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., the vast 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, during which time the crews would have been constantly exposed - drinking the contaminated water which their ship's produced and eating food cooked in the contaminated water.
Visitor Comments
tom ryan tm3 ddg-16
DURING THIS SESSION OF CONGRESS ,THIS BILL MUST BE PASSED,
IT CAN'T BE PUT OFF ANY LONGER.
WE ARE DIEING DUE TO THIS EXPOSURE.
CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN
TOM RYAN DDG-16
OH,I FORGOT,DURING THIS TIME OF NATIONAL DEFENSE ,NO ONE IN THE US NAVY OR AIRFORCE WAS DRAFTED.THE WERE PATRIOTS AND ENLISTED,ONLY TO RETURN HOME TO SCORN.
Dwayne
I have high hopes this isn't just another publicity shot....the Rep who submitted it is also the chairman of the committee it was sent to so, hopefully, it isn't going to get stuck there. We'll see. A lot of people worked really hard to get it this far, Mr Filner didn't just get up Wends morning and say "I think I'll do something about Agent Orange and the Blue Water Navy vets that the VA has been screwing....(BTW, never forget, the VA couldn't have done it if the administration didn't go along with it.
mtkaka
I filed my VA claim 1/10/2002 and it has an effective date of 7/09/2001 for diabetes, first diagnosed 11/1993. One month after I filed my claim, 2/2002, VA changed the rules. My claim is still at VARO-level, never even made it to first appeal level.
I am now blind as a result of diabetes and have many other "conditions" related to diabetes. My wife is also totally disabled since 10/2005 and we are "surviving" on her SSDI payments. I have not worked since 12/2001.
I have many firends and acquaintances who have already died from AO-related diseases and their claims/survivor benfits died with them.
I awake each day with the sole purpose of outliving the VA bastards.
Support our friends at NVLSP.ORG (National Veterans Legal Services Program), BLUEWATERNAVY.ORG, VNVETS.ORG and VAWATCHDOG.ORG who carry the battle forward each day.
I am still one pissed-off Vietnam Vet.
Roy
Let me get this straight, you all think that someone who flew through the skys high above Vietnam was exposed to AO and should be given compensation?
Dwayne
For "mtkaka" I couldn't agree with you more. I also have diabetes which was diagnosed in 1995 and have had bouts with prostate cancer, the treatment of which led to bladder cancer. Strangely enough, I'm not mad because they exposed me to Agent Orange, that just went with the territory...the VA's attitude is what infuriates me, especially since they are subverting an act of Congress to deny us our rights.....not "entitlements"...
RIGHTS!
Dwayne
For "Roy", in reality, it would depend where they flew from. I wouldn't argue with the VA if they wanted to exclude, for instance, B-52 crews who flew from Guam. The reality is, they didn't pick and chose that way....they just made a blanket ruling that excluded anyone who didn't have "Boots on the Ground" as part of their everyday duty while....at the same time...someone who got off an aircraft in Saigon for a 20 minute layover on a flight from the Phillipines to say Europe...IS qualified for AO benefits. As far as I'm concerned, if some aviators get covered incidently as a result of this bill....so be it! Had the VA made reasonable exclusions instead of blanket rulings to exclude who segments of veterans, I might see it different.
Roy
Well, to my thinking a B-52 pilot from Guam is just as eligible as a cook on a ship at Yankee Station.
There is still no credible evidence that the miniscule amount of dioxin that might have washed out to sea ever got to any of those ships. The VA did the right thing as far as I am concerned.
Roy
Many publications lead you to believe 20 million gallons of agent orange was sprayed when in fact 96% of what was sprayed was fuel oil. Herbicide orange, the stuff that came in 55 gallons drums, was only 4% of what was sprayed. The critical "medical condition causing" AO component is dioxin. The IOM has documented that 368 lbs of dioxin was sprayed in ten years. Thats 36.8 lbls per year. If all 13% that did not reach the ground immediately drifted offshore, 4.78 lbs (76.48 oz) of dioxin would have been involved - about 0.21 oz (think eye dropper) per day diluted by millions of cubic feet of air and water constantly in motion and being replentished by currents, etc. How much got to ships evaporative and air intake systems? You get more dioxin in the food and drink you take in everyday than you ever got from Agent Orange.
Van
Guam has the highest amounts of dioxin in soil in the world at 19,000ppm. It has 10 military installations that were all maintained with these pesticides. AO was used all over and should be presumptive for all military personnel during Viet Nam unless it can be proven by DoD that it wasn't used.
steve Henson
What am saying, that guys like me who were onboard a ship & came with in a 1000 yds.would of gottan fallout from the SKY of the agent orange, you fool it was it was air borne.If u fly above it u do not have it fall on or around u. Come on guy, use some logic not a blanket like the va did.
steve
It appears that u work for VA, roy?
tom ryan
THE ROCKETS RED GLARE,THE BOMBS BURSTING IN AIR.IF YOU HAVE SEEN IT YOU DESERVE IT.
Ed Kidwell
They seem to be saying that firing guns well within the three mile limit of the USA would constitute an attack on the USA but firing guns within the three mile limit of Vietnam (exposed to runoff,rainfall and drinking water distilled from waters that were permeated with Agent Orange ) is DIFFERENT?
Come ON! The government just doesn't want to help WE WHO SERVED there. They had better start honoring their commitments.
tom ryan
THESE WORDS FROM THE CONSTITUTION KEEP RUNNING THRU MY HEAD.
"BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY "
TOM RYAN
IF I COULD GO BACK IN TIME I WOULD HAVE GONE TO CANADA
Roy
Well, Mr Ryan, perhaps you should do so now. You spout your patriotism and then make such a statement as that. Leads me to question your veracity.
Roy
Steve,
No I do not work for the VA. I am a retired 20 + year veteran and retired school teacher. Is it hard for you to believe that someone other than a VA employee would think these claims about off-shore AO are less than credible?
Roy
Mr Henson,
Since so much of what I see about off-shore contamination laims that the pesticides drifted in the air, why would you say that an airplane would not pass through the so-called mist. The aircraft I flew daily for 15 months made 10-12 take-offs and landings every day. So you think there was no chance I might have flown through what you claim was out there? And you call me a fool!
Roy
Mr. Kidwell,
The waters were "permeated." I take that to mean that the waters had high concentrations of dioxin. Is that your claim? That does not hold up to scrutiny when the total amount of dioxin that was actually in the spray was less thab 37 pounds per year. And even if the claims of wind drift and run-off were true, only a small part of that would have actually been involved. Hardly sounds like "permeated" to even the most sympathetic of listeners.
Roy
Are any of you aware that the leaded gasoline you all used until 1986 also released dioxin into the atmosphere? How many of you are screaming at the gasoline producers because you have some condition that may be linked to dioxin exposure? I seriously doubt that any one of you is or has done so. Why?
TOM RYAN
ROY;WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR FACTS FROM?I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM.AS A TEACHER,I'M SURE YOU HAVE READ "DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK".I AM A DIRECT DECENT OF J.CHRISTIN SCHNELL.MY FAMILY HISTORY WAS PUT INTO THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS.MY FATHER FOUGHT IN THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE AND MY SON IS CURRENTLY DEPLOYED OVERSEAS IN THE ARMY.PLEASE DON'T QUESTION MY "VERACITY"AS I DON'T QUESTION YOURS.I LOVE AMERICA AND I'M SURE YOU DO ALSO.WHY DOES THIS ISSUE DIVIDE US ALL?IF YOU ARE SICK THE VA HAS A DUTY TO HELP.AM I WRONG?
PLEASE CONTACT ME WITH YOUR FACTS AT tomryan1949@yahoo.com.HAVE YOU SEEN THE WASTELAND OF THE DMZ?NO AO THERE?I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE RESEARCH OF YOUR FACTS I AM YOUR BROTHER IN ARMS,NOT YOUR ENEMY.PLEASE CONTACT ME.
tom ryan
p.s.,
dioxin was put into the evaporators to stop slime.so in theory a cook at yankee station could have been exposed to AO.
Roy
Mr Ryan,
I can trace my family's service in the military back severa; generations as well. That means not one thing.
Your comment "IF I COULD GO BACK IN TIME I WOULD HAVE GONE TO CANADA" is not one I would ever attribute to a patriot. It is that kind of comment that leads others to question you.
TOM RYAN
SO BE IT ROY;I ASK FOR JUST THE FACTS
THAT YOU CAN'T SEEM TO PROVIDE,
HAVE A NICE LIFE.
TOM RYAN
p.s.roy,did i hit a nerve with the canada remark?
Roy
The only thing you have done is show that you really are not the patriot you would have everyone believe. Any one who would make such a remark, even in jest, is certainly not worthy of respect.
As to the facts, you can find them in the IOM material which is available to anyone with the ability to read. Try www.iom.edu, if you really want to know what the science says.
tom ryan
roy,could you narrow it down a bit? I googled the site and got 734,000 results.I dont need or ask for your respect,just the facts.
tom ryan
why do you hide behind the name of just "roy"? It reminds me of the WIZARD OF OZ."PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tom ryan
Blue Water Navy
Vietnam Veterans Association
Welcome to the
BLUE WATER NAVY DIOXIN EXPOSURE
Web Site
Approximately 21 million gallons of Agent Orange were sprayed in Vietnam between 1962 and 1970.
Where do you suppose it all went?
More than a hundred thousand members of the United States Armed Forces who fought in Vietnam between 1962 and 1975
suffer disabilities from the effects of dioxin, found in Agent Orange.Yet, these service personnel are being denied service-connected health care and disability compensation for these diseases
by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
tom ryan
all,please go to www.bluewaternavy.org,your blood will boil.one morning you are going to wake up and not be a vietnam war vet any longer.you will be reclassified as a vietnam era vet.WHAT A SET OF BALLS THE DVA HAS.PLEASE READ AND POST YOUR COMMENTS HERE.THEY WANT TO STRIP SENATOR MCAIN OF THE TITLE OF A WAR VET TO A VIETNAM ERA VET.HE LANDED IN NORTH VIETNAM AND HE IS NOT QUALIFIED BECAUSE HE NEVER SET FOOT IN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH VIETNAM.
MY RESEARCH IS SOLID.I HAVEVEN POSTED MY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR ALL TO CONTACT ME.BEWARE OF THE PERSON WHO POSTS HERE AS "ROY".I HAVE TRIED TO CHECK HIS FACTS AND THEY DONT CHECK OUT.
HE IS SPREADING DISINFORMATION.
MY RESEARCH IS SOLID AND PLEASE VISIT THE SITE.AGAIN www.bluewaternavy.org.they where in congress and spoke the day hr6562 was introduced.please post your comments here."roy"trys to intimidate you into silence.BEWARE OF HIM.SPEAK OUT BROTHERS DONT BE SILENCED!!!!!
Jim Rybolt
In the backup info it says that all persons receiving a Vietnam service medal would have presumption of exposure. The bill uses the word vicinity. Have vicinity been defined. Bottom line are the veterans from Thailand included. We flew over the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos are we included?
tom ryan
jim;go to www.bluewaternavy.org and you will find the answer plus many more answers.ao was dumped in many places,so i can't provide the answer off the cuff for you.
all my best,
tom
Roy
Mr Ryan,
Since you wish to rely on bluewaternavy.org as one of your sources perhaps you can explain how 21 million gallons of agent orange were sprayed when records indicate that less than 14 million gallons were actually procured by DOD? This information is available in several places but one that might fit your needs is www.landscaper.net/agent2.htm.
I'm sure you will have some tripe to throw up as obfuscation but how do you explain this?
Bill Bay
According to http//en.wkipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange, 77 million liters of chemical defoliants were sprayed by the U.S. military in Vietnam between 1962 and 1971. That converts to 20.347 million gallons. Less than two years after I retired from the Navy I was diagnosed with both type 2 diabetes and prostate cancer. I am not fat and jog three miles every other day. My parents and four brothers and sisters do not have these problems. Based on studies that the Australian and New Zealand governments performed, they consider their navy Vietnam veterans exposed. I know that something happend to me during my Naval service that caused my diseases. Can I prove it? No.
Roy
Mr Ray,
As you can see there as many different reports as you want to look for about Agent Orange. Which one is correct? It appears that many of the different sites are actually lumping all the Rainbow defoliants - orange, blue, white, etc., together and using that number as the Agent Orange number.
Diabetes and cancers, while often following family lines, are not necessarily hereditary. We were exposed to a great many things in our military careers. Whether these contributed to our problems or whether our individual lifestyles were the major player is something we will probably never know.
tom ryan
roy,as per your website"landscaper" you should read it.it also has an article by columbia u.saying 21 millon gallons was used,far above your mini estimate.
AGAIN MISINFORMATION BY YOU!
Roy
tom, tom, tom,
If you would read carefully the study says as much as 21 million gallons of herbicides. There were several herbicides used, not just Orange.
But then again, I am not surprised that you cannot accept anything but what you wish to believe.
So sad to see such a delusional person as yourself.
tom ryan
roy,i agree more than one herbicide was used,but the majority was AO.I might very well be "delusional",but it goes back to the fact that presumption of exposure is in the va codes.What is "sad"is the fact that many vets are sick and dieing from their service.Do you think its right the VA is turning its back on them?Is this to be the VA'S LEGACY TO US?DON'T YOU THINK THE VA SHOULD HELP A SICK VET NO MATTER WHAT?
all my best,
TOM
tom
per www.landscaper.net 13,927,985 lbs
of agent orange was procured by the DOD.11,712,860lbs were used and it was 60% of ALL herbicedes used in vietnam.Thats scary since a micro amount of dioxin is toxic to humans
.also a product known as SILVEX was used in the ship evaporators to stop algee and slime growth in the fresh water tanks.Drinking Dioxin,is that exposure???????It made great coffee
Roy
You get more dioxin in the food and drink you take in everyday, the air you breathe, the environment around you, than you ever got from Agent Orange.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/8127/8127notw6.html
http://www.iom.edu/?id=13097&redirect=0
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10763#toc
http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/
http://www.dioxinfacts.org/dioxin_health/dioxin_tissues/dioxin_toxicity...
tom
Numerous health effects have been linked to exposure to DLCs, including skin damage, cancer, non-insulin-dependent diabetes in adults, neurological and immune system impairments in infants, and endocrine system disruption. Many of these effects were identified in individuals who had high levels of exposure. However, information is limited on how low-level DLC exposure through foods, defined as occurring in everyday life, influences the development of cancer and other diseases.
Roy,this is a quote from the IOM website which also said the low levels in food has decreased since 1970.
Roy,you never answered my question.
Don't you think the va should help ANY sick or dieing vet?
I think it is the least the united states can do for the people who answered their call in its time of need.
I will continue with your reading list,
tom
Roy
The VA WILL help any vet who is sick. All he or she has to do is go to the VA medical center nearest them and they will receive treatment for any problem, service connected or not.
Roy
Interesting information concerning the dioxins produced by burning leaded gasoline.
http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/dwh/t-soc/dioxin.html
There is also a very telling comment about the low solubility of dioxin in water. It seems that the primary way dioxins are carried in water is in sediment. It would seem to me that sediment would be filtered out of seawater prior to any process to distill it for drinking.
As to dioxins in the food supply, how many months did the typical sailor spend in the waters around Vietnam? And how many years has this same sailor been eating and drinking the food and water in the U.S? Or is that counter to your claim that the sea water MUST have been the culprit and therefore must be ignored?
There are far too many other means by which a sailor was exposed to dioxins to ever convince me that herbicides sprayed on land in Vietnam caused their health problems.
Ed Kidwell
Playing with words. When I used the word "permeated" it was for lack of a better one. Saturated,from the runoff and rainfall may have been a better choice.
Someone, against the vets and FOR the VA, whom we were TOLD not to trust in the 70's, seems to be on the side of the ones who never SERVED there eg: Bush and Cheney who hate us because we remind them of what they are NOT.
In keeping with American tradition they are screwing we who served in Vietnam because it wasn't a clear cut WIN. Well neither is Iraq nor Afghanistan and they are SHOWERING them with accollades and benefits for fighting Bush's war for oil and ego.
I expect America will get it's payback one day for the shoddy treatment they give the veterans of the LONGEST war. Perhaps Bush's shoddy presidency is the beginning.
Ed Kidwell
If the powers that be want to say that we weren't In Vietnam because we didn't set foot on the ground then the sailors and airmen in WW2 weren't there because THEY sat off or flew over the French, and Italian coasts and didn't set foot there.
It is EXACTLY the same thing.
If they discriminate against US then they SHOULD discriminate against THEM as WELL.
What a CROCK this country has become and obviously always WAS!
TOM RYAN
yess!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!thank god i am not the only one who feels that way!!!!!!!!!!!someone else with balls!!!!!!!!!!how refreshing!!!!!!!!!!!
J A Boyd
I have been reading through some of this trying to see what the big to-do is about and I gotta say that it looks like the Blue Water boys are living in a fantasy world. I just can't see how the small amount of dioxin that actually was in the spray would be able to "saturate" the amount of sea water you all are talking about.
And as far as the WWII vets are concerned, I sure don't see any of them claiming a disability based on this kind of fantasy. You all should get a grip and get on with life.
TOM
11,712,860LBS OF HIGHLY TOXIC DIOXIN ,THE MOST LETHAL CHEMICAL KNOWN TO MAN WAS AIRBORNE,MISTED AND EVAPORATED INTO DRINKING WATER BY DESTROYERS LESS THAN 1,000YRDS OFFSHORE PROVIDING UP CLOSE FIRE SUPPORT FOR THE US ARMY AND MARINES.SHIPS THAT WENT UPRIVER AND WERE EXPOSED TO AO ALL ALONG THE WAY.THIS WAS NOT A FANTASY.WW2 VETS
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, HAVENT A CLUE.IT WAS A MUCH DIFFRENT WAR SIR.THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
Roy
Now Tom,
If you bothered to read the material I gave you, you would have seen that the IOM has documented that 368 lbs of dioxin was sprayed in ten years, not 11,712,860 lbs, as you seem to want us to believe. You are confusing, or perhaps deliberately misrepresenting, the facts.
Mr Boyd has pointed out the folly of the whole idea but you still cling to your delusions.
By the way do you believe shouting something (using all caps in your message) will convince anyone that what you say is true? Hardly.
Roy
"11,712,860LBS OF HIGHLY TOXIC DIOXIN ,THE MOST LETHAL CHEMICAL KNOWN TO MAN ......"
TCDD, also known as dioxin, is terratogenic and, while toxic, is not necessarilly lethal.
Ed Kidwell
Mr. Roy and Mr.Boyd
What department of the Bush Administration are you guys owned by?
The WW2 vets didn't have to do ANYTHING. They had it all GIVEN to them when they came back from overseas(the same thing they are doing for the Iraq vets) but they were so steeped in patriotism that they were afraid to claim any disabilities.THEIR government wasn't trying to kill them off.
It isn't OUR fault that the Class of '46 was trying to thin us out with poisons as WELL as enemies foreign AND domestic because we refused to become their little CLONES.
I wish they had gotten the SEVERE Diabetes II that I got .
Go Damn ANY country that treays theri vets like we have been treated. Payback for you is going to be a MONUMENTAL BITCH. One CAN hope.
If they turn us down again the courts will be DROWNING in Class actuion law suits.
J A Boyd
Kidwell,
I am not "owned" by anyone. I am a thinking, educated person who recognizes an unsubstantiated, poorly built argument when he sees it. That is indeed what you blue water folks have.
Your response is typical of those who realize they have pinned their hopes on the wrong horse and are now stuck with it. You really should tone down the rhetoric because it makes you sound like a petty and spiteful litle man.
Approximately 21 million people in the United States have diabetes, or 7 percent of the population. Of those, over 6 million are unaware that they have the disease. Some of the risk factors for someone developing Type 2 diabetes include: Increasing age, obesity, and physical inactivity.
I wonder which of the above could be applied to you? For sure you are getting older, but the others are known only to you.
I seriously doubt that class-action lawsuits would be entertained by the courts simply because your case is insufficient on it's face.
tom
I TYPE LARGE NOT TO YELL ,BUT TO SEE.
TURN YOUR BACKS ON US LIKE YOU DO TO THE HOMELESS AND PRETEND WE ARE NOT THERE AND WE MIGHT GO AWAY.....
WE WILL,WE ARE DIEING,,,,
Roy,
Tom,
No one has turned their back on you. All anyone asks is for you to be realistic. The science does not support you but you can not, or will not, even listen.
Your dramatic use of references to the homeless only shows how you grasp for anything to support your cause, no matter how pathetic.
Ed Kidwell
Mr. Boyd ,You are an UNinformed Bush lover who sees any kind of fair treatment for we vets as an attack on your owner's profit margin.
I refuse to waste any more time trying to reason with ANY unreasonable Republican who can't see past Bush's wallet.
We will wait and see what happens If
it goes south for we vets again the courts will get it until we win or we are all as dead as AMERICA is going to be
under the rule of the profiteers.
Just as no democracy has ever been permanent in history;no capitalist rule has become anything but the fire to ignite systems that are hostile to profit takers AND hostile to freedom.
Good luck in the anarchy that you Bush lovers are starting the engine to.
Whomever has you attacking people who fought for freedom and NOT profits has MY curse on their futures just as they cursed MINE. It can't go any other way but bad for you fools who are guided by the subjugation of the rich.
Ed Kidwell
One FINAL comment. When 400,000 people with a LEGITIMATE grievance file a class action law suit ,it is NOT ignored. If it was then this country DESERVES to go to a richly deserved HELL.
It WILL if you profiteers get what YOU deserve.
WHEN it does...................
UP THE REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!
Wally
Ray and Mr. Boyd sound like they are from they chemical companies. I's like to see what they have to say about mortality studies.
Roy
Mr Kidwell,
From my viewpoint your communist drivel is repugnant. You claim to have been a patriot but all I see is a poor, deluded soul.
Roy
Wally,
Point me at your information. I will be glad to respond after I have read it.
J A Boyd
Wally,
You said "I's like to see what they have to say about mortality studies."
If you can give me something reliable to go on I will be very happy to respond..
Ed
YOUR VIEW is repugnant. Maybe one day the military will refuse to go and fight for other peoples profits . Then people like you who have no courage for fighting will wish you had supported veteran's programs instead of trying to destroy them. If the WW2 vets thought they were going to get screwed by their country as WE from VietNam have been Canada would have become overpopulated and the jails would be CHOKED with war evaders. YOU ,of course would now be making your profits in Marks or Yen instead of dollars.
J A Boyd
Kidwell,
I suppose it's too late for you to go to one of the countries where your particular brand of vitriol is appreciated? Perhaps Venezuela is looking for another foaming-at-the-mouth lap dog for Chavez.
Ed
Bush obviously has a lap dog in YOU. What is the matter...........truth doesn't WASH? ANOTHER item that you people don't have in your repertoire.
I will be watching to see when YOUR world collapses. It IS right around the corner. Your owner........Bush...... has SEEN to it.NOW I have said all I plan to.I would wish you good luck but I DON'T!
Roy
Mr Kidwell,
Tomorrow would be a good time for you to see a psychiatrist, and the earlier the better. You have obviously gone around the bend.
tom
tisk,tisk,tisk or is it tick tick,tick,as the st Story progresses'.
THIS WILL BE SHOWN AS AN ERA Of national SHAME AS WAS THE MASSACRE OF WW1 VETS IN D.C.RIGHT AFTER WW1.GOD HELP AMERICA.
ANY COMMENT ROY OR MR.Boyd?
Wally
Roy, have you looked at the error IOM made in quantifying what amount of dioxin was sprayed? There are several updated reports out there. One concerns the levels of contamination, another discusses sources outside the United States.
Wally
A review of a popular Vietnam Veteran Service organization shows that 75% of their membership die before reaching Social Security retirement age.
Roy
Wally,
I have seen one report that said one particular researcher believed there was more dioxin than previously reported. This did not come from the IOM and has not been substantiated by peer review.
Your comment about the death rate for a popular Vietnam veteran service organization is really vague. Can you give me a reference I can read or is this as far as it goes?
Wally
Roy, you are either IOM or DVA in my opinion. I suggest you look beyond your work place. If you are a dedicated researcher, you will know where to find this data.
Roy
Wally,
If you will look above I have already said that I am a retired military veteran as well as a retired teacher. It seems that anyone who disagrees with the propaganda put out by the vested interests is always branded as VA or government.
As to the research, it is easy for anyone to "publish" a report these days. The hard part is backing up the results and providing hard evidence.
And I am still waiting for you to provide something for me to look at to back up your assertions. Or is it just more rhetoric with no basis in verifiable fact?
Wally
I don't provide records although I have access to many. I will give you a hint though, look further into military records.
When it comes to "peer" review, I am going to assume that you are referring to selective "peer" review?
Roy
Well, if you choose not to provide me anything to look at then I can't possibly see how you come to your position..
As to peer review, I'm not sure what you mean by selective review. You really should be careful of assumptions.
If you actually read what IOM has published you will find a great deal of material is considered, from both sides of the question under review.
Perhaps, if so many people didn't have a vested monetary interest, they would be more open minded.
Wally
Roy, you clearly stated you have obtained your data from IOM. Since IOM has published that data, more data has come to light. Therefore the IOM data is not the "Gold Standard" you are touting it to be.
I am really sick of hearing the term peer review. If data were actually reviewed without predetermined outcome, maybe I would have more faith in a peer review system.
If IOM and DAV were put under independent audit to correct some of the administrative influence and quality issues that plauge their systems.
It may surprise you that I have read almost everything IOM has published on Agent Orange.
I have also read almost everything Young and Stellman have published.
I also read military documents that have come to light through various advocates and researchers.
As far as money goes, it means little to me now. I am very concerned that I may have only a few years left to live and I should have had at least ten more.
J A Boyd
Wally,
After looking back through this I see where Roy has also given other sources. So far you haven't provided any.
I would be surprised if you or anyone else had read EVERYTHING the IOM has published on Agent Orange.
You said "I am very concerned that I may have only a few years left to live and I should have had at least ten more." If that is the case then get on with your life. Don't cheat yourself or your family of any time you may have left.
Wally
J.A. Boyd,
I believe I mentioned IOM, Young, Stellman and military documents.
I have read quite a bit of data and do so every day.
With all do respect you sound just like the DVA. Were you in the military, did you serve in Vietnam and have you been exposed to Agent Orange? Just exactly what is your interest in denying veteran benefits?
When CDC did the Selected Cancers Study, did you not find the results for NHL of some interest?
Are you so sure in your convictions that you would have the Feres Doctrine removed for DVA.
Are you so sure that IOM documentation is complete and has never been tainted?
J A Boyd
25 years Air Force enlisted, over 3 of those years in Vietnam, working every landing zone big enough to allow a C-123 to land, at one time or another. So, yes, I suppose I was exposed, probably more so than many.
I have no interest in denying any veteran his or her legitimate benefit. Note the word legitimate.
The Feres Doctrine - "The United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces." If you wish to see things become even worse for veterans than they are now, while enriching every lawyer in the country 10,000 fold, then I suppose removing the VA from the coverage is what you want. I do not think any government agency should be held hostage to half-baked idiocy generated by those who want to dine at the public trough.
I really doubt that any documentation is ever complete, even those you would prefer.
setile
roy,in 1978 i was between jobs,i was 33 had a stroke.i rember when i raised my right hand and was led to believe if i ever needed medical help i could aways count on the va.well i hobled my rear to the va,waited in line for them to turn me away.after 30 about 25 years i went back,updated my 214 put in my claims got what was coming to me.so never say the va will help anyone.you only have to watch the news to see that.every doctor i have seen in the va is over worked and under paid.
Roy
setile,
So what was the reason you "updated my 214"?
If you were discharged under other than dishonorable conditions you are authorized healthcare. You may not be in the top priority group but you can still get care.
Remember that the "news" today is not about informing, it is about selling whatever product they are hawking during the next commercial.
Gus
"The Agent Orange Equity Act of 2008 is intended to clarify the law so that every service member awarded the Vietnam Service medal, or who otherwise deployed to land, sea or air, in the Republic of Vietnam is fully covered by the comprehensive Agent Orange laws Congress passed in 1991."
VSM qualification dates are between 2 Jul 65 and 28 Mar 73.
April 1970 - all Agent Orange spray missions were ceased.
May 1970 - all defoliation missions were ceased.
Under the new 2008 Equity Act criteria, ship crews fifty miles offshore and 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.
Roy
"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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
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
I finalley figured out who you are?YOUR JANE FONDA HANOI JANE.
TOM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Roy, do you really think I or anyone here really believes your sole interest is a taxpayer?
johnnieboy
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
. . . 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Grassroots email campaign began 2 days ago in Alabama
to all
can anyone tell me why i can recieve bwn post through emal,but cant answer them or make a comment?
Michael
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Roy
you are an uninformed dickhead
Camarahill
JSESG HERBICIDE REPORT-Exposure Report:
the USS Conquest located in Da Nang Harbor was sprayed with Agent Orange on 6/19/67 Ranch Hand Run 2931 and on 8/31/67 with Agent Blue Ranch Hand Run 3383.
So much for the spraying being only on land. Wonder how many other sprays occcured that wasn't documented and just how many dumps occured over water? Just because you were in the Navy does not mean you can't have been exposed.
Gus
If anyone wants to know how to vote twice or more, visit the BWN site where they give instructions how to do so and members discuss the results of their efforts.
http://bluewaternavy.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1287&start=15
webmaster
@Gus - I have reviewed the discussion on that page, and they have not defeated our security against counting of multiple votes from the same computer. They are wasting their time trying to do so, though, which seems to be the right outcome.
Sharon
I'd like to meet the people who voted against this. In PERSON. You need some lessons. You've NO clue the suffering going on!!!
Or maybe I got it wrong- you don't care. GO ENLIST!
R.C.
If one accepts Roy's reasoning, "boots on the ground" is not proof of DIOXON exposure.
TJ
I've seen some of his arguments before. Is there any truth to the idea that we all get dioxin from our food? I never really thought much about it.
jim
I have just looked at all the comments & bad words being said to one another. First you need to be a veteran to know how we feel. That means a veteran of any branch of service. Second you need not set foot in country to take on a load of poison. Shipyards, repair facilities, aircraft carriers are far worse when it comes to being contaminated by who knows what. I am a 100% disabled Navy vet, it states very clearly in the rules that governs presumption of exposure, the VA is required to give the vet the benefit of the doubt. By the way I have all the problems that indicate dioxin poisoning. Further the doctors who care for me have clearly stated that it is more likely than as not that somehow I received a dose of dioxin somewhere along the line. So far I am lucky my cancer has not returned, but my lungs have been badly damaged, I also have neuropathy which is spreading from my feet upward. Want to trade places? I have never smoked & have no family history of any major medical problems.
albert
why all the negative votes.where does it say 50 miles in this ammendment.dioxin also came from the fuel oil and jp fuels so just about everyone at some point while in the military would have been exposed.evaperators only concentrated the dioxins brought in to every ship and exposed the ships crew to a condensed form of dioxin it did not matter if it was blue,white or orange.one drop of oil in water contaminates a long way.so anyone against this bill should appreciate the fight the bluewater navy is fighting because of people like them we have the rights and benefits we receive.the v.a. or congress are not going to give us anything without a fight.
vietnam vet forever-forever vietnam vet
Leonard
The few commenters here who are adamanatly opposed to restoring medical care to many very ill Vietnam veterans seem to have made their opposition a crusade. I've seen their comments elsewhere on veterans forums on the Internet and in comments filed in the VA's proceeding supporting the VA's bold declaration that dioxen magically stops at the water's edge Others here have raised a good question and so will I: What drives a person who would not be affected in anyway whatsoever by the passage of H.R. 6525 to not only oppose but to spend untold hours, days, and weeks, opposing H.R. 6525 and other efforts to restore medical care to many very sick veterans? What is their motivation? What group/company/government Agency, if any, do they belong to? What is in it for them if this legislation is defeated and very sick veterans are denied proper medical care? Do they just want us to die and go away? Is that it?
Allen
Hey Leonard, just so you know those few commenters you refer to speak for the silent majority of us who think you are frauds. And in answer to your question, we don’t want you to die, we just want you to go away and quit trying to associate yourselves with the true Vietnam veterans who fought in the jungles and rice paddies while you all sat in luxury on your ships that were so far away from the action that the war was just a rumor to you. Besides, every dollar of our taxes that the government spends on you non-deserving frauds, is not available to take care of the true heroes of the Vietnam War and the current ones who served and are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh, and by the way, the current ones I speak of do not include anyone on a ship over there watching movies and fraternizing with the female crew members. They get paid twice a month just like you did. That’s more than enough benefit.
Frank
This whole concept is outlandish that these veterans were not exposed to Agent Orange. The Politicians should wake up and remember those days of turbulance
and dissent. We served with distiction and danger and now suffer the consequences for being patriotic.I came back to find cancer of the larnyx that had no time frame for manifestation and a claim that is 2 yrs old. It is is on hold due to Haas Vs Nicholson.
Robert Marie
Is agent orange simular to N2O4 I've heard it was yet this chemical is one litigators refuse to acknowledge. My family was left for dead. www.mftms13.wordpress.com
Wally
Allen, I'd like to take you to task on service. Many of the US Navy posters on this topic have been awarded the Combat Action Ribbon many times. Frankly we have supported many land based veterans who were lying in rice paddies and needed assistance. Many of us have assisted when our land based guns were out ranged or bases were being over run.
While you are talking about bravery, how many missions did you complete in North Vietnam?
Now to the issue of tax waste, I would like to be personally refunded for the taxes that were used to pay your salary, Roy's, J. A. Boyd's and Gus's while fighting in Vietnam. Why?
I charge you with high treason. You dishonor men who wore the fighting uniform of the United States.
I challenge you to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the men you call frauds were not affected by dioxin. You do not have the ability to do such, whereas thousands of veterans suffer sickness and have died that that overwhelming show otherwise.
Frank
There are few posting veterans and you know who you are that continue and consistantly argue and get personal with comments that are only argumentative. Perhaps they need to create their own forum or find a a hobby and let us all stick to what is important. That being the Agent Orange Fair Equity Act of 2008.Thank you gentleman . Please stop the debates.
jim
Frank,
Who died and left you in charge?
Camarahill
To Allan:
Many of those ships you refer to were under constant enemy attack by Viet Cong. By the way many of the "true Vietnam veterans who fought in the jungles and rice paddies while you all sat in luxury on your ships" wouldn't be here if not for the ships providing gun support and supplies.
Greg- USS BASILONE DD824
We need to have this bill passed in order to obtain proper compensation for serving our country in a environment that are still causing us to suffer illnesses that continue to kill us.
Wally
Sure a lot of whining here about something that can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt either way. Maybe everyone should just take their toys and go home.
tom
i'm an idiot.there isn't anyway this is connected to voter fraud.
outlawric
When I reported to my ship, USS Josephus Daniels it had just returned from Nam. Diagnosed with Prostate cancer 6yrs ago. VA hosp removed prostate had 30 dys of radiation treatment