What People Think
 |
 |
32% For, 68% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 2254, The Agent Orange Equity Act of 2009 (1331 comments ↓ | 3 wiki edits)
H.R. 2254 would amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify presumptions relating to the exposure of certain veterans who served in the vicinity of the Republic of Vietnam.
()
[1,227 views]
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Bama Navy Vet
November 3, 2009, 11:15am (report abuse)I am not playing your game. The Congressional Records holds the quote referencing the 3 million VietNam Vets more than one time. You seem to have the resources available to put spin and disinformation on the subject...look it up yourself.
Even students in grade school deserve a place to study that is free from disruption, etc. You seem to have a desire to discredit the individual rather than stick to the task at hand, which is the discussion of AO on BWN, as evidenced by your derogatory sexist slur of the lady on here recently.
Bama Navy Vet
November 3, 2009, 11:44am (report abuse)"You've been playing cut and paste and implying that's how it is."
Lord, help me..I am being chastised for "cut and paste" tactics by the king of cut and paste, himself. It is better to cut and paste certain things than to paraphrase them.
DRS
November 3, 2009, 1:49pm (report abuse)Where did all the haters come from, where were they when our nation needed them? Time to take care of those who served. Is it just coincidence that I now have Parkinsons and lost our first baby to birth defects?
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 3, 2009, 3:27pm (report abuse)"I am not playing your game."
Oh, that's abundently clear since 'my game' has been to get you to provide links to your claims and it hasn't been working.
"The Congressional Records holds the quote referencing the 3 million VietNam Vets more than one time. You seem to have the resources available to put spin and disinformation on the subject...look it up yourself."
You are making the claim. It is therefore your responsibility to support your assertions with a link to authorative source but none the less I did look it up and lo and behold the CR prior to 1994 isn't online. I can only believe one of your puppet masters has provided you with some 'talking points' and you personally know nothing. Just regurgitating what you've been told.
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 3, 2009, 3:28pm (report abuse)...continued
"Lord, help me..I am being chastised for "cut and paste" tactics by the king of cut and paste, himself. It is better to cut and paste certain things than to paraphrase them."
Yes, but I generally provide a citation to that material. If I don't, I certainly will if asked. You don't seem to do that.
You also said something happened in 2002 but repeated attempts to get you to define it leaves me wanting. Aparently the puppet masters haven't provided you with understanding. Just some 'talking points'. This nonsense works well with media pundits and other ill informed individuals but won't fly when you run into someone that knows what's going on.
You tried to tell me it was; "change of interpretation as to who Congress referred to by their use of "in VietNam" rather than "in the VietNam theater" or similar verbage." ...but that's plane ole wrong. That didn't happen in 2002. IOW, you haven't a clue to what you are talking about.
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 3, 2009, 3:35pm (report abuse)"Where did all the haters come from"
There are no haters. This is a political discussion.
"Time to take care of those who served."
We do that when there is evidence their service caused their condition. It isn't welfare. You don't get to walk up and say you owe me.
"Is it just coincidence that I now have Parkinsons and lost our first baby to birth defects?"
It might be, you haven't told us any reason to believe otherwise. Tens of thousands of US citizens have children with birth defects, most never served a day. Some are due to bad genes, some to FAS and some to drugs. The same applies to PD.
Bama Navy Vet
November 3, 2009, 3:54pm (report abuse)"I did look it up and lo and behold the CR prior to 1994 isn't online"
Of course it is...get real. Try the Library of Congress:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r102:3:./temp/~r1026uEgtU:e130227...
Bama Navy Vet
November 3, 2009, 3:58pm (report abuse)You tried to tell me that the Congressional Records are not available prior to 1994, IOW, you don't have a clue.
How could you state what Congress did or did not mean to imply if you have not done the research?
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 3, 2009, 3:58pm (report abuse)Your link is broken. It is too long for WashingtonWatch. Go to TinyURL and shorten it.
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 3, 2009, 4:18pm (report abuse)You could have provided that link when first asked but I have a feeling you didn't know it at the time. OK, a couple of mentions of the 3 mil figure are hardly indicative of intention to include offshore veterans. The total number of in country vets are proported to be between 2.6 and 2.9m depending on who's figures you accept. 3m could mearly be a rounding convention as a matter of convenience in speech.
What about that 2002 'change of interpretation' issue you thought was all so important?
You said; "BWN was recognized until 2002 as an equal. Seems like when BWN lost Zumwalt as a advocate, the decision was made to change Congress' intent". Who changed the intent of Congress and how did they do it?
Bama Navy Vet
November 3, 2009, 5:20pm (report abuse)"You could have provided that link when first asked but I have a feeling you didn't know it at the time."
Yes, and you could have simply stated what you were searching for ref 2002, but what fun would that have been?
Since I am a simple "copy and paste" person, where would I get the info from if I did not have the web info.
Apparently, the LOC will not go back to a specific url other than the main one: http://thomas.loc.gov/
You will simply have to do a query from that point.
You are too much of a conspiracy theorist. I guess, though, that you made an assumption about what had gone on in Congress based on what your cronies told you... do see how stupid that sounds?
You have good, valid arguments. Stick to them and let the personal vendettas go.
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 3, 2009, 10:02pm (report abuse)"You are too much of a conspiracy theorist."
That's rich but it certainly ain't me.
"I guess, though, that you made an assumption about what had gone on in Congress based on what your cronies told you..."
I do my own thinking and have no cronies.
"do see how stupid that sounds?"
Yeah. but it's wrong.
What about that 2002 'change of interpretation' issue you thought was all so important?
You said; "BWN was recognized until 2002 as an equal. Seems like when BWN lost Zumwalt as a advocate, the decision was made to change Congress' intent".
Who changed the intent of Congress and how did they do it? You don't know, do you? It's just another of those 'talking points' BWN folks have been parroting blindly. Fact of the matter is that Zumwalt had nothing to do with anything after he testified before Congress.
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 3, 2009, 10:03pm (report abuse)...continued
I've watched Wally regurgitate all that nonsense to the talking heads and read of it in various printed articles. The media will reproduce it without fact checking but knowledgeable vets know better.
By the time herbicide exposure issues come to Congress it's a known fact that the science and the law doesn't support their position. Legislative relief is the last hope for a free go at the taxpayers wallet.
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 3, 2009, 10:06pm (report abuse)Oh, I missed this one:
"Since I am a simple "copy and paste" person, where would I get the info from if I did not have the web info."
There are any number of advocacy sites that post it.
...
November 5, 2009, 5:39pm (report abuse)And Andy doesn't have anything to prove that contamination didn't happen!!!
...
November 5, 2009, 8:37pm (report abuse)And Andy doesn't have to prove it. The individual who wants to claim it did happen has the burden of proof. That's the way it should be.
mmrk -loft
November 5, 2009, 10:53pm (report abuse)As, Dr. Brown said that their's know scientific evidence to exclude
blue water veterans from presumption.you can say all you want but all the evidence that you have is a fallacy.
just like the reports that evidence was out.who can you believe if alot of the reports were false and misleadingPU8VU
...
November 5, 2009, 11:06pm (report abuse)'cept Andy is trying to prove it didn't happen. at least that is what he keeps saying...
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 5, 2009, 11:06pm (report abuse)When you file a claim against the people for damages, the people expect you to prove entitlement. They couldn't fool the DVA and they couldn't fool the courts. That's why they're here hoping to fool Congress.
This Bill, H.R. 2254, has no merit and neither does S 1939 because there is no qualified evidence that dioxin ever left the land mass of Vietnam and/or was ever available in the offshore environment in sufficient quantity to harm units operating there. Despite all the protestations, the IOM has been unable to find any.
This Bill proposes to make a mockery of veterans disability compensation by compensating those that were not disabled by military service. In other words, a handout. Something for nothing.
This Bill, more appropriately, should be called the Veterans Handout Bill.
Every disabled veteran should be outraged that some folks are seeking to use veterans compensation for personal gain.
...
November 6, 2009, 4:00pm (report abuse)SOS Andy DD
.
November 7, 2009, 3:05am (report abuse)all;
andy johnson is a blowhard,has many names such as "ray",is not even in the u.s.,look at the time his posts.He should get a life.a vet has NOTHING TO PROVE,NO BURDEN OF PROOF.
presumption is presumption period.
Contact your reps or this bill will die in comittee again.Dont let him upset you.If he does,he wins.he is a fool.
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 7, 2009, 9:10am (report abuse)This Bill, H.R. 2254, has no merit and neither does S 1939 because there is no qualified evidence that dioxin ever left the land mass of Vietnam and/or was ever available in the offshore environment in sufficient quantity to harm units operating there. Despite all the protestations, the IOM has been unable to find any.
This Bill proposes to make a mockery of veterans disability compensation by compensating those that were not disabled by military service. In other words, a handout. Something for nothing.
This Bill, more appropriately, should be called the Veterans Handout Bill.
Every disabled veteran should be outraged that some folks are seeking to use veterans compensation for personal gain.
FrankGQ
November 7, 2009, 5:54pm (report abuse)A Mockery?
A mockery is making our vets wait 30 years For Agent orange in vetnam and making our vet that served worked around ao try to prove exposure no 40 years. with record hide or distroyed try and prove you even went to the restroom is in possable but we did.
get a life andy and help all vets its time if we make another mistake lets make it in there favor
Frank
please suport are vets and vote yes
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 7, 2009, 6:05pm (report abuse)This Bill, H.R. 2254, has no merit and neither does S 1939 because there is no qualified evidence that dioxin ever left the land mass of Vietnam and/or was ever available in the offshore environment in sufficient quantity to harm units operating there. Despite all the protestations, the IOM has been unable to find any.
Andy?
November 7, 2009, 10:13pm (report abuse)Maybe you all didn't know but Andy is getting comp for DMII due to AO exposure even tho his family has a history of the disease. I'd call that dishonest frankly. The Va doesn't look in to family history when they approve a claim BUT Andy knows so I call that cheating the tax payer and/or welfare. You know, getting something for nothing. A handout. Don't you all find it odd that he is so against anyone else getting comp for AO? He's all over HR 3491, too, and now apparently S 1939. He's just a one man band!
...
November 7, 2009, 10:23pm (report abuse)This is about Andy Johnson who is against any veteran who supports this bill H. R. 3491 to add gastric cancers as presumptive to agent orange exposure! He has slammed anyone who favors this bill but yet he gets comp for a condition that runs in his own family.
"Every veteran should be outraged that those who have a family history of a disease STILL claim VA comp for their illness. Every veteran should be outraged as this is a classic example of pure greed by someone who knows they are not due compensation but continues to receive it anyway. This is nothing more than tax cheater welfare
....
November 8, 2009, 1:14am (report abuse)Andy never claimed to be honest..
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 8, 2009, 1:40am (report abuse)This Bill, H.R. 2254, has no merit and neither does S 1939 because there is no qualified evidence that dioxin ever left the land mass of Vietnam and/or was ever available in the offshore environment in sufficient quantity to harm units operating there. Despite all the protestations, the IOM has been unable to find any.
.
November 8, 2009, 3:59am (report abuse)andy,blah,bah,blah
the same old crap from a fraud.
you say nothing new.
again,i pitty you fool,get a life.
presumption is presumption period.
.
November 8, 2009, 4:39am (report abuse)IF ANYONE IS WONDERING EXACTLY WARE YANKEE STATION IS IN THE GULF OF TONKIN ,THE HIDEOUT OF THE CARRIER GROUPS IT'S AT LAT.18DEGREES,47.6MIN.NORTH BY LONG.107DEGREES 14.6 MINUTES EAST.
GOOGLE EARTH IT.FROM THE DECK LOG OF THE USS JOSEPH STRAUSS DDG-16 THURSDAY 14MAY 1970.OF COURSE THE MINUTES VARY DUE TO IT BEING AN OPERATING STATION BUT LAT.18 BY LONG 107 COVERS IT.
.
November 8, 2009, 4:54am (report abuse)P.S.,I COULD DIG THRU THE DECK LONG AND FIND THE LAT AND LONG. AND DATES OF OUR FIRE MISSIONS IN DA NANG HARBOR.THE VA HAS DANANG RULINGS FOR AO.MY ADVICE TO ALL IS GET YOUR DECK LOGS.IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN THERE,THE WATER IS NOT BLUE.ITS BROWN WITH A SILT BOTTOM.
THATS RUNOFF FOLKS.AO CONTAMINATED.
THE SHIPS LOGS RESIDE AT THE NATIONAL ARCIVE,BATHEDSA MD.
WE GOT OURS DE-CLASSIFIED AND HIRED A NAVAL ARCIVEST.THE USS SMALL IS MENTIONED IN OUR DANANG LOGS IN 1970.
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 8, 2009, 12:52pm (report abuse)This Bill, H.R. 2254, has no merit and neither does S 1939 because there is no qualified evidence that dioxin ever left the land mass of Vietnam and/or was ever available in the offshore environment in sufficient quantity to harm units operating there. Despite all the protestations, the IOM has been unable to find any.
What the previous poster suggests is filing a 'direct' claim as opposed to a presumed claim. This is how 85% of all VA claims are filed.
In a direct claim for herbicide exposure, the veteran would have to prove exposure.
I don't know of anyy successful BWN claims for Vietnam but there have been successful claims in Guam, Okinawa and Thailand as well as Ft. Gorden GA and one in NY State.
...
November 8, 2009, 1:00pm (report abuse)The above post is from a person who receives a monthly disability check from taxpayers for his Agent Orange diabetes claim while he fights against other veterans from receiving similar compensation.
.
November 8, 2009, 4:46pm (report abuse)danang is not an offshore environment
as it is ringed on 3 sides by landmass.this is not disputed by the va.its considered by the va as the same as boots on the ground.I have copys of the va rulings.AGAIN BLOWHARD ANDY ISNT BLOWNING TO HARD ON THIS ONE.TAKE WHATS LEFT OF YOUR MARBLES AND GO HOME.
.
November 8, 2009, 5:05pm (report abuse)ON SECOND THOUGHT,JUST TO BRUSH THE NAT CALLED ANDY AWAY HERES ONE OF MANY.
CITATION NR:031887 DECISION DATE 8/1/03 arcive date 8/13/03
DOCKET NUMBER 02-07 423
Found in favor of the vet for hypertenstion,cad,diabiates as a result of exposure to an "herbicide agent"
.
November 8, 2009, 5:20pm (report abuse)what?NO IOM DRIBBLE ANDY OR RAY OR WHAT YOU CARE TO CALL YOURSELF AS YOU SEE FIT?
THERE ARE NAMES FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ITS NOT BROTHER.
YOU ARE CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH AS BENEDICT ARNOLD.
DONT GET A LIFE,YOU DONT DESERVE ONE.CONTINUE TO SLITHER.
BYE.
/
.
November 8, 2009, 5:31pm (report abuse)TO ...
NICE WORK,KEEP ON THE FRAUD MY BROTHER.
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 8, 2009, 9:32pm (report abuse)"danang is not an offshore environment as it is ringed on 3 sides by landmass."
The VARO's generally do not consider the outer harbor at DaNang to be an inland water. The VA has long conseided inland waters to be entitled to presumption but there was no formal policy. Some decision makers at VARO's and the BVA did anyway. The Secretary posted a notice of proposed change of rulemaking in the Federal Register to change 38CFR 3.307 to read:
(iii) * * * For the purposes of this section, ``service in the Republic of Vietnam'' includes only service on land, or on an inland waterway, in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-8091.htm
"this is not disputed by the va."
Sometimes it is. Whether DaNang is 'inland' or not is still ambiguous.
"its considered by the va as the same as boots on the ground."
Not always.
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 8, 2009, 9:33pm (report abuse)"AGAIN BLOWHARD ANDY ISNT BLOWNING TO HARD ON THIS ONE.
Try addressing the issue
"ON SECOND THOUGHT,JUST TO BRUSH THE NAT CALLED ANDY AWAY
HERES ONE OF MANY."
I think you should have stopped right there when you were behind.
"CITATION NR:031887 DECISION DATE 8/1/03 arcive date 8/13/03
DOCKET NUMBER 02-07 423"
So what? I have a collection of Bluewater presumptive claims decided by BVA in their favor. Most are simply wrong. The BVA is substantially more liberal than VARO's and no one ever complains when they make a bad decision in the veteran's favor.
"Found in favor of the vet for hypertenstion,cad,diabiates as a result of exposure
to an "herbicide agent"
Wrong, read it again. The BVA found in favor of DMII and remanded all others for additional development.
In the end, all your blathering has absolutely nothing to do with evidence that dioxin ever left the landmass in any quantity to cause harm to off shore veterans.
.
November 8, 2009, 9:36pm (report abuse)WHY IS THE WATER IN DANAG BROWN?
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 8, 2009, 9:39pm (report abuse)Oh, while I'm thinking about it, here's a link to the VA Office of Inspector General. You pea brains can report your suspected abuse. Go ahead, I dare you. You haven't the nerve. Cowards all.
http://www4.va.gov/oig/contacts/hotline.asp
Call the VAOIG Hotline toll-free at 1-800-488-8244
[8:30am–4:00pm Eastern Time Monday–Friday excluding Federal holidays]
.
November 8, 2009, 9:46pm (report abuse)ABUSE OF WHAT?
/
.
November 8, 2009, 9:55pm (report abuse)I THINK ITS TIME FOR YOUR NAP ANDY.
OH,WHAT PPM OF AO IS IN DANANG HARBOR?ITS MORE LIKE PARTS PER GALLON
THATS BEING DISTILLED FOR USE AS FRESH WATER FOR DRINKING,COOKING ETC.
THE AUSSIES KNOW.WE BUILT THEIR DESTROYERS,EXACT DUPLICATES MINUS THE ATOMIC ANTI SUB CAPIBILITES
.
November 8, 2009, 10:09pm (report abuse)I SEEMS YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN DANANG HARBOR ANDY;
THE "OUTER HARBOR"????
YOU LIKE TO SPLIT HAIRS.
ONCE YOU ENTER THE HARBOR PAST MONKEY MOUNTAIN,ITS NOT THAT BIG.
IF YOU LIKE I CAN GIVE YOU EXACT ANCORAGE POINTS BY LAT,LONG,MIN,SECONDS TO GOOGLE EARTH IF YOU WANT TO VISIT THERE.
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 8, 2009, 10:30pm (report abuse)"OH,WHAT PPM OF AO IS IN DANANG "HARBOR?"
I don't know. It's not my problem. The DVA and the IOM have been unable to find evidence of any specific amounts anywhere in Vietnam. Perhaps you'll help them out with that, eh?
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 8, 2009, 10:31pm (report abuse)"I SEEMS YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN DANANG HARBOR ANDY;"
Perhaps you've been into that loco weed again.
"THE "OUTER HARBOR"????"
Yeah, the outer harbor.
"YOU LIKE TO SPLIT HAIRS."
Not really, there are actually two harbor's or ports at DaNang. One of them is not in the bay you are talking about. You being the smart guy, I'll let you figure it out.
.
November 8, 2009, 10:35pm (report abuse)THATS WERE PRESUMPTION TAKES OVER ANDY.
PRESUMPTION IS PRESUMPTION PERIOD.
.
November 8, 2009, 10:39pm (report abuse)SO THE BAY IS NOT AN INLAND WATERWAY?
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 8, 2009, 10:50pm (report abuse)Whether the VA considers the outer harbor at Danang to be entitled to presumption it irrelevant to the issue of this Bill. Lets not try to cloud things up with smoke and mirrors. The point is there is no evidence any particular amount of dioxin ever left the landmass to harm offshore elements.
The DVA and the IOM has not been able to find any qualified evidence of such.
When such evidence exists, the Secretary will add BWN and it won't be necessary to bring a bill to the Congress.
.
November 8, 2009, 11:05pm (report abuse)TO BAD THEY CANT GO BACK 40 YEARS IN TIME TO CHECK.
I SEEM TO REMEMBER CONGRESS ADDRESSING THIS IN 1991,THE VA IGNORED THE PEOPLE.AS IN WE THE PEOPLE.
I'M SURE THE SECRETARY WILL DO THAT RIGHT AFTER WE FIND ADOLF HITLER AND OSOMA BIN LADIN.
Airdale.
November 8, 2009, 11:16pm (report abuse)For two years after NHL was to be added to presumpion it was still taking court orders to get the claims settled.3 and 1/2 years for mine, after the court case from the Fifian case. Don't think they will add anything until forced to by the courts. I was a witness in two of those hearings when Dunn lied his ass off. Thanks to Senator Gillibran Dunn stopped some of his tricks. Some of the people on this site work for that work of art. One who frequents this site was a twinky eating remf at Vun Tao. 250 miles from any spraying of Orange ,now his fat butt is drawing 100% for being too fat with Dieabities. This are the kind of people at the VA who are there to help you. Everybody elses' case has no merit. Most of my life I am proud to be a United States Marine. We are not all alike ..., andy,crt,whoever. out
.
November 8, 2009, 11:30pm (report abuse)AIRDALE;
I HAVE NO REGRETS,I'D DO IT AGAIN FOR MY COUNTRY IN A HEARTBEAT.
THE LIES HURT MUCH MORE THAN THE CANCER DOES.
Airdale.
November 8, 2009, 11:59pm (report abuse)I quess I would do it again. I've got two tours and one cruise . Welcome home brother. I'm out
Call your Senators
.
November 9, 2009, 2:05am (report abuse)airdale;
thank you for your service
we lost a fine marine spotter on our cruise who brought the 5in 54's loaded with able,able,common rounds ,danger close, right on his own head.the thought humbles me to this day.It's one thing being on the sending end,but i dont know if i would have had the balls to eat them.
HAVE A GOOD 11/11.
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 9, 2009, 9:55am (report abuse)"TO BAD THEY CANT GO BACK 40 YEARS IN TIME TO CHECK."
They don't necessarily have to. AO like herbicides are used today in places like Brazil to clear new farming areas. The dioxin levels would be different but use in Vietnam could easily be extrapolated.
"I SEEM TO REMEMBER CONGRESS ADDRESSING THIS IN 1991,THE VA IGNORED THE PEOPLE."
Ignored what? In 1991 Congress Created PL 102-4, The Agent Orange Act of 1991.
"I'M SURE THE SECRETARY WILL DO THAT RIGHT AFTER WE FIND ADOLF HITLER AND OSOMA BIN LADIN."
Whyzat? The Secretary added the following 6 new conditions in the past 8 years based on IOM reports:
CLL
DMII
Amloidosis
Hairy Cell Leukemia
Ischemic Heart Disease
Parkinsons Disease
They didn't add BWN for lack of qualified evidence.
Continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 9, 2009, 9:56am (report abuse)...continued
"Don't think they will add anything until forced to by the courts."
You mean like the 6 conditions I just mentioned? None of them had anything to do with court decisions.
"now his fat butt is drawing 100% for being too fat with Dieabities."
Hmmmn... I guess we can see what the problem is here. Some folks have their nose outta joint because others are entitled, but not them.
"This are the kind of people at the VA who are there to help you."
Who is it you think work for the DVA?
"Everybody elses' case has no merit."
No, just those where there is no evidence herbicide exposure in Vietnam caused harm to those serving.
"We are not all alike"
You got that right!!!
"andy,crt,whoever. out"
Whyzat? You think only proponents should be allowed to post?
K9USAFRet
November 9, 2009, 10:36am (report abuse)On September 7, 2007, the USAF Declassification Office released classified documents which proved herbicides were used on bases in Thailand, with permission of the US State Department and the Thai government. Go look in the USDA Special Library for the Alvin Young collection and read Item 213, Letter to Ms. Cleary. The US Government has lied about herbicides since time began and many documents proving its use have been destroyed or remain classified 40 years later. While noone at 35,000 feet or 400 miles offshore were exposed, there are plenty of "boots on the ground" vets who are also being denied, as well as vets from Thailand, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Guam, Alaska, and the Phillipines at a minimum. Stop spouting BS, the government continues to deny vets and widows who deserve compensation, PERIOD.
...
November 9, 2009, 11:15am (report abuse)"Some folks have their nose outta joint because others are entitled, but not them."
(This quotation is from a person who receives a monthly disability check from taxpayers for his Agent Orange diabetes claim while he fights against other veterans receiving similar compensation.)
And others try to stop their fellow veterans from obtaining entitlement.
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 9, 2009, 11:27am (report abuse)"On September 7, 2007, the USAF Declassification Office released classified documents which proved herbicides were used on bases in Thailand,"
Yes, we've known this for years but there herbicides are not Agent Orange. There is a substantial difference in the dioxin levels contained in Agent Orange and that of commercial herbicides. Try reading that report for comprehension rather than what you want it to say.
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 9, 2009, 11:35am (report abuse)"And others try to stop their fellow veterans from obtaining entitlement."
I have no intention of stopping anyone from receiving any earned entitlement. OTOH, I demand Congress base new legislation mandating use of taxpayer funds for new Agent Orange presumptions on science and evidence that our veterans were, in fact, harmed by exposure to herbicides. I am vehemently opposed to any legislation that provides benefits where no supporting evidence exists.
This Bill, H.R. 2254, has no merit and neither does S 1939 because there is no qualified evidence that dioxin ever left the land mass of Vietnam and/or was ever available in the offshore environment in sufficient quantity to harm units operating there. Despite all the protestations, the IOM has been unable to find any.
...
November 9, 2009, 11:47am (report abuse)The above post is from a person who receives a monthly disability check from taxpayers for his Agent Orange diabetes claim while he fights against other veterans receiving similar compensation.
Van
November 9, 2009, 12:08pm (report abuse)Andy-The EPA has determined there is no safe level of dioxin. Tactical herbicides were used throughout the Viet Nam warzone.
That means they were used everywhere K9 referenced and others places. That is just how things were done.
Too many people in too many places have testified to their use. Many in this group were the pesticides applicators. On Guam herbs are throughout the environment.
Many of these pesticides were used aboard ship for many purposes.
Pesticides have been used throughout our environment, for many years and for many reasons. They've been studied to death and these studies can give us a very clear picture as to their fate. Viet Nam is no different.
And please everyone remember many of the pesticides used in Viet Nam came from our chemical weapons developement.
Also the DoD and our government admit to their usage and the fact they're harmful to people in at least 1970 and a case can be made for as early as 1965.
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 9, 2009, 12:55pm (report abuse)"Andy-The EPA has determined there is no safe level of dioxin. Tactical herbicides were used throughout the Viet Nam warzone."
Yes, but they were not sprayed on the Tonkin Gulf and despite the EPA declaration not all conditions show scientific evidence of an association to herbicide exposure in Vietnam.
"That means they were used everywhere K9 referenced and others places. That is just how things were done."
Not Necessarily, Maps are available to show sprayed areas. Not all parts of Vietnam were sprayed.
"Too many people in too many places have testified to their use."
So What? Where Agent Orange was sprayed is well documented.
"Many in this group were the pesticides applicators."
So what? This bill is about herbicides, not pesticides.
"On Guam herbs are throughout the environment."
Commercial herbicides are not the issue.
"Many of these pesticides were used aboard ship for many purposes."
Talk to your legislators about that.
The Shellback
November 9, 2009, 1:25pm (report abuse)At age 21 I was a second class signalman on board the uss Bordelon DD881 during 121 days of Operation Linebacker2 and the 11day Christmas bombings of Hanoi,Vietnam
We spent all of our time just off the coast in support of The South Vietnamese except when we were actually attacking Hanoi where Senator John S.McCain and 600 americans were being held as aprisioners of war. I have been diagnosed with an elevated psa. The Austrailian navy who also operated off the coast of Vietnam was lossing more sailors to cancer than other servicemen. They conducted research off the Vietnam coast and found it to polluted with agent orange. As all combat ships operating close to shore did not have time to go out to open sea to collect drinking water it was obtained close to shore to save precious time. However, upon conclusion of the reasearch it was found that the desallination equiptment could remove the salt but not the agent orange thus, we were drinking agent orange.
.
November 9, 2009, 2:28pm (report abuse)shellback;
a product containing dioxion was put directly into the fresh water holding tanks to combat algee.that fact is forgotten.
AGAIN PRESUMPTION IS PRESUMPTION PERIOD.
GET A COPY OF YOUR DECK LOGS BROTHER AND THANKS FOR YOUR SERVICE.
HAPPY 11/11
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 9, 2009, 2:29pm (report abuse)First of all, no US ship spent all of its time close offshore Vietnam. Some of that time was spent running out to yankee station every evening to re-arm, re-fuel and replenish stores. That usually meant a 3 day rotation. Distallation within the 3 mile limit usually meant distilling to Feed Water (boiler) tanks and distilling to potable tanks (drinking water) when outside the 3 mile limit.
Other times you spent transiting to Subic Bay and spending a number of days in port making repairs. How about that trip to Hong Kong or those days out on Yankee Station playing plane guard. What about all those days on independent duty?
I don't know of any ship that devoted all time to being close offshore.
The following is what the Secretary had to say about the 'Australian Study' in a notice published in the Federal Register:
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 9, 2009, 2:30pm (report abuse)...continued
The Australian study assumed that ocean water near estuarine sources could contain dioxin if dioxin had been used over adjacent land. It then noted that Australian Navy boats distilled water, obtained primarily from locations near such estuarine sources, to use as drinking water. Based on these factual predicates, the study found that the distillation process used by those boats did not remove dioxin when dioxin was added to salt water and the distillation process was performed in a laboratory, but, instead, the distillation concentrated the dioxin level in the water. The study was not peer reviewed or published and, to our knowledge, has never been cited in any subsequent reputable study concerning herbicide exposure.
VA's scientific experts have noted many problems with this study that caution against placing significant reliance on the study.
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 9, 2009, 2:31pm (report abuse)...continued
In particular, the authors of the Australian study themselves noted that there was substantial uncertainty in their assumptions regarding the concentration of dioxin that may have been present in estuarine waters during the Vietnam War.
Further, although distillation concentrated the dioxin level in the water, the concentrating effect was shown to depend upon the amount of sediment in the water, such that a large sediment level, consistent with estuarine waters, could significantly reduce the concentrating effect. Moreover, even with the concentrating effect found in the Australian study, the levels of exposure estimated in this study are not at all comparable to the exposures experienced by veterans who served on land where herbicides were applied. This is true even if we were to assume that a person drank only such distilled water and did so for an extended tour.
.
November 9, 2009, 2:36pm (report abuse)PRESUMPTION IS PRESUMPTION PERIOD.
.
November 9, 2009, 2:39pm (report abuse)DONT YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO DO ANDY?
OH, I FORGOT THAT 100% TIT YOU HAVE.
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 9, 2009, 2:50pm (report abuse)This Bill, H.R. 2254, has no merit and neither does S 1939 because there is no qualified evidence that dioxin ever left the land mass of Vietnam and/or was ever available in the offshore environment in sufficient quantity to harm units operating there. Despite all the protestations, the IOM has been unable to find any.
Van
November 9, 2009, 2:55pm (report abuse)Andy-Herbicides are a pesticide. Commercial herbs weren't used on Guam they were tactical during Viet Nam.
Base use docs have been destroyed. There is no info on the use, storage or disposal.
I believe the herbicide silvex was used in the water supply of these ships. It appears as though it was used on military installations as well.
I was just pointing out K9's ascertion these herbs were used all over(tactical) and he named the places that are known. He's right.
Reports from pilots say they did drop a load or 2 of the herbs over water. Also river banks were routinely sprayed in many areas. There are a number of ways for the 2,4,5-T to make it to the sea. It is nonsoluable. And like I said there is no safe level of dioxin.
K9USAFRet
November 9, 2009, 2:57pm (report abuse)I asked you to stop the BS Andy. If you need more evidence, read the documentation:
November 1, 1969 from USMACTHAI/USMAGTHAI, 13 February 1973 from CHECO Staff, Item 213 from USDA, the forward of The History of US Department of Defense Program...page 12. Then Mr Know It All, tell me what PL 102-4 is for: AO or dioxin. Then tell me why 15 claims have been approved based on this evidence? You are totally clueless and must work and be one of the criminals in the BVA.
...
November 9, 2009, 2:59pm (report abuse)Andy...BUMED did not have any standards for measuring the levels of HERBS until after 1970. SOOO, what happened to all those contaminants that piled up at the coast until distilled water ctandards were developed for US Navy ships afloat? I don't know where you do your research, but it is sure limited to what you want to see/hear.
K9USAFRet
November 9, 2009, 3:10pm (report abuse)My first inclination is to dismiss you, you do not seem to have one fact correct. The blog I wrote says herbicides which means Agents Blue, Orange, White, Pink, etc. I never said it was AO, and neither does the act if you knew how to read rather than spout the VA line of BS. You need to shut up and read the documentation people have thrown at you, not continue to spout the crap you do. We've all heard it before, and not one of us believe you are doing anyone a service by not being knowledgeable enough to discuss the subject matter. There is no such thing as tactical herbicides until Professor Alvin Young who is the biggest liar ever to have served in the US Army developed the terminology in 2006 in the forward of the document I discussed (IF YOU COULD READ). Prior to that there is not a single reference to "tactical herbicides" in any released document about any of the herbicides covered by the bill. You must truly suffer from an inability to accoumplish rational analysis.
K9USAFRet
November 9, 2009, 3:34pm (report abuse)I have read the reports AJ. Why don't you? In his history, Professor Young states a "tactical herbicide" was sprayed in combat militaryoperations in Vietnam or by State Department approval. The afforementioned documents state that the use I refer to had to have Embassy (State Department) approval and did have that approval. So you again have no clue what you're talking about. Again Mr. Young states in Item 318 of his USDA collection: "The two chemicals 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T are now in regular use, particularly for weed control in rice paddies, other field and horticultural crops, and rangelands in Asian countries such as Burma, Thailand, Philippines, Republic of China, Japan, India, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand."
"The herbicides are being used by the government of Vietnam in the guerrilla warefare..."
K9USAFRet
November 9, 2009, 3:34pm (report abuse)And from the AO Act, READ SEC 2a(3). IT DOESN'T SAY AGENT ORANGE IT SAYS:
presumed to have been exposed during such
service to an herbicide agent containing dioxin or 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, and may
be presumed to have been exposed during such service to any other chemical compound in an
herbicide agent,..."
K9USAFRet
November 9, 2009, 3:41pm (report abuse)So Andy, do you see anything in any of the documents you have supposedly read that indicates that the US military used commercial herbicides REQUIRING APPROVAL OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT?
NO? THEN SHUT UP!!! And Andy, where does it say in the AO Act that if you were just exposed to dioxin (2,4,D) or 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) just a little bit IT DOESN'T COUNT???? So as I said before stop spouting the dishonest rhetoric of the BVA and pull your head out.
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 9, 2009, 5:08pm (report abuse)"Andy-Herbicides are a pesticide."
Yes, but pesticides are not herbicides.
"Commercial herbs weren't used on Guam they were tactical during Viet Nam."
Citation please. All Tactical herbicides were under custody of Army Chemical Corps and were not available thru Federal Supply System. How were base ops getting their hands on this material?
"Base use docs have been destroyed. There is no info on the use, storage or disposal."
Oh, gee. This is sorta like "the Army destroyed my service record so there is no evidence I was in Vietnam".
"I believe the herbicide silvex was used in the water supply of these ships. It appears as though it was used on military installations as well."
Silvex the Fire Fighting Foam or Silvex the herbicide? None the less, I know of no instance where either would have been used aboard ship. There is no need for an herbicide abord ship. and the Navy used protien foam back in the day and later, AFFF.
continued...
AndyJohnson
(logged in user) November 9, 2009, 5:08pm (report abuse)...continued
"I was just pointing out K9's ascertion these herbs were used all over(tactical) and he named the places that are known. He's right."
You might believe that but I'd like to see an authorative citation.
"Reports from pilots say they did drop a load or 2 of the herbs over water."
There are always 'reports', including those for UFO's.
"Also river banks were routinely sprayed in many areas. There are a number of ways for the 2,4,5-T to make it to the sea. It is nonsoluable. And like I said there is no safe level of dioxin."
Less than 5% of all herbicides sprayed in Vietnam were sprayed by other than RanchHand.