

• ATSDR stated that it could not exclude inhalation for ingestion] exposures to TCDD

while working on contaminated aircraft.

• Based upon the available information. ATSDR concluded that aircrew operating in this,

and similar, environments were exposed to TCDD.

I hope this information is useful. Please contact XXX  if you have any questions.

/signed/

ChristopherJ. Portier, P.h.D.

Director, National Center, and Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

C-123 Agent Orange Exposure: Confusion? Cover-Up?

Coverup? Simple failure to act? Dereliction of duty? You decide. In any case, decisions about our C-123 veterans' exposure to Agent Orange were made that worked against our health and welfare, and no competent medical officer, legal officer or aircrew member would have made such decisions without full understanding of the impact on veterans already exposed for a decade to the scientifically-confirmed contamination by dioxin on our aircraft.

So...why did official action after official action over the decades combine only to coverup the Agent Orange impact, and nothing worked to get medical information out to the veterans to guard our health? Is this an event handled differently than would be legally possible in a civil setting - without criminal repercussions for the bad actors involved? Do government and military wonks get to cause such harm without legal response? Where are the heroes of American law to set right this evil ?

Here is the history of the vicious affair as we know it. We don't dare start calling it a coverup or we end up on the heap of dismissed and ignored nutters and conspiracy-therory advocates. So, instead let's call it, without question, a tragic affair, with only the C-123 veterans paying the bill. Another thing we know - after two years of struggle, not a single piece of advice, guidance, or information about the C-123 contamination and veterans' exposure has been offered or released by the Veterans Administration.

Are C-123 veterans (individually, not as a population, evidencing Agent Orange presumptive illness) qualified under the law for Agent Orange exposure benefits? Yes. Other than the amount of push-back exerted against C-123 veterans' claims, total effort wasted helping C-123 veterans: Zero. VA Job One: PREVENT ACCESS TO VA MEDICAL CARE.

C-123 Agent Orange History - USAF takes actions to cover-up?	Yes or No:
•Once 1994 tests showed C-123 “heavily contaminated, USAF also decides not to inform exposed aircrews, meanwhile USAF Museum was forced to decontaminate their C-123 as “a danger to public health”	Yes
•In 1996 USAF Office of Environmental Law directed “all information be kept in official channels only” about Agent Orange contamination	Yes
•DOD Agent Orange consultant, USAF AFMC officials, general officers & Air Staff recommended in 2009 all C-123s be destroyed before exposed veterans learned of contamination & applied for veterans benefits	Yes
•In January 2000 all Air Force surplus C-123s ordered sealed, gathered into HAZMAT “quarantine” storage in specially-selected secure remote area of Davis-Monthan AFB to prevent notice by Arizona EPA & $3.4 billion fine	Yes
•USAF Surgeon General concludes in 2012, following C-123 Agent Orange study, better not to notify exposed veterans to “avoid undue distress”	Yes
•Following January 2000 sworn testimony in federal court by USAF toxicologist Dr. Ron Porter that C-123s were “a danger to public health,” USAF avoided advising exposed veterans	Yes
•USAF informed Walt Disney Films of Agent Orange contaminated C-123s bought for movies in 1999 but avoided also informing exposed veterans	Yes
•Entire C-123 Agent Orange airplane fleet ordered destroyed in 2010 as toxic waste, with Hill AFB Public Affairs taking special steps per DOD Agent Orange consultant to avoid notice by public, press, exposed veterans	Yes

•Special Note: In 2012, DOD’s Agent Orange Consultant publically libels dioxin-exposed C-123 veterans “trash-haulers, freeloaders, looking for atax-free dollar from a sympathetic congressman."   YES

Friends, imagine if this had been the 20-year track record of a chemical spill at a major US employer. Would CNN's Wolf Blitzer, shown company documents like those above focusing on deliberate steps to prevent notifying exposed employees "to avoid undue distress" consider it a cover-up? Would 60 Minutes have fun with the story? 

VA Selectively Choses Data (& ignores the rest) to Deny C-123 Vets' Expsure

Think about it. They were the Agent Orange spray airplanes during Vietnam. But not after?

After Vietnam, in our "age of innocence," they were the cargo C-123s.

Beginning in 1979 with the first comprehensive toxicological tests on Patches (Tail #362), the C-123 fleet began transitioning again to "the Agent Orange airplanes" but we were assured they were quite safe. Quite safe. Except for something called "military herbicides."

Retired in 1982, the toxin evidence became perfectly clear at the USAF Museum in 1994 when Patches was carefully examined by the USAF Armstrong Labs, whose toxicologists labeled her "heavily contaminated on all test surfaces" and "a danger to public health."  Because they love us and care, the USAF Office of Environmental Law felt it better to keep us from worrying about this Agent Orange exposure which we'd already underwent, so they ordered "This information should be kept in official channels only." There it quietly rested until Freedom of Information Act requests in 2011 began uncovering what shouldn't have been covered up at all...we veterans were already exposed to deadly dioxin for a full decade while flying the C-123 fleet.

Now that the word is out, the VA carefully selects which words they'll accept regarding the C-123 history, because their mission is to ignore proofs and deny benefits. Always. Whenever requested - deny. And they indeed denied. Denied - all expert opinions that we were exposed. Denied - all other federal government agencies' opinions that we were exposed. Denied - and the list of excuses goes on. In particular, the VA was very careful to ignore a legal case which grew out of the inadvertent sale of C-123s out of Davis-Monthan. The GSA sold two to Walt Disney Films, and then a GSA whistle-blower notified everyone she could mail that this shouldn't have happened, leading to a court case brought by a buyer who'd wanted five more C-123s for fire-fighting.

Sworn testimony from that court case (GSBCA14165) taken from Air Force toxicologist Dr. Ron Porter and senior leadership at Davis-Monthan, really illustrates the danger of the dioxin contamination. It really demonstrates the degree to which the VA forces blinders on itself and its rating officers to pretend that the C-123 veterans weren't exposed during the years 1972-1982.

The GSA and other reports are further confirmed by the Army's TG312, which analyzed toxins within closed spaces such as offices, and by which standards the C-123 veterans were exposed to 800-times the screening values!
---summation of exposure issues revealed in GSA GSBCA Appeal 14165----

GSA testimony re: Board of Contract Appeals, GSBCA14165, ruling issued 22 Sept 2000

01/24/00 (date of hearing)   

Following is the C-123 Veterans' Analysis of the Government's Testimony:

[The case involved an inadvertent sale by the government of five contaminated C-123 warplanes, an action canceled by the government but contested in court by the buyer. The Air Force and GSA together asserted the airplanes remained hazardous with Agent Orange contamination and the sale was negated by the GSA hearing judge, in agreement with the government’s position. Two contaminated aircraft had been inadvertently sold to Walt Disney Films which brought the issue to greater visibility to the Air Force and GSA (highly embarrassing!)]

The C-123 veterans point out that we flew these airplanes decades before these actions. Decades during which the dioxin described by expert witnesses as hazardous, was far fresher and dangerous in our service. It would require an unusual thought process to consider these warplanes hazardous and in but somehow not also dangerous in the years 1972-1982, given the general predictability of dioxin’s half life having reduced the toxicity in later years.

Of special note is the sworn testimony that the airplane’s dioxin did indeed represent both a dermal and inhalation exposure threat to unprotected personnel in 2000. We were unprotected between 1972-1982, wearing thin NOMEX flight suits and not wearing any respirators.

page 67 (18) the Air Force expert witness testifies under oath in federal court proceedings that the hazards of dioxin exposure existed for all personnel associated with the C-123, not just museum restoration workers or demilitarization workers as suggested by the VA’s interpretation of AF test results.

Page 83 (22) Dr. Ron Porter, AF toxicologist from USAF Armstrong Laboratory Brooks AFB, Texas, and one of the scientists who conducted the 1994 tests of C-123 aircraft at the USAF Museum, confirms under oath the major part of the hazard  “was physical contact with the contaminated (24) surface. He continued, “If there’s significant dioxin there, then dioxin can volatilize into (6) the air, so it could be a respirable hazard, a (7) respiration hazard.” The VA has improperly characterized the exposure hazard as non-existent, yet here the government testifies that it was significant in both dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. VA has characterized dermal exposure as “unlikely” and inhalation exposure as impossible. VA has done so only via literature review, not via hands-on investigation of the contaminated airplanes as has Dr. Porter.

Porter stated that he directed personnel at Wright-Patterson be kept out of the C-123 because of dioxin, once his report was completed in 1994. We were not kept out of the airplane but instead served aboard it for a decade. Porter (5, 107) reminds the judge that the interior of the C-123 is not only metal (upon which the VA asserts the dioxin had dried) but actually bare aircraft-grade aluminum, painted and unpainted metal surfaces of various types, wood, canvas, glass, plastic, fiberglass, paper, cardboard, rubber and a wide range of other materials, all presenting a variety of dermal dioxin transfer characteristics. Porter formed a firm conclusion, expressed under oath, (14) that “there was a potential risk of exposure to chemicals in those airplanes, specifically (17) Agent Orange and/or dioxin.

The C-123 veterans cannot accept any characterization which holds that the C-123 aircraft presented a potential risk of exposure to Agent Orange in January 2000 without that risk being considered also present during our decade of service between 1972 and 1982, when the dioxin was much less degraded, and fresher following the missions in Vietnam which ended only the year before.

VA Director Compensation & Pension Service Slams C-123 Vets

Tom Murphy, VA Director of Compensation Services

"Claim Denied!" "Veteran submitted a few documents." Thus did Mr. Thomas Murphy, Director of Compensation Service for the VA fulfill his organizational duty of automatically denying a C-123 veteran's claim, no mater how justified the clam actually is. Thank you for your service, indeed!

The particular claim in question, one of our first C-123 claims, had over 80 supporting documents. Articles from medical journals detailing identical situations. Letters from physicians and scientists offering expert independent opinions. Sworn testimony of other veterans, including unit commanders, field grade officers, flight examiners and instructors, senior NCOs, fellow veterans. Treatment records from VA, military and civilian hospitals. Lots of stuff. And all of it, no matter how much of it, no matter what the science, all of it not enough.

Never enough to overcome the VA's knee-jerk automatic rejection of any dioxin exposure claim by every veteran outside those with Boots on the Ground in Vietnam, and some minor and very specific Thailand and Korea situations. For C-123 veterans, the full weight and majesty of the VA swings into action to immediately construct barriers to justice and medical treatment. To explain, even in the face of proof, why there is no proof. To explain even, even with dozens of non-VA experts and other federal agencies claiming veterans were exposed, why there was no exposure.

Why? "Because we say so!"

Duty to Assist? Benefit of the doubt to rest with the veteran? Again, no. Never. The VA, in two years of working with us, has done absolutely nothing to seek confirming evidence or opinions as the question of  C-123 veterans' exposure came to light. Not once have they ever introduced or admitted to a single fact which could be interpreted as supportive of C-123 veterans' claims. Every citation they have offered in their "scientific" bulletins has been to deny exposure claims. Every single reference, expert, whatever that supports the veterans' claims has been ignored. They probably had a struggle admitting that there ever were C-123 airplanes and people who flew them! "What? C-123? Never heard of it? Thank you for your service.

There is not a single scientific or academic journal which would accept such shoddy work from authors seeking publication of an obviously slanted article! Any reputable journal would demand a juried review, and that panel of independent experts would condemn using their loudest megaphone the lack of even-handed, scholarly work in such materials. "Unscientific" was the description offered by independent scientists. "Not dioxin experts" was the description offered by another federal agency's head after careful investigation...and that person is a dioxin expert!

Any benefit of the doubt? Never, not when the VA's nuclear-powered mission focusses denying veterans' claims, even when such claims are within the scope of their judgement. The benefit of the doubt to the VA means that if there is any possible way to reject claims, that way must be seized upon. The benefit of the doubt to the VA means that unless compelled by law, ordered by Congress, only those veterans specifically named in the law are covered, not those whom the law may allow to be interpreted as covered - and so the VA exercises every possible twist and turn, obfuscation, delay, evidence misinterpretation, denial of truth handed them on a golden platter - all to prevent C-123 veterans from getting medical attention for our Agent Orange illnesses.


 Veterans Say:
-"It is my opinion that aircrews operating in this, and similar, environments were exposed to TCDD."
(Dr. Tom Sinks, Deputy Director, CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry)
- "It is my professional opinion that (veteran name withheld) (and likely, other aircrew veterans who flew these aircraft in the same time period) was exposed to harmful levels of dioxin." 

(Dr. Fred Berman, Oregon Health Sciences University Toxicology Department) 
- "Heavily contaminated. A danger to public health."
(Dr. Ron Porter, toxicologist, USAF Armstrong Laboratories)
- "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)," 

(Dr. Jeanne Stellman, Professor Emerita, Columbia University School of Public Health)

But VA Says:

- "No conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects."
VA Compensation Services in claim denial)
- "TCDD is the most toxic of the dioxins, and is classified as a human carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency."
(VA Public Health Bulletin )
- "Claims will be decided on an individual basis."
VA Public Health Bulletin (however: 100% of claims denied -  0% approved, but on an "individual" basis, of course!)
- C-123 vets are "Trash-haulers. Freeloaders looking for a tax-free dollar. I have no respect."
(VA & USAF consultant on Agent Orange, email re: C-123 veterans; also recommended destruction of C-123 fleet to prevent veterans learning of C-123 contamination & crew exposure)