C-123 Contamination - Hill AFB Deception

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

VA Revises Their C-123 Agent Orange Web Page

We just noticed the revised C-123 page on VA's web site. While

its code shows a date of 31 December 2013, I've read the page a couple times this month and it was the old version.

Here, VA has strengthened their barriers against our claims by analyzing many of the expert opinions in our favor. 

Of course, no mention is made anywhere of challenges raised to this product of the VA's small Post Deployment Health Section...challenges from the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the NIH/National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, the US Public Health Service and many others. Challenges which have labeled the VA's work "unscientific," and worse!

Of course, VA continues to ignore the simple fact that the 1991 Agent Orange Act, and Title 38, and several postings in the Federal Register only specify "exposure," so this page's attempt to minimize our exposure is irrelevant...we were exposed. 

VA...read the law. Read Yale's C-123 exposure brief. However, we still know that when faced with new evidence in our favor such as Yale's brief, VA's only response is – how to negate the favorable evidence. If they can't dispute it, they'll ignore it. Or redefine words just like they reinvented "exposure" to exclude C-123 veterans. 

If opinions are offered by experts, VA denies their expertise even if the experts are internationally recognized authorities, VA researchers or heads of US government agencies! As Post Deployment Health has already determined and already informed us and Compensation & Pension Service (despite Under Secretary Hickey's and Secretary Shinseki's mistaken written assurances to the contrary) VA will never approve a C-123 Agent Orange exposure claim. 

Regardless of any evidence, proof, testimony, research, opinions, whatever...officially VA has predetermined that all C-123 exposure claims will be denied, per Post Deployment Health. VA told the veterans. VA even told the US Army following a meeting with the veterans. It seems the only two people who don't know that VA has a blanket policy forbidding C-123 veterans' claims are Generals Hickey and Shinseki. 

I'm only a retired major, but I don't think generals use different words..."blanket policy" does seem to cover any situation like ours, where C-123 veterans' denials are predetermined and insisted upon regardless of evidence or law.

If they knew, I'm sure these highly esteemed leaders would correct the situation, especially after the Secretary formally informed the Senate that no such blanket policy exists.

Reader Insists UC-123K "Patches" Never Sprayed Agent Orange

Received as a comment on our blog:

"UC-123K 56-4362 or known as Patches, was never an Agent Orange spray, The bird was a Malaria hunter and sprayed Malathion. written by a Ranch Hand."

In fact, Patches did indeed spray Agent Orange, but was switched to malathion and returned to bright, shinny aluminum because the bug juice fouled the paint, leaving the other UC-123s in their familiar cammo scheme.

Working our way backwards, the 1994 tests on Patches labeled the aircraft "heavily contaminated with dioxin on all test surfaces" and "a danger to public health." The 1979 "Conway" test on Patches at Westover did not test for dioxin in particular, but did identify "military herbicides."

The USAF Historical Records Research Agency confirms Patches' history as an Agent Orange aircraft. Also, the Air Force Museum's bio of Patches acknowledges its Agent Orange spray history:

The Museum's Aircraft: Patches The C-123K on display saw extensive service during the Southeast Asia War as a sprayer, and Ranch Hand personnel developed a strong symbolic attachment to this aircraft. The aircraft took almost 600 hits in combat, and it was named Patches for the damage repairs that covered it. Moreover, seven of its crew received the Purple Heart for wounds received in battle. 
Patches was accepted by the USAF in 1957 as a C-123B, and it went to Vietnam in 1961 to fly as a low-level defoliant sprayer. In 1965, it was redesignated to UC-123B. At about the same time, Patches became a dedicated insecticide sprayer to control malaria-carrying mosquitoes, and in 1968, Fairchild converted it to a UC-123K. 

Air Force 2012 C-123 Agent Orange Report Revisited –policy driven deceptions!

The Air Force botched it! In May 2012 the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine released its year-long study of C-123 contamination and potential aircrew exposure...and they blew it! Deliberately, it now seems. Because the report was not written to be science, but to be dismissive of decades of USAF tests which proved the contamination of our warplanes.

While supposedly prepared in response to inquires from The C-123 Veterans Association, which in 2011 was invited to Wright-Patterson AFB and the 711th Human Performance Wing review its extensive document collection at the beginning of the USAFSAM study, the only folks included in the distribution were Veterans Affairs staffers.

Conclusion: the report was written, not for the veterans, but for two anti-veteran purposes:
1. For VA disproving veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims
2. To explain why the AF failed to notify dioxin-exposed aircrews of the risks to their health
3. UPDATE: Much of the AF report challenged by the Environmental Research article, "Post-Vietnam Military Herbicide Exposures in UC-123 Agent Orange Spray Aircraft."

We note first the striking absence of the report's investigator's signatures. Typically in such military and government research, the scientists and physicians doing the grunt work are noted and their signatures attached. Not here.

Instead, perhaps because none of them would sully their reputations or honor with their signatures, only the name and signature of the USAFSAM commander, Colonel Christian Benjamin was on the report...and he was not a participant in the research, only an administrator

Oh, and by the way, the report was not "juried"...it was not submitted to outside professional or scientific societies for critical review. There, errors in science and twisted, policy-driven conclusions would have been immediately challenged. In fact, this report still cries out for a critical review, sure to shame the otherwise outstanding reputation of Air Force science.

Society of Toxicology Takes No Notice of VA's Redefinition of "Exposure"

Repeated requests to the leadership of the Society of Toxicology (SOT) as suggested to us by senior federal government scientists and agency heads, has proved unproductive.

In sum, the SOT let stand unchallenged, and therefore passively endorsed, an action by the VA to redefine "exposure" to require proof of bioavailability as a component. In 2012, the VA presented a poster display at the SOT's San Francisco conference, using the poster to review Agent Orange issues and to introduce VA's internal redefinition of a standard scientific term – exposure. In their poster, VA stated "Exposure=Contamination Field+Bioavailability."

'Tain't so! Exposure is defined, according to the CDC's authoritative Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, as:

Exposure Contact with a substance by swallowing, breathing, or touching the skin or eyes. Exposure may be short-term [acute exposure], of intermediate duration, or long-term [chronic exposure].

Anybody see "bioavailability" there? Nope. Bioavailability, which is the specific impact of a substance on the body (such as caffeine in coffee making the blood pressure increase) is impossible to establish for individuals exposed to Agent Orange. In fact, it takes huge populations, such as the entire corps of Vietnam War veterans, to establish significant epidemiological conclusions about Agent Orange illnesses such as prostate cancer, ALS, IHD and other life-threatening diseases.

So why did VA introduce a redefinition of a scientific term which flies in the face of toxicologists and other health science professionals? Simple...they made bioavailability a requirement of exposure to prevent C-123 veterans from claiming Agent Orange exposure. Policy, not science, in this step!

The law states that exposed veterans will be treated for their Agent Orange illnesses, regardless of where they were exposed. That word...exposed...is what VA needed to challenge in order to deny dioxin-exposed veterans' claims. They couldn't challenge the fact of our duties aboard contaminated former Agent Orange spray aircraft. They couldn't challenge either our diseases or the fact of the C-123's lingering contamination.

So...they invented the pretense that nobody is exposed to a toxin unless and until proof of bioavailability can be offered by the individual. And we can't do that. We obviously have the Agent Orange illnesses and we meet the definition of "exposed" used by the EPA, CDC, USPHS and other authorities, so the VA invented their own definition of the word to insure they had an out for denying our claims.

Thus our appeal to SOT leadership. We asked that they comment on the VA's use of the SOT San Francisco meeting as a platform for attacking veterans benefits through twisted, phony science.

But repeated requests for SOT to do something have failed. They stand mute. Weeks ago, we were assured their leadership would discuss the issue during a high-level conference call, but nothing has happened even with several recent inquiries and reminders of how important this word "exposure" has become.

They should read the definition of "professional" and should also re-read their own definition of "toxicology" because it includes the communication of the effects of agents.

That communication, so important to science, was twisted by the VA and the SOT has failed to challenge their twisted, policy-driven deceptions. In their passivity, SOT, even though the posters weren't juried, in effect endorses this new VA definition of "exposed" to the harm of veterans and our families.

VA Challenge: Show VA MILITARY Proof That Vets Flew Contaminated C-123s?

The question keeps coming up...and we keep answering it. YES! You want proof???

1. YES. There is military documentation firmly establishing the necessary proof of the C-123s in our unit being former Ranch Hand spray aircraft.

2. YES. There is military documentation firmly establishing the necessary proof of the C-123s in our unit, particularly Tail #362 (Patches) and the others, at last five, being contaminated with dioxin (Agent Orange.)

3. YES. There is military documentation firmly establishing the necessary proof of our aircrews flying C-123s specifically identified as former Ranch Hand spray aircraft.

Here are the three answers for the important question, last raised by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on June 7 2013 in his letter to Senator Burr, in which the Secretary wrote:

"VA does not currently have a method of determining if a Veteran claiming stateside AO exposure was flying on one of the Operation Ranch Hand C-123s or one of the many other post-Vietnam C-123s flown stateside during the 1970s and 1980s." 

1. The USAF Historical Records Research Agency, Maxwell AFB AL, has identified the histories of
nearly all C-123 aircraft from manufacture and sale to the Air Force, and has identified which of them by specific tail number was modified for aerial spray operations and used for Operation Ranch Hand, spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam. Further, they identified which of the three post-Vietnam USAF squadrons had which former spray aircraft. Tail numbers and units to which the aircraft were assigned were reconfirmed by HQ Air Force Reserve Command.

2. For Westover veterans, the most heavily tested C-123 is Tail #362 (Patches, mentioned by the Secretary) now at the Air Force Museum. Its first test confirming military herbicides was in 1979, and a more comprehensive series of tests by AF toxicologists in 1994 confirmed the aircraft was "heavily contaminated on all test surfaces" and "a danger to public health." None of the other former spray planes were tested so thoroughly, and because they've been destroyed as toxic waste no testing can be done any longer. Documentation released by AFMC showed 1996 testing of 17 aircraft reported all 17 positive for dioxin contamination.

There is every scientific and logical reason to conclude the other aircraft were similarly contaminated, especially as Patches ceased spraying Agent Orange years before the other aircraft when it was switched to malathion missions, thus the other C-123s had "fresher" dioxin.

3. Air Force aviators are provided tracking of their flying activities via a "Form 5" which reports the individual's name, crew position, date and time of the mission, type of mission, and tail number flown. Thus, veterans who flew Patches will have a Form 5 showing their name and Tail #362. In the decades since the C-123 was flown, very few veterans will have saved paperwork dating back over four decades. Veterans have been gathering available Form 5s and flight orders. Flight orders do not show a tail number but they list the crew members for the flight. Matching names on Form 5s and names on flight orders satisfies Air Force archivists requirements for documenting any individual's flight activities.

So there is no question. All three parts of the Secretary's question are addressed with military documentation adequate to convince any jurist or archivist. If some VA officials remain unconvinced, it is because they are deliberately looking away from the proof and are dedicated to wrongly preventing our veterans' access to vital medical care.

C-123 Veterans Expand Website: www.c123cancer.org

The Engineers' Prom??

Acting on the requests and comments, especially from government employees (especially at Hill AFB  and at 810 Vermont Ave) who use office computers barring access to blogs, the C-123 Veterans Association this weekend greatly expanded its web sites www.c123cancer.org and the parallel site, www.c123agentorange.com.

We'll still keep the blog the most current, up-to-date posting of information, but web sites and blogs each offer publishing advantages.

Now, dear readers, you have them both!

Patches - Not as Contaminated as Our Other C-123s?

Nope! At least, not according to an experienced Ranch Hand pilot. He informs us that Patches flew only malathion missions after 1965. The other Ranch Hand C-123s flew AO missions up to '71, so Patches, which still tested "heavily contaminated" in 1994 at the USAF Museum (29 years after its last spray missions!),  must represent "the lower end of contamination for the UC-123 fleet."Patches...was LESS contaminated! The others, untested, were MORE contaminated!
Dioxin, which Patches sprayed before 1965, has an uncertain half-life on different surfaces and in animals...such as us. It has, for instance, a half-life of about seven years in human females, and some studies maintain that should be 15 years! This means the other former spray planes we flew were more contaminated with dioxin than Tail #362, and had they been properly tested, would have shown their even-higher dangerous dioxin levels. But we only have Patches to go by, because the other airplanes weren't tested for many more years and after decades spent in desert storage at Davis-Monthan. By then, the dioxin had degraded.

In case you diid't note it earlier, we've located a Board of Veterans Appeals decision awarding service connection to a 731st TAS member who worked on Patches at Hanscom in the 72-73 timeframe. This won't help us get our own claims through as the VA seems to deliberately avoid noting virtually parallel decisions, and anyway, VA Compensation Services has directed in more recent years that no C-123 Agent Orange exposure claims be approved, regardless of evidence. The struggle continues!

Response Sought from Hill AFB PA Officials

A question left this morning with George at the Hill AFB Public Affairs Office:


Regarding William Boor's 5 August 2009 Position Paper On Immediate Disposal/Recycle of 18 UC-123K "Agent Orange" Aircraft":


1. Why did the base final press release about these aircraft not mention "Agent Orange"?
2. Why did Mr. Boor in Para 7* cite the issue of presumptive compensation as one of the reasons to immediately dispose of the aircraft, when the veterans who were involved were exposed about 30 years earlier? Why cite as justification for immediate disposal of all remaining aircraft the prevention of presumptive compensation by veterans when the veterans have already been exposed to Agent Orange and would otherwise be eligible for VA benefits? Why the intense effort to prevent veterans from knowing about their exposure. Why the effort to sweep the problem of Agent Orange aircraft under the rug of an obscure and misleading press release? Shouldn't the Air Force be concerned about helping veterans who'd been exposed to Agent Orange toxins know about their exposure?


My point is that we've already been exposed...that's a done-deal. Mr. Boor and Dr Young cite the need to get rid of the airplanes to PREVENT claims for presumptive compensation...to prevent veterans who've already been exposed and made ill from presenting their valid claims to the VA. These gentlemen seem unconcerned about CONTEMPORARY risks of personnel becoming exposed (because the AF required personnel working around the stored contaminated aircraft to wear HAZMAT protection and respirators), but the need to prevent a "media storm" (as Dr. Young described it) from bringing the issue into the public eye, to keep "those trash-hauling, freeloading Reservists from finding a sympathetic congressman for tax-free dollars."(Dr. Young's words).

(*from the Position Paper) "7. Supporting this document is a Memo For The Record dated 27 July 2009, from Alvin L. Young, Ph.D. Dr. Young serves as Consultant to the Undersecretary of the Air Force for Installations and Environment and as Consultant on Agent Orange to the Office of Secretary of Defense. The memo explains why the Air Force should dispose of/recycle the 18 UC-123K "Agent Orange" aircraft as soon as possible to avoid further risk from media publicity, litigation and liability from presumptive compensation."

Office of Secretary of Defense Consultant Comments on Air Force Reservists' Heart Disease and Cancer

In an email exchanged with one of his correspondants today, Dr. Alvin Young, Agent Orange Consultant to the Office of Secretary of Defense and retired AF colonel, offered his views about Air Force Reservists who flew dioxin-contaminated C-123K/UC-123K Providers between 1972-1982. His words:

"A sad commentary for blaming me. The Air Force did the right thing for the right reason in destroying those aircraft. It would have been a benefit to the tax payer to have sold those aircraft, but we all knew in time that the Air Reservists would seek presumptive compensation, and those aircraft would become the center of a social (not scientific) controversy, and never be used.  The link just about says it all. The only reason these men prepared such a story is that they are hoping they can cash in on " tax free money" for health issues that originate from life styles and aging. There was no exposure to Agent Orange or the dioxin, but that does not stop them from concocting exposure stories about Agent Orange hoping that some Congressional member will feel sorry for them and encourage DVA to pay them off. I can respect the men who flew those aircraft in combat and who made the sacrifices, many losing their lives, and almost all of them receiving Purple Hearts, but these men who subsequently flew them as "trash haulers", I have no respect for such free loaders. If not freeloading, what is their motive?"

I'm not sure this sounds like the gentleman we want advising senior Cabinet officials regarding Agent Orange exposure experienced by Air Force Reservists (the "trash haulers" and "free loaders" he refers to). No wonder he's alarmed that after being exposed to a decade of Agent Orange-contaminated aircraft which Air Force tests proved to be "heavily contaminated, extremely dangerous, extremely hazardous, extremely contaminated" and a danger to the public, the unworthy men mentioned above "will cash in on tax free money." Does it sound like a Reservist would get a fair shake here?


Not in a million years.

US

Air Force Sells Agent Orange Poison Airplanes to Disney for Movies!

In an inadvertent and quickly-regretted 1994 business move, the General Services Administration and the Air Force sold two surplus C-123K/UC-123K cargo aircraft to Walt Disney Films! Contaminated with dioxin from Agent Orange residue remaining from their Vietnam War years, the aircraft were released to an intermediate buyer, and the films made included Operation Dumbo Drop.

Stored aircraft before 2010 Destruction

Another problem: the surplus C-123K/UC-123K aircraft were so contaminated with Agent Orange that the entire fleet at the Davis-Monthan AFB "Boneyard" had to be stored in an out-of-sight, fenced in security area marked "Hazardous Material". Base workers were allowed near the airplanes only with hazmat suits, respirators and goggles, followed by decontamination. So why are three of these dioxon-contaminated aircraft still in museum display with the public allowed in close contact? The museums which received the contaminated aircraft include Pima Air Museum in Tucson (Tail #567 and 659), Kenosha Military Museum in Kenosha, WI, and the Minnesota Air National Guard Museum in St. Paul, MN. Further, there is a contaminated C-123K at the Robins AFB Museum of Aviation in Warner-Robins, GA.

Workers in required HAZMAT protection

The Air Force Museum received just such an aircraft when the C-123K/UC-123K were retired in 1982. Most were flown to Davis-Montan for surplus storage, but the famous "Patches"(which the author of this blog and his associates ourselves flew between 1972-1982) went to the Air Force Museum. Tests showed the aircraft, typical of all the spray aircraft from Vietnam, was "heavily contaminated" with dioxin. Special preparations costing $57,000 were completed before the aircraft was allowed inside the museum, and still only very limited public access is permitted. The aircraft is roped off to prevent the public from approaching, and when, on occasion, folks are allowed to walk through, it is a very quick walk through to limit exposure!


From our perspective as aircrews who flew these airplanes between 1972-1982, we had no hazmat protection. Nobody knew the dioxin was present in the aircraft although we knew Agent Orange residue remained and we couldn't clean it all out. But why, once Air Force tests completed in 1993 and later began to show the toxicity of the airplanes, why couldn't the Air Force let us know we'd been exposed? Why did (and still does) the Department of Veterans Affairs deny claims for Agent Orange exposure for veterans such as the late Aaron Olmstead, ruling in his appeal before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (C 28 107 548, dated 23 Aug 07) that he has no proof of flying Agent Orange-contaminated airplanes nor that the planes were actually the aircraft used for spraying Agent Orange. We now have the tail numbers, we have the Air Force tests, we have the Air Force official historical data, and we have expert testimony by the aircraft commanders, flight instructors, Stan/Eval flight examiners, maintenance officers, maintenance supervisors and other experts that eleven of our C-123K/UC-123K aircraft still had Agent Orange residue and stank of the lousy stuff!  
Judge Stephen Cohn of the Board of Veterans's Appeals should demand an explanation from the Government about why this evidence was deliberately withheld from Olmstead and his family. Aren't there any standards of ethical legal behavior in his jurisdiction?


What's it take to get a veteran with "boots in the airplane" to get his/her documented exposure to Agent Orange toxins recognized by the VA so that our cancers and other illnesses can be treated?

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

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

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

Dear Members of the Committee,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefuly and Respectfully,

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

Wesley T. Carter, Major, USAF Retired

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

Approved C-123K Flight Suit - finally discovered

The kind folks at HQ meant all along for the C123K flyers and maintainers to be properly protected inside the C-123k. They just forgot to tell us we'd been exposed. And, they forgot to tell us that they'd designed but forgot to issue a special flight suit, just for the Provider crews. Lucky, lucky us!

Secretary of Air Force Decides Against Informing Dioxin-Exposed Aircrews

In the recent dismissal of our SAF/IG complaint, the IG recommended we turn to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Air Force Historical Center regarding my formally filed allegations regarding... 
-questionable conduct by JAG officers
-questionable decisions by general officers, the Air Force Medical Service and the Air Force Material Command.


So I believe I have been told to resolve the issues of:
-Air Force force management
-Air Force JAG ethics
-Air Force weapon system contamination
-Air Force general officer actions
-Air Force aircrews
-Air Force Medical Corps officer actions-
-Air Force MAJCOM command oversight and
-Air Force treatment of retired members
...by trying to talk the VA into doing something. Get real.


Further, when I asked SAF/IG for help notifying aircrews who'd been exposed to dioxin flying the C-123K/UC-123K between 1972-1982 so the crews and maintainers could take whatever measures deemed appropriate regarding their own health and that of their families, the Secretary's office responded:


"Maj Carter,
Unfortunately we do not have the ability to identify or notify the individuals in the categories you mention.




Vincent G. DeBono, Jr., DAFC
Chief, Case Management Division
Office of the Secretary of the Air Force
Office of the Inspector General
Complaints and Resolution Directorate
DSN: 425-1555
COMM:  (703) 588-1555

-----Original Message-----
From: Rustysilverwings [mailto:rustysilverwings@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 3:20 PM
To: Debono, Vincent G CIV USAF SAF/IGQ
Subject: Re: Air Force Aircrews--Response from National Institutes of Health re: 
Agent Orange exposure

Dear Mr. Debono, 

Thank you for your email today letting me know the results of my complaint to 
the SAF/IG. I take it from your response closing the complaint that the 
conclusion on each of the allegations is that they are either unfounded, not 
issues of law or instruction, or are the responsibility of other agencies.

I do remain concerned about the JAG memo recommending information about dioxin 
contamination be "kept within official channels" and the question about whether 
purchasers of the contaminated aircraft, both domestic and foreign governments, 
have or have not been notified of their toxicity. If these are issues best addressed by addressing them to the Department of Veterans Affairs as you suggest, I'll 
certainly do that. If the Department of Veterans Affairs is responsible for the 
action of Air Force officers in their decision (or failure) to notify aircrews 
of exposure to toxic chemicals. I shall ask them why that was not done as the 
various Air Force reports about the contamination began surfacing.

Thank you for your thorough investigation of these issues which were so 
important to me and to the men and women I flew with for ten years. At least, is there any action the SAF can take to help notify aircrews from the time period involved as to their exposure to dioxin? I'm greatly worried the VA will not be particularly interested in pursuing the idea.

Respectfully,



Wesley T. Carter, Major, USAF Retired

Vietnam Veterans of America - Riding to Our Rescue!

On June 21 I received an email, followed by a phone call, from Mr. Alan Oates who chairs the Agent Orange/Dioxin Committee for the Vietnam Veterans of America. He had recommended that the VVA support our position before their membership and before the leadership of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

His recommendation was approved by the VVA executives, and they are now behind us 100%. I was very happy to learn of their improvement of our own proposal for recognition of the C-123K/UC-123K aircraft as an "Agent Orange Exposure Site" by the addition of the Army helicopters which did much the same thing...spray herbicides in Vietnam, then return to normal military duties throughout the world post-Vietnam...and thereby exposing Army aircrews as we ourselves have been exposed.

"No veteran left behind" is their motto. As aircrew, we'd never get out of an airplane without making sure everyone behind us was out first, and safe. We take care of the pax first, ahead of our own safety. Now, that same attitude of service is how the VVA is treating our veterans of the C-123K/UC-123K group...and I am proud to be first to offer our thanks for their pro-active position and service to all veterans, everywhere. We cannot fail but to benefit from their decades of leadership on veterans' issues, expertise on dioxin, and knowledge of the ins and outs of Washington's confusing corridors. Remember: it was Commissioner Linda Schwartz of Connecticut who put our two organizations in touch!


We have many of our group such as John Harris who are also Vietnam veterans...you should all be proud of your premier organization, the Vietnam Veterans of America!

Mr. Oates email from yesterday:

Dear Mr. Carter,

I am Alan Oates, Chairman of the Agent Orange/Dioxin and Other Toxic Substances Committee for Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA).  I am forwarding an email between President Rowan and myself and what VVA is working to do on your issue.  I appreciate the information you have been sharing with me over the past month.  Please continue to provide me with update information. 

Alan

Alan Oates

Subject: Fwd: Open Letter to Institute of Medicine Agent Orange Committee

President Rowan per your request,  I have followed up on this issue.  I find the information that this group has presented is factual.  I could not write the issue up any better than their open letter to IOM (forward as part of this email).    I have gotten feedback from many of the Agent Orange (AODOTS) Committee.  They are supportive of this group.  I have not conduct a formal vote on the issue as of yet.

I recommend that we write Secretary Shinseki and ask that post Vietnam war veterans who flew, served as crew members and maintained these aircraft be granted presumptive exposure.   I also would ask the Secretary to work with DOD in identifying and determine the disposition of all helicopters used in the Agent Orange spray operations.  This is needed as the veterans who flew and maintained these helicopter would are not recognized in the C 123 groups work.


Alan

Alan Oates
Chairman
Agent Orange/Dioxin and Other Toxic Substances Committee
Vietnam Veterans of America
  

Earlier Acknowledged "Coverups" of Agent Orange Issues

The 1996 memo from the AMSC JAG wasn't the first effort to keep quiet the information about harmful effects of dioxin. Very early in the development of Agent Orange dioxins, a researcher named Rowe sent a memo to Ross Mulholland, a manager with Dow in Canada, informing him that dioxin "is exceptionally toxic, it has a tremendous potential for producing chloracne (a skin disorder similar to acne) and systemic injury." Rowe ordered Mulholland in a postscript to the letter that "Under no circumstances may this letter be reproduced, shown or sent to anyone outside of Dow." 

Among those in attendance at one of the meetings of chemical company officials was John Frawley, a toxicologist for Hercules, Inc. In an internal memorandum for Hercules officials, Frawley wrote in 1965 that Dow was concerned the government might learn of a Dow study showing that dioxin caused severe liver damage in rabbits. Dow was concerned, according to Frawley, that "the whole industry will suffer." Frawley said he came away from the meeting with the feeling that "Dow was extremely frightened that this situation might explode" and lead to government restrictions.

The concern over dioxins was kept quiet and largely out of the public view. The U.S. government (trying hard to believe whatever science reports best fit national security) and the chemical companies presented a united front on the issue of defoliation, claiming it was militarily necessary to deprive the Viet Cong of hiding places and food sources and that it caused no adverse economic or health effects to those who came into contact with the rainbow herbicides, particularly Agent Orange.

AIR FORCE KNEW OF HEALTH DANGER

But, scientists involved in Operation Ranch Hand and documents uncovered between 2000 and 2006 in the National Archives present a somewhat different picture. There are strong indications that not only were many military officials aware as early as 1967 of the limited effectiveness of chemical defoliation, they knew of potential long-term health risks of frequent spraying and sought to keep that information from the public by managing news reports. Further, even the initial 1962 aircraft testing of Agent Orange spray operations indicated the C-123K would remain contaminated on the outside skin of the aircraft.

Dr. James Clary was an Air Force scientist in Vietnam who helped write the history of Operation Ranch Hand. Clary says the Air Force knew Agent Orange was far more hazardous to the health of humans than anyone would admit at the time.

"When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the 1960s," Clary wrote in a 1988 letter to a member of Congress investigating Agent Orange, "we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the `military' formulation had a higher dioxin concentration many times more lethal than the `civilian' version, due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However, because the material was to be used on the `enemy,' none of us were overly concerned. We never considered a scenario in which our own personnel would become contaminated with the herbicide. And, if we had, we would have expected our own government to give assistance to veterans so contaminated."

One of the approaches we're coming across as we put forward the claim that flying the C-123K/UC-123K post-Vietnam exposed us to dioxins is a response "that's a controversial subject still under consideration." Actually, there is NO controversy to the contamination of the aircraft, NO controversy about the toxicity of dioxin, and NO controversy about the ill effects of dioxin exposure. The effort to suggest "controversy" is akin to the tobacco companies years ago claiming that cigarettes "are an adult custom, and any health effects are a matter of controversy and current studies." 

Sorry, bud, that shell-game shuffle won't cut it here!

EXTREMELY Important Proof of Dioxin Exposure in C-123K!

Greg Parks, the very helpful Chief Counsel of the US Civilian Board of Contracts, General Services Administration recently provided me extremely useful, extremely pertinent, and extremely timely information concerning C-123K/UC-123K Provider Agent Orange contamination, a subject we're all extremely concerned with.

Extremely kind of him, and extremely important as we former aircrews and maintainers try to convince the Air Force, Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs about our extremely worrisome problem.

You've noticed my use of the word "extremely"? It is an extremely perfect way to describe the Agent Orange contamination of the aircraft we flew, because that's exactly the word used by the Air Force about the C-123K dioxin contamination! The United States Government, acting through the General Services Administration and the United States Air Force in their April 2000 brief to Judge Martha DeGraff (Board of Contract Appeals, GSA, Washington DC), determined on Page 24 that "There is no question, that dioxin contaminated aircraft constituted extremely hazardous and/or dangerous personal property."

I don't see how the Department of Veterans Affairs can fail to reach the conclusion that if other US Government agencies establish the aircraft we flew in and maintained to be extremely hazardous and contaminated, we therefore have been exposed to the contaminants! Neither can I understand why the Air Force, having in April 2000 reached this conclusion in their report to a Federal judge, decided on 9 June 2011 that it was not possible or appropriate to alert the veterans who'd been contaminated! I'm extremely disappointed!

Here's my take on this. We flew airplanes that were already contaminated with Agent Orange residue left over from Operation Ranchhand in Vietnam, from 1972 to 1982. Multiple Air Force tests establish the dioxin contamination of these airplanes even 20 to 30 years after their last spray missions! The planes were so contaminated in 2000 that the base safety and medical officials insisted that hazmat suits and respirators be used to protect workers entering the remaining stored planes. Multiple US Government agencies testified as to the dioxin contamination of the planes we flew that remained in the Davis-Monthan storage area. The planes were so contaminated that the Air Force opted to decontaminate them by melting them into scrap metal ingots. 

The VA requires non-Vietnam veterans claiming Agent Orange exposure to prove we were actually exposed to Agent Orange...these testimonies and the referenced Air Force test clearly establish that proof for all veterans also able to prove they maintained or flew the C-123K/UC-123K. It would take a tremendous and false, even vicious twist of logic to somehow determine the aircraft were contaminated and "extremely dangerous" enough to require hazmat protection yet also determine we weren't exposed to the contaminants in 1972-1982 when the dioxin had had even lesstime to decompose.

Ideas on this?

         Wes Carter, 74AES

      http://www.c123kcancer.blogspot.com

DOCUMENTATION:

Entire GSA/USAF Report to Judge Martha Degraff...click HERE

AF Museum Data Sheet on Patches, Tail 362...click HERE

AF test report showing Patches Tail 362 is contaminated...click HERE

AF JAG recommends "keeping information in official channels" only...click HERE

Davis-Monthan requires hazmat protection inside C-123K...click HERE

SAF/IG decides not to alert C-123 crews about our dioxin exposure...click HERE

University study confirms C-123K aircrew dioxin contamination...click HERE

Our Point Paper & Support Documents about our dioxin exposure...click HERE

COMRADES: (I've never used that word before...this is fun!)...please contact Paul Bailey to provide your name, Agent Orange-related illnesses if any, and names and illnesses of other C-123K/UC-123K people that you know of. Please spread the word to others.