H.R. 6562 would amend title 38, United States Code, relating to presumptions of exposure for veterans who served in the vicinity of Vietnam.
Detailed Summary
Agent Orange Equity Act of 2008 - Includes as part of the Republic of Vietnam, for purposes of the presumption of service connection for diseases associated with exposure by veterans to certain herbicide agents while in Vietnam, such Republic's inland waterways, waters offshore, and airspace above.
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 7/22/2008: Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Points Against
Here is a scenario for discussion. This is based on a very liberal set of probabilities but is provided as a means to stimulate discussion.
An area of the South China Sea 20 miles by 800 miles would equal 16,000 square miles. This would extend from the shoreline to 20 miles out, an area that some claim is the operating range of many of the ships. This is smaller than the area actually occupied by US navy ships but is used to simplify the calculations and give the benefit to close in to shore ships. If we consider a larger area the concentration of dioxin would be even lower.
At an average depth of 200 feet (considering the slope of the seabed floor away from land, this would amount to 89,210,880,000,000 cubic feet of water. That equates to 669,081,600,000,000 gallons, or 5,687,193,600,000,000 pounds, of sea water by volume.
By the most speculative account available an estimated 1320 pounds of dioxin was sprayed and/or spilled during the entire 10 year period of defoliation operations.
An extremely liberal estimate would be that perhaps half of this total, or 660 pounds, ran off into the rivers and streams. Of that, an estimated 50 percent of that actually reached the South China Sea, an amount equal to 330 pounds total. Since dioxin is nearly insoluble it would have attached to sediment. There would certainly be significant sediment settling as the water moved downstream.
Of the 330 pounds that reached the sea an estimated one-half, or 165 pounds, of that would have been at a depth to be pulled into the water intakes, given that there would be further settling of the sediment that contained the dioxin after it reached the sea.
At the end of the 10 year period, if all the above were true and there was no loss of dioxin to other causes (an illogical assumption), the ratio of dioxin in the sea water pulled into the ship systems would be one part dioxin to 34,467,840,000,000 parts sea water. That's 1 part dioxin to 34.467 trillion parts water.
That is one ounce of dioxin in 34.467 trillion ounces of water at the end of the entire 10 year period. There is no sailor who claims to have been within 20 miles of the shore for the entire 10 year period and therefore no sailor would have been exposed to anywhere near this amount. Remember also, this is using the most liberal assumptions to make the calculations and not allowing for any other losses of dioxin content other that settling.
Some things to consider:
It is unlikely that half the total dioxin introduced during the 10 year period actually ended up in the rivers and estuaries. The current studies of the Vietnamese landscape indicate that a significant amount remains on land. The likely amount that actually drifted out to sea is much smaller but using this figure gives a greater benefit to the bluewater navy position.
There was certainly a larger loss of dioxin than just that allowed for from sediment settling. Current flow and other factors would certainly have added to the dilution of the total amount of dioxin in the area outlined.
Since the dioxin was actually introduced over a 10 year period, and we have no true measure of how much was introduced each year, it is impossible to say what the level of dioxin was in the South China Sea at any given time. However it would have certainly been considerably less than the one part in 34.467 trillion shown above as an estimated total for the 10 year period.
Points in Favor
Setting aside the flawed assumptions that the "Against" commenter bases his/her argument on (e.g., contrary to the "Against" commenter's assumption, the majority of US Navy ships came well within 20 miles of the coastline of Vietnam, often to within a few thousand yards or less and many of which anchored in its harbors), his calculations, even as tiny as the levels seem to be, do, in fact show that blue water Navy Vietnam veterans were exposed to potentially harmful levels of dioxen. Simply compare the "Against" commenter's exposure calculation of 1 part of dioxen to 34.467 trillion (12 zeroes) parts of water to the EPA safe level of 13 parts of dioxen to 1 quintillion (18 zeroes) parts of water. See the Agency for Toxic Subtance and Disease Registry:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/NER/DIOXIN/dxn1996.html
And the blue water Navy Vietnam veterans exposure to dioxen was not a one-time event, since it was normal for each ship to spend many months in the Gulf of Tonkin, often within 3 miles or closer to shore, during which time the crews would have been constantly exposed - drinking and showering in the contaminated water which their ship's produced and eating food cooked in the contaminated water.
Finally, the "against" commenter's unstated assumption that the dioxen content of the water at 20 miles from shore is equivalent to the dioxen content at, for example, 3 miles from shore is fatally flawed.
Visitor Comments
Roy
August 12, 2008, 8:33am (report abuse)"Under the new 2008 Equity Act criteria, ship crews fifty miles offshore, overflying (above the tropopause in pressure suits breathing 100% oxygen) SR-71 / U-2 pilots, etc. will be eligible to make an AO claims of exposure almost three years after spray operations were terminated."
And that simply points out how ludicrous this legislation is.
Wally
August 12, 2008, 9:00am (report abuse)To the HR6562 nay sayers, check a few simple facts. How much tcdd was in the atmosphere during any given year during the war.
Look at Operation Pink Rose and the effects. Look at normal operation procedures for accompanying aircraft for the CU123's. Not only have you supplied misinformation using IOM publications for the amounts sprayed and you are clueless to the amounts of dioxin purchased and from whom.
Your predisposition to prove your point just doesn't stand up. Spend some time with the victims, observe the medical problems up close and personal. You are only offering opinion and selected facts, not the whole picture(just like the DVA).
Roy
August 12, 2008, 9:34am (report abuse)Wally,
Do you actually believe the dioxin from the spraying was in the atmosphere over two years after spraying operations stopped?
You say clueless - but your "research" is not better.
You bring the "victims" into the equation to play on the sympathetic hearts. Until it is specifically proven that these folks were not exposed to any dioxin anywhere else in their environment then you are basing all your claims on supposition.
I tend to agree with JA Boyd when they say "half-baked idiocy generated by those who want to dine at the public trough." If there was no money involved this would not be an issue for you, regardless of your protestations to the contrary.
Gus
August 12, 2008, 10:22am (report abuse)Look at normal operation procedures for accompanying aircraft for the CU123's.
WHAT WERE THEY ?
UC-123s were usually escorted by F-100s from Bien Hoa, B-57s (Redbirds and Yellow Birds, and rarely by USAF F-4s. Navy and Marine aircraft did not fly escort or maneuver near active spraying where USAF fighters were dropping CBU and strafing.
Gus
August 12, 2008, 10:45am (report abuse)Wally.
With respect to my previous question, I would like to hear your understanding of Ranchand escorting aircraft and the relevance of their operational proceedures to the proposed legislation.
ExIntrepid
August 12, 2008, 12:40pm (report abuse)Roy, you don't understand about TCDD or Dioxin.
It was a contaminate, from the manufacturing process. It does not evaporate, like fuel oil. It is not destroyed by sunlight, like the organophosphates in all the 'Rainbow' herbicides. It cannot even be destroyed by incineration.
Individual veterans had different levels of exposure. Individual veterans had different kinds and levels of susceptibility. Some of us could swim in the stuff without effect. Others could be affected by one lousy molecule. Further, it acts like a catalyst, in that it is not destroyed and can continue mutating cells until excreted. It's not a simple process, like say heavy metal poisoning.
Read the Institute of Medicine's or Center for Disease Control's studies. Check any number of EPA studies related to Dioxin. We're not making this up, we didn't invent or pay for these studies. The Royal Australian Navy's studies were peer-reviewed, and weren't even done by Americans.
—ExIntrepid
USS Chicago CG-11
August 12, 2008, 1:21pm (report abuse)It is obvious that "ROY" is as incompetent as the DAV and does not have a clue as to what he is talking about!
Quote from Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States, © 2007 The National Academy of Sciences
"Fertilizer Runoff and Nutrient Pollution - "For most crops, it is standard agricultural practice to apply fertilizers such as nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as pesticides, which include herbicides and insecticides. However, these chemicals can wash into bodies of water and affect water quality. For example, excess nitrogen washing into the Mississippi River is known to be a cause of the oxygen-starved "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, in which marine life cannot survive."
USS Chicago CG-11
August 12, 2008, 1:23pm (report abuse)It is obvious that "ROY" is as incompetent as the DAV and does not have a clue as to what he is talking about!
In the document, Herbicides Used in Southeast Asia, authored by the US Army, Plant Sciences Laboratories, Fort Detrick, MD, dated August 1969, there is a chart, Effect of Spray Droplet Size on Spray Drift.
In the chart it states that a "Brownian particle droplet, 0.5 microns in diameter, taking 6,750 Minutes to travel in Still Air, will travel 388 Miles falling 10 feet in a 3-mph Breeze."
USS Chicago CG-11
August 12, 2008, 1:29pm (report abuse)It is obvious that "ROY" is as incompetent as the DAV and does not have a clue as to what he is talking about!
In a document entitled Disposal of Herbicide Waste by C. E. Minarik (Ft. Detrick, MD),dated April 27, 1967 he states:
"An on-the-ground survey of the herbicide drainage area at Bien Hoa Air Base was conducted and the problem was discussed with LOC Dennis, Commander 12th Air Commando Squadron (RANCH HAND), on 6, 7, and 14 April 1967."
"The area of interest is on the western edge of the airstrip and drains into a marsh which empties into the Dong Nai River which in turn flows into the Nha Be River and finally into the South China Sea."
Gus
August 12, 2008, 1:56pm (report abuse)Chicago: you posted a nice "Cherry picking" fact.
"Effect of Spray Droplet Size on Spray Drift.
In the chart it states that a "Brownian particle droplet, 0.5 microns in diameter, taking 6,750 Minutes to travel in Still Air, will travel 388 Miles falling 10 feet in a 3-mph Breeze."
They never said AO droplet sizes were that small.
Ranchand spray equipment was set for 300 microns with a possibility of some as small as 100 microns.
Spray droplets of ORANGE 100 microns in diameter require 2 minutes to fall a distance of 150 feet. Under conditions of a 9-mph crosswind, the 100-micron drop of ORANGE may be laterally displaced 1,594 feet. A 300-micron drop will be shifted 183 feet from the line of delivery (Table VIII).
4. Mass median diameter (,D) of the spray should be coarse (300 to 350 microns) to reduce the proportion of small drops available to drift
off target.
Gus
August 12, 2008, 2:11pm (report abuse)USS Chicago CG-11
In a document entitled Disposal of Herbicide Waste by C. E. Minarik (Ft. Detrick, MD),dated April 27, 1967 he states:
"An on-the-ground survey of the herbicide drainage area at Bien Hoa Air Base was conducted and the problem was discussed with LOC Dennis, Commander 12th Air Commando Squadron (RANCH HAND), on 6, 7, and 14 April 1967."
The 12th ACS Ranchand moved from Tan Son Nhut AB to BIEN HOA AB in December 1966. The Herbicide mixing equpment (AO and Fuel Oil)drainage area problem was corrected immediately by LtCol. Dennis's staff. The problem only lasted four months - not long term as some would like to imply. Minute aamounts of dioxin were released.
Michael
August 12, 2008, 2:56pm (report abuse)I will ignore much of the b.s. being spouted by a few "pro-VA" commenters here.
For blue Water Navy Vietnam veterans, the Amicus Brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Haas case more than adequately destroys the VA's (and VA supporters) misguided and disengenous policy in this matter. The Amicus Brief may be viewed at:
http://www.bluewaternavy.org/Amicus.BRF02.pdf
And to the 25-year A.F. veteran who labels receiving medical and other disability benefits as "dining from the public trough", how would you label your retired pay and Tri-care benefits whose source of funding is from the same source? One does not necessarily need to make a career out of military service to deserve medical and other benefits. That is the point of the Agent Orange Act of 1991 and other laws.
TOM
August 12, 2008, 2:59pm (report abuse)my dear roy;why and how do you spend so much time attacking vets on this website?one clue was your "vested rights"comment followed by a posting by you saying"vested financial rights".If financial gain comes with it,so be it.It was earned.It showed the true nature of your crusade against all your fellow vets.Do you not get financial gain from your "20+"years in the military?The fellow who posted "check the mortality rates"hit the nail on the head.This can all be paid for by simply stop the wasted money on the war on drugs.WE LOST.Tax drugs like you do smoking and drinking and there is even more money,please see HR5843,I would like to see your opinion.
p.s. I put my glasses on so i could see what i was writing and not make you think i was yelling at you!
All my best,
Tom
tom
August 12, 2008, 3:12pm (report abuse)by the way,not all navy vets were"50"miles at sea.My ship and many other destroyers were within 1000yards of the beach firing close in gunfire support for the army and marines.we were up river,inVIETNAM AND cambodia ,from the me-cong delta to hiphong harbor.(HANOI).so again ,this"BLANKET thinking"BY THE DVA AND THE VA MUST STOP!
'
tom
August 12, 2008, 3:28pm (report abuse)funny that you don't hear one peep from the submarine sailors as they are truely "blue water navy".Why has no one checked their rate of cancer etc.against surface personnel?That would truely produce some surprising results.
Roy
August 12, 2008, 4:01pm (report abuse)"I put my glasses on so i could see what i was writing and not make you think i was yelling at you!"
Thanks Tom, you are so thoughtful.
TOM
August 12, 2008, 4:24pm (report abuse)ROY:
YOUR COMMENTS PLEASE ON HR 5843 AND YOUR THOUGHTS OF THE RATES OF CANCER ETC.ON SUBMARINERS AND SURFACE SAILORS?
SORRY FOR THE CAPS.
ROY,I TRY TO BE THOUGHTFUL,NOT SARCASTIC.DO ONTO OTHERS AS YOU HAVE THEM DO ONTO YOU.
Roy
August 12, 2008, 4:48pm (report abuse)Tom,
unless I am not seeing the correct legislation it appears that HR 5843 is The Act to Remove Federal Penalties for the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults. I'm not sure how it applies to submariners or surface sailers in connection to rates of cancer.
Although the opportunity has been there I never could bring myself to try it myself. I tend to look at it much like alcohol - if you use it and then cause someone else harm because of impairment you should be punished.
turbonessie@yahoo.com
August 12, 2008, 5:54pm (report abuse)ships off RVN pulled in drinking water from water laden with dioxin(washed from rivers); there were MANY forms of dioxin ...Agent White was 200 x more powerful than Agent Orange. DOW Chem. has NEVER released some of the propriety ingredients in Agent White. You need to read Admiral Zumwalt's now open (TOP SECRET) investigation done for the VA. Australia is already compensating its RVN Navy vets...they have an across the board 27% + in all forms of cancer, which they got by DRINKING dioxin, which water distillation processes of the time could NOT FILTER OUT. If you are a school teacher, you should know how to conduct research.
Roy
August 12, 2008, 6:34pm (report abuse)The water was treated by distillation. True or not?
Although I know many pooh-pooh anything the government publishes it is interesting to read that "Due to its very low water solubility, most of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD occurring in water is expected to be associated with sediments or suspended material." Would the distillation process remove sediment? I would be interested in hearing your responses. http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/dwh/t-soc/dioxin.html
I know how to do research. I also know that everything I read here or anywhere else can be colored by motives of the writers. I take those things into consideration and to me the science does not support the contention that thousands of sailors were poisoned from the water or air by the amount of dioxin present in the spray.
I also find it interesting that no one wants to respond to the idea that any such sailor was exposed to a great deal more dioxin during that time in their own hometowns and back yards.
tom
August 12, 2008, 6:54pm (report abuse)roy;
yes the bill is for pot.
my contention is the money saved from enforcement and taxation can be put towards our vets.The evaps onboard ship used a product called SILVEREX put directly into the ships fresh water tanks to fight algee and slime.It was laden with dioxin.what do you think about the comparison between sub and above water sailors?can it be done?
why not?
all my best;
tom
Michael
August 12, 2008, 10:01pm (report abuse)Roy,
Typically you ignore scientific studies that refute your apparent contention that water distilled by U.S. Navy vessels of the period filtered out dioxen. I sighted the Amicus Brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals and provided a link for you to read the Australian study that demonstrated that their vessels, which used the same process to produce potable water not only did not filter out the dioxen, and, it, in fact, enhanced it! And their studies showed that their blue water Navy Vietnam veterans had a higher propensity of certain Agent Orange cancers than their ground troop counterparts. Their peer reviewed scientific study demonstrated that their blue water Navy Vietnam veterans were exposed to AO and suffered the consequences of such exposure.
roy
August 12, 2008, 10:25pm (report abuse)I finalley figured out who you are?YOUR JANE FONDA HANOI JANE.
TOM
August 12, 2008, 10:46pm (report abuse)JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION ROY,OUT OF INSULTS?
I ASSURE YOU I HAVE BALLS UNLIKE YOUR LOVER JANE.
I FINALLY FIGURED OUT WHO YOU ARE;JUST AN A**H*LE
Roy
August 12, 2008, 11:07pm (report abuse)Well Michael, I suppose you could always emmigrate.
Tom,
I'll never out of kind words for you. I have to admit your Fonda comment did hurt, but not enough to make me go away. As to your question concerning pot - I really don't care if you get thrown in jail for pot or not. Perhaps your entire underlying agenda has been to make pot legal. I wonder? Probably not though since that would mean that you really could form cogent thoughts and put a plan in motion. How silly of me to even suspect you of having that kind of intellectual capacity.
webmaster
August 12, 2008, 11:20pm (report abuse)A reminder: Comments that are impolite, off-topic, violations of others' rights, or advertisements are likely to be removed. Please refrain from personal attacks and foul language, which do not help site visitors form opinions of this legislation.
Camarahill
August 12, 2008, 11:37pm (report abuse)Many Blue Water Viet Nam Vets have been exposed to dioxins from Agent Orange or other herbicides used in the spraying of Vietnam. Many ships were on the gunline, in harbors, and in rivers while there. Some ships have even been sprayed with Agent Orange. My husband has 2 shipmates that have been approved for benefits due to exposure of Agent Orange, yet his case has been denied. The VA has been lumping all Blue water cases together and just plain denying them rather than looking to the facts of each case. HR 6562 will provide the clarification that is needed to provide the intent of COngress in the 1991 Act.
James F. Mason
August 12, 2008, 11:41pm (report abuse)I was on a ship that served in the coastal waters of Vietnam. Unlike most navy personnel I entered vietnam via air when I was flown from PI to Danang and spent 10 days in country. I filed a claim in 1996 and took physical for Agent Orange registry. This information has been ignored and the physical withheld from the claim processing. This has been going on for 8 years now. This bill will get rid the VA of the ability to screw Vietnam War vets. For those that oppose the bill, why do you want to continue jerking us around. In a few years we will all be dead.
Roy
August 13, 2008, 12:25am (report abuse)I have been accused of faulty logic by the folks on bluewaternavy.org. So here is a chance to provide me with some verifiable material to review.
1. For the different blue water ships that were there - how much water was produced by the desalinization process onboard ship on a daily basis? I would like to see some examples for different types of vessels, small to large, in close to shore and also at Yankee Station.
2. How much of the water produced was used as potable water? All or just some part.
3. Are there differences in the way the different ships processed the water? Different equipment, different process, etc?
4. What was the average amount of time a ship spent there on a deployment - how many months?
5. What other sources of possible contamination were there aboard ship? I'm sure there were others but the only thing I have heard about so far is silvex. Anything else?
I will probably think of more questions as I go.
Michael
August 13, 2008, 12:43am (report abuse)Roy,
By asking the questions you do shows that you are absolutely ignorant of shipboard conditions. But here are the answers:
1 - All potable water is produced by the desalination process while a ship is underway. The amount depends on the size of the ship and crew. And because of the length of time many ships spent on the gunline, close to shore, those ships continued to produce potable water through the desalinization method regardless of their proximity to the shore. 2 All the fresh water produced by a ship underway was produced by the desalinization process. 3. The Australian ships during the Vietnam era used the same process that U.S. Navy ships used. Many of their ships were, in fact, former U.S. Navy ships. 4. Ships were generally deployed for from 6 - 9 months. And many sailors made multiple deployments to Vietnam.
Michael
August 13, 2008, 12:51am (report abuse)5. And if blue water Navy Vietnam veterans were proven to be exposed to Agent Orange by studies including the Australian scientific studies, then exposure to other possible contaminations is no more relevant to blue water Navy Vietnam veterans than to ground based Vietnam veterans.
Now let me ask you a question Roy: What is your vested interest in the outcome of this? Do you work for the VA? Or is it that you are retired military and it simply grates you to no end that someone who did not make the military a career could get medical benefits similar to what you get from tricare and, perhaps a monthly disability check? Or are you simply just a dispicable person who cannot stand seeing someone get something that you don't or cannot get?
Michael
August 13, 2008, 12:53am (report abuse)Roy,
Oh, and in case you have not figured it out: While underway, the water that was produced by the ship was the water that they crew drank, showered in, and cooked in.
Roy
August 13, 2008, 1:13am (report abuse)So Michael, do you have any quantifiable answers or just more rhetoric?
I asked for some specific information and all I got was more of the same.
My "vested" interest is as a taxpayer who will help foot the bill. I don't have any ax to grind and I don't care if a veteran was career or not.
Michael
August 13, 2008, 1:13am (report abuse)Roy,
Another question for you. By what method used is DaNang Harbor not considered to be in the former Republic of Vietnam? Answer: Only by the VA's arbitrary and illogical method. By every other definition known to man, DaNang Harbor is in the former Republic of VN. Of course, the VA throws out the claims of those whose ship's anchored in VN during the war. Even though the harbor is surrounded by land on three sides, and therefore, any ship in the center of the harbor would be closer inland in Vietnam than anyone standing on the outermost portions of the land surrounding the harbor. Yet, in this case, those farther inland are denied coverage under the AO Act by the VA while those on land farther out are covered by the VA. This is just one example of the idiocy of the VA's arbitrary standards and how they twist incontrovertable facts inside out to support their misguided policies.
Michael
August 13, 2008, 1:24am (report abuse)What part of all potable water that the crew used to drink, shower in and cook in don't you understand. If you were underway for 6 - 9 months, how much water do you think you would have drank aboard ship? How much water would you have used to shower in? And how much water do you think was your "share" of what was used to cook in. Take that answer, and, for a destroyer, for example, multiply by 300 crewman and you will have your answer. For an aircraft carrier multiply by 5000 crewman, etc. To say that it would be a considerable amount of water is self evident to any person who is familiar with the art of drinking water, showering and cooking. By the way, I am only answering your questions for the benefit of other readers here, not for your benefit, since it is obvious, you are not interested in anything that undemines your position.
Michael
August 13, 2008, 1:29am (report abuse)Roy, do you really think I or anyone here really believes your sole interest is a taxpayer?
johnnieboy
August 13, 2008, 3:05am (report abuse)Roy, check yourself into VA, get your ptsd problems handled, then rethink your position. Bet you were one of those Road FELLOWS (retired on active duty). Tell me you did not use the GI BILL to get your college degree. Or did the school system you taught at only require a retirement certificate. I ass u me you will not benefit from 6562. wheter it be women or benefits, I believe in getting all that I can get.
tom
August 13, 2008, 4:00am (report abuse)roy,the point of hr5843 i was trying to make would appeal to you as a taxpayer.the money saved on enforcement,confinment,and the added benefit of taxation would cover all the vets claims, with money left over.
I'm not a drug user as you imply,and if you are intoxicated you should get a dwi(again money generated).Roy,you should try not to be so insulting to people,since it only hurts your point. sorry i
insulted you by bringing up that bitch commie.
I'm still looking foward to your opinion on the sub vs.surface vets.
it would be a very interesting study.
TOM
TOM
August 13, 2008, 4:35am (report abuse)and roy,as a taxpayer do you like the price of gas,heating oil,etc.
Well you cant eat oil and you cant grow corn or wheat in the desert.We sell grain to the entire world.THEY TRIPLE THE PRICE OF FUEL,WHY DONT WE TRIPLE THE COST OF GRAIN?OUR TROOPS ARE DIEING FOR OIL,AND I BELIEVE IN VIETNAM IT WAS FOR RUBBER.THE DVA NEEDS TO GIVE US ALL A BREAK.IN VIETNAM WE CAME HOME TO TAUNTS OF BABYKILLER,AT LEAST NOW OUR TROOPS COME HOME TO CHEERS.WHY CANT WE VIETNAM VETS EVER CATCH A BREAK EVER?ALL WE WANT IS WHAT THE GOVT,PROMISED US,THATS ALL.
Roy
August 13, 2008, 8:54am (report abuse)OK. I asked for real information - all I got was more insults. So here is what I have decided.
I cannot support this legislation. In fact, I will write to each and every member of the House and Senate to ask them not to support the legislation. I have searched the more popular veteran websites and downloaded any lists of legislative contacts they have. I have also downloaded the templates or form letters they have provided for others to use. In this way I can be sure to provide counterpoint for the things being said by the other side.
I will also provide this to those groups I know that feel the same way I do. If enough of us weigh in maybe we can offset the efforts to support this bill.
I tried but all you wanted to do was call me names and tell me I was crazy because I did not see it your way. From now on I won't be reading any more of what is said here. I will be too busy working against the legislation.
Michael
August 13, 2008, 10:47am (report abuse)Roy,
I am so proud of you. As a veteran you choose to oppose legislation that would correct the injustice done to so many sick and dieing Vietnam veterans. And in your infinite wisdom, you even think you know more than the scientists in Australia who conducted studies positively demonstrating the association with shipboard blue water Navy service in Vietnam and exposure to Agent Orange which caused their sailors to have a higher propensity of Agent Orange related cancers and other conditions than their ground based troops due to the same desalinzation process used by U.S. Navy warships. May you lead a healthy and prosperous life, unlike many of those whose medical and other benefits you, like the VA, would deny. Sleep well!
JA Boyd
August 13, 2008, 10:53am (report abuse)Tom,
Interesting idea. What are the estimates for the cost of HR 6562? If you believe the marijuana bill will cover the costs it seems like you should have some cost analysis available to share.
ExIntrepid
August 13, 2008, 11:09am (report abuse)Roy, in answer to your question, USS Intrepid CVA-11 potable water production was (conservativly) over 200,000 gallons *Daily* when conducting flight operations. During stand-down when doing unreps for fuel, ammo, or food that number would be about half, with excess going to storage while alternate flash distillers were taken offline for maintenance..
Further, the RAN study's (data) indicated that flash distiller's copper tubing increased toxicity of dioxins by adding ions as well as concentrating them. Note that those studies were on DDG, or DE's, whose distillers were much smaller than Carriers. Note that Intrepid was a War II carrier with two steam cats, newer carriers launching F-4's from 4 steam cats produced considerably more potable water.
Your position is untenable to anyone who checks the facts. Emotions aside, you're wrong. Deal with it.
James
August 13, 2008, 11:36am (report abuse)on my ship, which I was oilking, I had to figure the gallons per man, of the freshwater distilled, for cooking, bathing, and drinking. I know its just a roundabout figure/average but should give an idea,.. I would say approximately 10,000 gallons of fresh water were made per day,, 300 men (on the DDG) and approximately 25 gallons were allowed per man.. it didnt always come out like that, sometimes it was 20 gals, sometimes 30 gals per day.
that doesnt include the feed water made hourly, for the boilers.
If more water per man was being used (than the 25 allowed) showers were shut down different times of day.
USS Chicago CG-11
August 13, 2008, 1:10pm (report abuse)Congress intended for ALL Vietnam veterans to be included!
Congressional Record of the House, January 30, 1984 regarding the AGENT ORANGE AND ATOMIC VETERANS RELIEF ACT.
"Mr. MONTGOMERY - Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1961) to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide a presumption of service connection for the occurrence of certain diseases related to exposure to herbicides or other environmental hazards or conditions in veterans who served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam era as amended."
"Mr. MONTGOMERY - Mr. Speaker, there has been much controversy concerning the long-term health effects that may be related to service in Vietnam and exposure to Agent Orange. The reported bill is a compromise measure that we worked out in the full committee. The bill we bring to the floor today passed the full committee by vote of 30 to 0."
TOM
August 13, 2008, 1:47pm (report abuse)ROY,WHAT INSULTS?
BYE.
MR JA BOYD,
I'M SURE HR6562 WOULD COST BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR NEEDED MEDICAL CARE AND SOME SORT OF COMPEASATION FOR SICK VETS.bILLIONS ARE SPENT ON THE
WAR ON DRUGS,AND I'M SURE TAXATION WOULD ADD BILLIONS.
YOU KNOW I HAVE NO COST ANALYIS, SO DONT TRY TO TAKE OVER ROYS SNOTTYNESS. OR ARE YOU ROYS SCKITZO
OTHER HALF....ROY,ARE YOU IN THERE?
THE OTHER BILL HAS A 98%FOR AND 2%AGAINST.take there money and help the vets..
Gus
August 13, 2008, 1:52pm (report abuse)FELLOW VETS - Debate is the hallmark of democracy, however, accusing Ranch Hand UC-123 Pilots of international war crimes is a desperate and dispicable act by the BWN. The following is posted on the BWN website:" If one of those guys is who he says he was when he was on here harassing us, he is a UC-123 Ranch Hand pilot. So that, in my opinion, makes him a war criminal and "just following orders" didn't wash at Nuremburg. Therefore, he does have a vested interest and his hokie "facts" and convoluted logic amounts to little more than propoganda designed to cover his a$$. Any time the US admits that AO and the rest of the Rainbow Chemicals have had a huge effect on such a large number of our people the Vietnamese Commies can use it against the US and the chemical companies in the World Court. Then, those who dumped the stuff on them could be brought up on war crimes.
http://bluewaternavy.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1287&start=15&sid=4f410...
JA Boyd
August 13, 2008, 2:09pm (report abuse)Tom,
It was a legitimate question. I'm trying to see if your assertion that one bill will offset the other would work.
No, I'm not Roy. My name is James Alan Boyd. I am a retired MSgt, USAF.
GUS
August 13, 2008, 2:10pm (report abuse)ExIntrepid
USS Intrepid CVA-11 potable water production was (conservativly) over 200,000 gallons *Daily* when conducting flight operations. During stand-down when doing unreps for fuel, ammo, or food that number would be about half, with excess going to storage while alternate flash distillers were taken offline for maintenance..
Further, the RAN study's (data) indicated that flash distiller's copper tubing increased toxicity of dioxins by adding ions as well as concentrating them. Note that those studies were on DDG, or DE's, whose distillers were much smaller than Carriers. Note that Intrepid was a War II carrier with two steam cats, newer carriers launching F-4's from 4 steam cats produced considerably more potable water.
I have no argument with the above facts exc except for the misssing element - DIOXIN - One eye dropper a day into thousands of square miles of ocean and air. That dilution would render it less harmless then your weekly back yard trash burning
Michael
August 13, 2008, 2:55pm (report abuse)Gus,
Your just one more person blinded by whatever motivates you to deny sick and dieing Vietnam veterans medical care and other benefits. So purposely blind to the scientific evidence that refutes your's and the VA's position on blue water Navy Vietnam veterans exposure to Agent Orange. I've sighted in a previous comment here the Amicus brief which contains the relevant data of the Australian scientific study as well as other defects in the VA's position in this matter. I find it dispicable that you believe your amateur scientific proficiency outweighs the conclusions of true scientists and based on your woefully lacking expertise you would deny sick and dieing Vietnam veterans the medical care and other benefits they need and deserve and that you would encourage others to join in your crusade against these veterans.
Michael
August 13, 2008, 2:56pm (report abuse)Gus,
If only we knew your true motivation, I'm sure it would speak volumes. But, like Roy, you probably will expect us to believe the b.s. that you are merely concerned taxpayers.
GUS
August 13, 2008, 3:09pm (report abuse)Michael
Gus,
If only we knew your true motivation, I'm sure it would speak volumes. But, like Roy, you probably will expect us to believe the b.s. that you are merely concerned taxpayers.
My motivation - I am not convinced of the valadity of your arguments. Unfortunately when participants state their disagreement, they are labeled: Uninformed Bush lover, Unreasonable republican, fools who are guided by the subjugation of (by) the rich, Chemical company employee, VA stooge,You fool, Not a patriot, Not worthy of respect, What department of the Bush Administration are you guys owned by?,
Bush lapdog, you are either IOM or DVA in my opinion. I suggest you look beyond your work place. incompetent as the DAV, check yourself into VA, get your ptsd problems handled, and (drum roll) war criminal.
Anyone visiting the BWN site can read the threats against government officials and manic attempts to identify those who disagree.
Camarahill
August 13, 2008, 3:24pm (report abuse)Gus,
The quote you have from the blue water site is one person's opinion.
It is on a members discussion board. That does not mean it is the opinion of the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Vets Association.
Michael
August 13, 2008, 4:16pm (report abuse)Gus,
Once again, you ignore the facts and conclusions from the Australian scientific study. But to quote a movie, like the VA you can't handle the truth even if it hits you square between the eyes. It is not difficult to determine the motivation of supporters of H.R. 6525. And our side is the only side that has scientific evidence from a scientific study with scientific conclusions to support our position. Yours and the VA's position to deny needed medical and other benefits to sick and dieing Vietnam vetereans is based on unproven suppositions. And, throwing out a few isolated facts does not carry the weight of a scientific study no matter how hard you argue to make it so. . .
Michael
August 13, 2008, 4:17pm (report abuse). . . So, you and your cohorts can go about your silly way of quoting a few isolated facts to jump to your broad baseless conclusions, just like you quote one person from a an organization's forum who expresses an opinion and attempt to label that as the opinion of the entire group which, the last I checked is open to anyone, members and non-members alike, to express their views.
JA Boyd
August 13, 2008, 4:26pm (report abuse)Michael,
Just out of curiosity I looked at the post on bluewaternavy. The post in question was made by Daveironbear, who is listed as a moderator for the forum.
But then again you knew that already since your response to him was the next post in the thread.
USS Chicago CG-11
August 13, 2008, 4:26pm (report abuse)Quote: Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States, © 2007 The National Academy of Sciences
“Fertilizer Runoff and Nutrient Pollution - "For most crops, it is standard agricultural practice to apply fertilizers such as nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as pesticides, which include herbicides and insecticides. However, these chemicals can wash into bodies of water and affect water quality. For example, excess nitrogen washing into the Mississippi River is known to be a cause of the oxygen-starved “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico, in which marine life cannot survive."
Quote: Riverine Warfare, The U.S. Navy’s Operations on Inland Waters – Naval History Division – Navy Department, Revised 1969
“Begun over 1,000 years ago, they have been developed into one of the world’s outstanding navigational and drainage systems. This labyrinth of interconnecting inland waterways totals more than 4,000 miles.”
Where do these waterways eventually drain?
Michael
August 13, 2008, 5:10pm (report abuse)JA Boyd,
And Davironbear is entitled to his opinion, just as I am entitled to mine opinion, and you are entitled to yours. But where does it state that my opinion or his is necessarily the position of the bwn? It doesn't say so anywhere and you saying it is so, doesn't make it so. Anymore than a moderator's opinion elsewhere - say for instance at Veterans Benefits web site whose moderators I'm told sometimes take an anti-bwn AO position similar to yours.
So once again, you and your ilk prove my point. You cite one anomalous fact as a basis for your broad conclusions.
tom
August 13, 2008, 5:17pm (report abuse)JA BOYD; DIDNT MEAN TO JUMP ON YOUR THROAT,BUT ROT WAS A VERY ONE SIDED TYPE/NO OPEN MIND.
I JUST THOUGHT IT IRONIC THAT THE "HIPPIES"IN THE END COULD END UP PAYING FOR THE SICK VETS THRU THE POT BILL.THATS ALL.
TOM
JA Boyd
August 13, 2008, 5:43pm (report abuse)Michael,
I tried to respond to a post on bluewaternavy but it requires a login. So I guess it isn't as open as you thought.
Tom,
It would truly be a just world if the marijuana smokers could provide for the veterans.
to all
August 13, 2008, 6:03pm (report abuse)so far you have been mailing congreemen and politicens.stareting from the top down.try changing your tactics and start from the bottom up.you all have relitives and friends,co workers,church people.you all email each other.try sending you findings to your people on your emall,they in turn email there friends.try this grass roots aproach.youd be surprized at how many emails would go out.i redwood tree starts from very humble beginnins,its seed is as small as a poppy seed on your bread.it grows to the one of the lagest living things on the planet.thus i say make your search for justice a living thing.
Camarahill
August 13, 2008, 6:50pm (report abuse)Grassroots email campaign began 2 days ago in Alabama
to all
August 13, 2008, 7:50pm (report abuse)can anyone tell me why i can recieve bwn post through emal,but cant answer them or make a comment?
Michael
August 13, 2008, 8:51pm (report abuse)JA Boyd,
Oh well, it may go back a few months ago to when a certain vistor whose comments using he bwn forum were quite similar to one of the oppponents of H.R. 6525 here got tired at some point of ranting about his personal experience as a UC 123 pilot as if the "insight" he had from his duties answered all the questions involving bwn AO exposure - or lack thereof in his opinion - and trumped all other facts and scientific studies and began making insulting comments towards the members of bwn. But you certainly are free from reading what the members post there. So, our agenda is there for all to see, but yours and your friends' agenda is far from clear. And statements that you are mere concerned citizens interested in the wise expenditures of tax dollars does not pass the laugh test. So, the mystery as to your intense interest in denial of benefits in this matter certainly adds to the speculation of who you all really are and your motivations.
shirereef
August 13, 2008, 10:07pm (report abuse)OH Roy Boy, you are the type that goes down in the bilges, looking for the golden rivet. UNFORTUNETLY it appears you found it.. Must have been a REAR echlon birdy.
USS Chicago CG-11
August 14, 2008, 12:14am (report abuse)Quotes from: The History of the US Department of Defense Programs for the Testing, Evaluation, and Storage of Tactical Herbicides, Submitted by Alvin L. Young, Ph. D. for Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, William Van Houten
“There exists significant confusion as to how herbicides were selected by the military to be used in the defoliation program in the Vietnam War The belief that commercially available herbicides were simply purchased from the chemical companies and deployed directly to Vietnam is incorrect and contrary to historical records.”
“Tactical Herbicides were herbicides developed specifically by the United States Department of Defense to be used in “combat operations”.
“The tactical problem to which research was directed was the development of chemicals that could rapidly control a broad range of botanical species.”
USS Chicago CG-11
August 14, 2008, 12:19am (report abuse)Quote from: Ranch Hand, AIR FORCE Magazine - August 2000, By Walter J. Boyne
“Self-Taught - Fortunately, Ranch Hand crews knew they had much to learn and much to do. There were no tactical manuals and no doctrine for herbicidal warfare. They knew virtually nothing about how the various types of trees and other vegetation would react to herbicide. Nor did they know the quantity per acre of herbicide that would be required. Maps were few, intelligence was lacking, weather briefings were inaccurate, and no one was sure how to solve the operational problems posed by wind, temperatures, and terrain.”
USS Chicago CG-11
August 14, 2008, 12:25am (report abuse)Quotes from Involuntary Exposure to Agent Orange and Other Toxic Spraying, Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Ninety-Sixth Congress, First Session, June 26 and 27, 1979
“Between 1962 and 1970, at least 11 million gallons of agent orange, also known as 2,4- D and 2,4,5-T, were used in Vietnam. It was sprayed from planes, helicopters, trucks, boats, and hand-held tanks. It is possible that all 2.8 million Vietnam veterans may have been exposed to the herbicide because of its entry into the food chain and water system.”
“I want to make the simple point, as the gentleman from New Jersey did, and that is herbicide means to kill plants. "Cide" means kill. These are killer chemicals. They are designed to attack the chromosomes, the genetic structure of all living organisms—our own as well as those of plants.”
USS Chicago CG-11
August 14, 2008, 12:35am (report abuse)Quote from U.S.-Vietnam Cooperation on Issues Related to Agent Orange, Scot Marciel, Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Statement before the Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Washington, DC, May 15, 2008
"In conclusion, we will continue to pursue constructive ways to work with the Government of Vietnam and other donors to address concerns related to Agent Orange and dioxin. Our efforts will continue to focus on supporting Vietnamese efforts to ensure a safe environment and assisting Vietnamese living with disabilities, regardless of their cause. In particular, we will seek to work with Vietnamese scientists and health experts to address Vietnam’s concern over human exposure to dioxin and other toxins in the environment; and support Vietnam’s promotion of good prenatal care to minimize disabilities."
USS Chicago CG-11
August 14, 2008, 12:37am (report abuse)The US Government is willing to work with Vietnam on helping their environment and the people that was exposed to herbicide. Yet they want to deny that the Air Force and Navy was ever there!
USS Chicago CG-11
August 14, 2008, 12:48am (report abuse)In the article, A Geographic Information System for Characterizing Exposure to Agent Orange and Other Herbicides in Vietnam, by Jeanne Mager Stellman, Steven D. Stellman, Tracy Weber, Carrie Tomasallo, Andrew B. Stellman, and Richard Christian, Jr., that appeared in the Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 111, Number 3, March 2003, there is a map showing exposure areas of a specified spray mission.
The areas are marked with dots. Some of these dots where in the South China Sea!
This work was supported by the National Academy of Sciences (subcontract NAS-VA-5124-98-001) and by U.S. Public Health Service grants CA-17613 and CA-68384.
With this knowledge, it seems that the Department of Veterans Affairs could use it to tell whether an individual was subject to exposure of not.
Michael
August 14, 2008, 9:46am (report abuse)Hey Roy, Gus, Boyd, I see you've been tinkering with the results of the "what people think" poll here. Must be quite a computer program one of you have set up to enable you to quickly cast thousands of votes. It is amazing the efforts that some people will take to try to affect the outcome of something that does not effect them personnally. Or does this fall under "other duties as assigned" in your VA position description?
TJ
August 14, 2008, 10:29am (report abuse)Hey Michael,
Could you explain what you are talking about? I just voted and my vote seemed to count. Is there something going on here?
Michael
August 14, 2008, 10:44am (report abuse)I sent an e-mail to WashingtonWatch to complain earlier this morning. They may have removed the votes from the most recent attempts to abuse the voting. Unfortunately the abuse started early in much less sophisticated way, so the results the are stilled skewed from the earlier abuse.
TJ
August 14, 2008, 11:01am (report abuse)OK. I guess I don't see how it worked. I voted and then my wife tried to vote and it wouldn't let her.
tom
August 14, 2008, 1:47pm (report abuse)tampering with the for and against vote,UNBEIEVABLE!
what will they try to do next?
THE REALLY SCARY PART IS IF THEY CAN DO IT HERE,WHAT ABOUT THE VOTING MACHINES MADE BY DIEBOALD USED IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS?
NOT ONLY FOR PRES,BUT FOR YOUR REPS NEEDED TO PASS THIS LEGISLATION?
TOM.
'
T
navy6872
August 14, 2008, 2:02pm (report abuse)I suggest they take down the poll as Roy seems not to be able to take the the truth and he sure doesn't what to let the truth get out there.
TOM
August 14, 2008, 2:09pm (report abuse)ANYWAY WE CAN PULL UP ROYS IP ADDRESS AND SEE WHERE HE REALLY IS?????
ITS IN HERE SOMEPLACE SINCE ITS NECESSARY TO POST HERE.
YOU ARE CORRECT IN TAKING DOWN THE RESULTS.
webmaster
August 14, 2008, 4:17pm (report abuse)Folks, I heard from commenter "Michael" this morning with his allegation that the vote has been tampered with. He didn't have any evidence beyond a rapid change in the vote tally and his guess that there have been "many thousands" of votes.
There have been just under 900 page-views on this bill this week - not thousands. There is likely a much smaller number of votes than Michael guessed, so the most likely explanation for a rapid change is that someone asked many friends and colleagues to come vote.
We have security measures in place to limit double-voting, though it is technically possible by taking some difficult and time-consuming measures.
Rather than accusing others of wrongdoing, I suggest that you do your best to persuade them and other visitors to this page of the merits of your views. You can lay out your arguments at length by editing the wiki article about the bill.
Terry
August 14, 2008, 6:49pm (report abuse)Roy
you are an uninformed dickhead