[Vsg] re Ben Quick post on Agent Orange and dioxin

Dear Catherine, Eric, Peter and all VSGers.

I am the child of an American veteran that served as an Infantry Sergeant

in the Dau Tieng--Ben Cui region in 1970. He was also a part of the 1970

Cambodian incursion. Upon return, he was diagnosed with the only federally

recognised symptom of wartime dioxin exposure--chloracne. It lingered for

years. I was born with several birth defects that are typical of parental

exposure to dioxin. The past ten years of my life have been devoted to

researching and writing about the issues surrounding AO/Dioxin exposure. In

2008 two significant things happened: 1) Orion Magazine published my

personal essay describing my discovery of the remaining C-123s at the AMARC

here in Tucson. The piece won a Pushcart and garnered some short-term

national attention. 2) I was awarded a grant by the University of Arizona

that allowed me to travel to VN and document the continuing dioxin problems

in SE Asia.

Little did I know my essay would become the catalyst for an Air Force cover

up, lead to the destruction of all 17 remaining planes, and become the

basis for the current effort by post-VN C-123 crew members to force a VA

policy change reflecting flight crew exposure from 1972 until the C-123 was

replaced by the C-130 as the preferred transport plane in the mid-eighties.

At the time I was sent documents collected by Maj. Wes Carter's FOIA

requests--internal memos discussing me and my work and how best to handle

the potential PR and legal problems it posed, the panel of American

scholars in the States had just sent word that it had recommended my

Fulbright application to complete oral history work in the Tay Ninh area be

funded. A month or so later a form email informed me the embassy in VN

disagreed. I also received a letter from the IRS notifying me of my audit.

At the time my yearly income was $25,000. Mentors suggested I had been

blacklisted, not unreasonable considering the consultant hired by Davis

Monthan to oversee the cover up is also a significant member of the

American Embassy AO liaison team in Hanoi. He certainly would have read my

app, an application containing a personal invitation from Dr. Nhan--head of

the Hue University Medical School and founder of its Office of Genetic

Counseling and Disabled Children, an internationally known and respected

man--and also containing lors from a former VN Fulbright scholar and

internationally respected authors. I knew my plan and had the local

connections from my first trip and a network of former

American/Vietnam--take your pick--war photographers because of my

friendship with retired Newsweek photographer Lester Sloan to see it

through.

I still have the knowledge and human connections, but I no longer have

access to traditional sources of funding. I am a single father teaching a

4/4 --if I'm lucky for we are paid per class--load at the U of A. I'm

trying to work out logistics for a follow-up trip this summer needed to

complete my book, a book with the potential to actually make some

difference. A part of this trip would include a multi-media collaboration

with a photographer friend from rural VN.

I wish I had money. I would fund your entire project. Up until now, I've

been frustrated by the inability of activist work to synthesize art,

historical knowledge, and legal strategy needed to affect real change. We

need to win hearts and minds, yes. But we also need to win legal battles.

Certain legal precedents need to be overturned or set. And we need to be

passionate in the creation of our art, but calculated in its presentation.

The world does not respond to shrill screams of emotion, no matter how

justified the voice. So I offer you myself, my words, my art, my knowledge,

my commitment. I hope youy will accept.

See link below for the essay that I refer to

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/2862/

Warmest regards,

Ben Quick

University of Arizona

PS: Paul,

The studies are numerous. I'd be happy to send you PDFs off-list. The

problem with most of their work being done these days is similar to the

problem faced by the fight against big tobacco: There is simply no way to

conduct a double blind study 40+ years after the fact. The American govt.

requires a study with zero confounding factors, which is ridiculous--not to

mention impossible. The amount of circumstantial evidence relating to the

toxicity of TCCD is overwhelming. 24D, the other AO ingredient, is not so

problematic. And in a nod to Monsanto, which I rarely give, it should be

noted that Monsanto called a meeting in 1967 with all the manufacturers of

AO informing them that the higher temperatures required to produce AO as

quickly as possible let to higher levels of dioxin in the finished product.

Monsanto chose to keep the temperature low rather than meet demand and

increase profits. Most other manufacturers did not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ben, very nice post; also the article you give us a link to is moving and evocative. I've been researching these issues for future documentary work and after exchanges with Dr. Charles Bailey, now with the Aspen Institute, formerly with the Ford Foundation program on Agent Orange, I realize that scientists simply can't understand the complexity of dioxin interactions with human biology. It's much too complex for them to figure out. But the point in discussing dioxin and its effects in people, and in particular, the children of vets in the US and in Vietnam, is that with sound journalist methods, or good sociology, one can see, quite dramatically what dioxin has done and continues to do. Interviews, observations and quite logical deductions are conclusive. Conventional science lags. And yet the proof is actually there, everywhere in plain sight.

Andrew Pearson

With NBC and ABC News for five years in South Vietnam

Yes --

The stories came first, and the RVN government censored the Vietnamese who

told them, and the VA sent the US veterans who first told them for

psychiatric examinations. Then over the decades science developed its tools

and knowledge to the point where the VA now offers compensation--pushed by

the stories.

Diane

taivanta at yahoo.com taivanta at yahoo.com

Tue Mar 4 14:34:51 PST 2014

All,

I just wanted to add a quick two cents on the topic, to add to the thoughtful posts of Catherine, Ben, Diane, and others.

First, as a minor quibble with Ben, it was Dow, not Monsanto, that called a meeting in 1965, not 1967, attempting to persuade others to follow their recently discovered formula for cooking the herbicides at a lower temperature to limit the levels of dioxin in the final product.

Second, as I've argued elsewhere, the point about scientific certainty (or uncertainty) is really critical to understanding both the history and legacies of Agent Orange, particularly with regards to the legal decisions in various cases (although the Vietnamese Victims suit included far more complex issues of jurisdiction and international law to boot).

Ben is absolutely right to point to the parallels with Big Tobacco, which helped produce and market the concept of "uncertainty" in its legal and policy battles over time. The larger point, I would argue, is that in lieu of definitive scientific or historical answers, policy decisions about who is or is not an Agent Orange victim, and who does or does not receive benefits based on that determination, have been political, rather than scientific in nature.

This was true of American, Australian, and New Zealand veterans, and it certainly continues to be true both of those suffering from the ongoing effects of Agent Orange because they have grown up near hotspots and those veterans who worked with C-123s long after the war. This will also become only more true with time.

Both as a matter of scholarly accuracy and as a point of policy seeking to aid the ongoing victims of the chemical war, we are better off accepting, critiquing, and reformulating the concept of uncertainty to place the burden of proof back on corporations and states, rather than victims, than we are attempting to cling to the hopes that scientific and historical evidence will settle the matter.

For what it's worth,

Ed Martini

Department of History

Western Michigan University

Previous message: [Vsg] re Ben Quick post on Agent Orange and dioxin

Next message: [Vsg] re Ben Quick post on Agent Orange and dioxin

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,please explain how is it that scientists cannot,as alleged herea,understand the complexities of dioxin causal connections as well as journalists who use "sound" journalistic methods of observations and deductions, and how come that group of attorneys on behalf of Mrs Nguyen Thi Binh's Hoi Nan Nhan Da Cam failed to persuade the Federal Distirct Court in NY and the Appeals Court to rule in their favor because they failed to provide to the courts, waiting with much solicitude, the scientific studies of UY Ban/Committee 10-80 of Vietnam's famous Dr Hoang Dinh Cau? Ta Tai

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

US scientific understanding of human cellular, genetic functions are still very limited; the judge in that case believed the Monsanto "scientists" who said there was no "scientific" proof that dioxin causes the illnesses and mutations mentioned. Of course that's wrong thinking, because Dr. Hoang Dinh Cau and others, with the Canadian company, Hatfield, showed how dioxin was being consumed by people, look here: http://www.popstoolkit.com/about/articles/aodioxinhotspotsvietnam.aspx, but the Monsanto "scientists" persuaded the judge that there was no scientific proof that dioxin was doing the dirty work, causing the illnesses people were experiencing. This is corporate science. A large, wealthy corporation buying science to prove to the judge that Hatfield and Dr. Hoang Dinh Cau didn't have enough evidence. Corporate science is often corrupt. When very large corporations write law for Congress or other government agencies, look out. Hatfield and Dr. Hoang Dinh Cau proved that there were heavy concentrations of dioxin in the soil and that dioxin was getting in to people (and animals.) But they couldn't explain how dioxin functioned to cause specific illnesses. Of course this is bad law and bad science to require that final step when people are ill everywhere. That's why I said simple observation is quite enough.

Andrew Pearson, documentary producer

Correct me if I'm wrong but I read the judgement and remember I did NOT read it refers to Hoang Dinh Cau's muti-volume study as nobody submitted it to the court (each of volumes is thick like a thick dictionary--which Dr Cau showed me at hiS house, and to which I called the attention of the delegation of Dr PHI Phi (?) at Harvard before the case,with the lawyers vin attendance as members ). The lawyers might have neglected to pay attention to my hint of the studies? Or did they failed to ask Dr Le Cao Dai who also had a copy? The other people who have this study is the Politburo,Dr Cau told me. Tai Ta

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

I must say I find this a stunning argument. Basically the argument is that

scientific evidence must take a back seat to opinion, because scientists

don't have enough understanding to grasp what lay people can see with their

own eyes?

I confess I never thought I would read something like this on a academic

list.

Paul Schmehl

Independent Researcher

What I take as interesting here is that stories preceded science -- which

later, as measurement capability and understanding of cellular function

developed, confirmed some of the stories, not all.

What I don't understand, Paul, is why you don't seem to take seriously the

judgments of the IARC, the EPA, and the IOM?

Diane

Paul, it's not "scientific evidence," that "takes a back seat," but rather scientific ignorance, as people in the US and Vietnam are faced with an environmental and human catastrophe affecting millions of people in Vietnam, but also thousands of US veterans and their children.

Not knowing "everything" about the biology of dioxin has been used as an excuse for evading responsibility. To insist, as administrators and judges have over the years, that "we don't know how dioxin does it's dirty work in the human cell," so therefore we can't do anything about the social and medical issues, is to continue the war, in a way-- as millions of people, clearly very sick, try to cope with their lives and their children's lives, when their children inherit the genetic damage caused by dioxin and pass that damage on to their children as well.

The Veterans Administration after years of denial, finally got some 2.2 billion dollars to help with the lives of US vets. But not yet for their children, who have inherited genetic damage to their bodies from their fathers. See Heather Bowser: http://www.agentorangespeaker.com

The US still cannot get itself to do much of anything in Vietnam. Yes, clearing up the worst contamination at the Danang airbase, only now. But not yet at Bien Hoa and other "hot spots." And just a pittance for humanitarian assistance. I say the US should do much more, especially for the Vietnamese, because the need is clear, regardless of the state of our understanding about the science of cause.

You have a journalist on this academic site, because the rules of participation permit us to be here if we seem serious and interested. I'm grateful for many of your posts because I grew up in Vietnam, so to speak. NBC put me in the midst of the war in 1963 when I was in my twenties. Over the years I tried to answer for myself, the fundamental questions that were before me. I've always felt my job, when NBC permitted, was to act as a translator for specialized knowledge about Vietnam, as well as ordinary life experience, for people back home.

Andrew Pearson, television news and documentaries, in Vietnam for five years, from '63 through '72.

Paul Schmehl pschmehl at tx.rr.com

Wed Mar 5 07:54:43 PST 2014 Andrew, the problem I have with the claims of genetic effects is the lack

of evidence. For example, if you review the most recent March of Dimes

worldwide survey of birth defects, Vietnam falls just about right in the

center. Wouldn't you expect the birth defect rate to be much higher if

dioxin exposure was causal? Yet it's not.

I'm not aware of a single study that found genetic impacts from dioxin

exposure, even in Seveso which had a dramatically higher level of exposure

than Vietnam. That study has been ongoing for more almost 40 years, so 2

generations of children have been studied now. There is an ongoing study

of health effects on women, but no results have been published to date.

That study is looking at birth outcomes (as well as many other issues), and

may finally provide something of substance one way or the other.

Yes, there are health impacts from dioxin exposure. I don't think there's

any doubt about that.

I am not saying the government should do nothing. I'm simply saying the

science doesn't support some of the claims that people are making,

especially in the are of 2nd generation birth defects.

Dear all,

Here is a policy on Agent Orange of the American Public Health Association,

which is largest in the US and in the world, in November 2007

http://www.vn-agentorange.org/APHA_2007_policy.html

It has a component called "relief" -- i.e. if you sprayed anything on people in

other countries, you must provide relief while joining them in scientific studies,

and another one, taking "responsibility" after joint scientific studies are done.

Victims (in this country as well) are poor, they will never have enough money

to provide adequate epidemiological studies, and their scientific studies will

rarely, if ever, be accepted by large companies.

Cheers,

Nhan

Dear all,

sorry for my naivety or lack of knowledge on this subject. Do you know

if any Russians or Chinese veterans were victims of Agent Orange or

other chemicals during their period in Vietnam? Is there any studies

(personal or official) published by Russian or Chinese on this subject?

Do they support SRV government on this point?

I know the important work of Le Cao Dai about the impact of AO on his

compatriots. I am very interested about this question in regard on my

own research on TNXP in the North or in the South, as you know some of

them were and are really affected by consequences of chemical war.

Best,

F

Dear Francois --

Ed Martini would be a good person to ask about New Zealand and Australian

veterans, and there has been lots of coverage of South Korean veterans'

claims -- and those of workers around the manufacturing and storage sites

for the chemicals.

I don't know of any studies on Russian or Chinese.... but that's my

ignorance, not the reality. I'd love to know if you find some.

Diane

Diane, it's possible Russian or Chinese personnel could have been exposed,

because AO was sprayed in Laos and Cambodia (but not in North Vietnam) and

in the northern parts of I Corps. I haven't read of any, but that doesn't

mean that they don't exist. (Perhaps the reason is that they didn't want

to admit that they were there, although recently that's changed.)

I have read stories of people in North Vietnam who were never exposed to AO

yet claim health effects from its exposure, including birth defects.

Paul Schmehl

Independent Researcher

Paul, birth defect surveys in Vietnam by the March of Dimes may have some validity, but perhaps not. It depends on who did the work and how, with what resources; also the Hanoi government may have gotten in the way. I wouldn't believe the results unless I knew a lot about the work. As far as "not a single study found genetic impacts from dioxin exposure," I'd say again, let me look at how they were done. Vietnamese scientists, I believe I'm correct in saying this, Diane? do believe that dioxin causes birth defects- are their studies being translated and published? There's an interesting photograph on Heather Bowser's website, (she's the daughter of a US Vet who was exposed to defoliant: http://www.agentorangespeaker.com

It shows Heather, matching her fingers with a young Vietnamese boy, her finger configuration is a mirror image of his. It's not science, but it's interesting: (Heather would let me put it here)

Andrew Pearson, TV, multi-media documentary producer

Pam McElwee pdmcelwee at gmail.com

Wed Mar 5 06:40:48 PST 2014

Previous message: [Vsg] Fwd: Fwd: Catherine Karnow Agent Orange Awareness Project

Next message: [Vsg] Agent Orange & epigenetics

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear all -

On the point raised by the original poster regarding genetic impacts of AO exposure, I would point out that none of the US institutions that have assessed TCDD exposure, in Vietnam veterans or other affected populations (e.g. dioxin exposure at industrial sites in US or Seveso Italy), have determined that there is "sufficient association” between exposure and birth defects, other than spinal bifida, for which there is “limited” evidence (see Chapter 10 of the Agent Orange Update 2012 by the Institute of Medicine). That was the original question. The IARC and EPA have similarly noted exposure to dioxin is associated with first generation health impacts (e.g. some cancers), but neither has linked second and third generation outcomes outside of spinal bifida. The Hatfield studies noted by an earlier poster are about the continued levels of dioxin exposure in Vietnam (far in excess of permissible levels set for the US, for example, by the EPA), but have not directly addressed the question of inheritable diseases/birth defects.

Epigenetics (the study of heritable changes in genes from causes other than DNA sequence changes) is a dynamic and fast growing field and it is likely that we will know more about dioxin exposure and gene modification in the future. There is a recent study (2012) that does suggest epigenetic transgenerational inherence of disease in rats after dioxin exposure (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0046249) but this study has not led to changes in current recognition of the diseases associated with Agent Orange exposure by IOM/EPA yet.

Regardless, we do know enough about first generation exposure to dioxin, whether through AO hotspots or elsewhere, that argues strongly in favor of remediation and lessened exposure, even if second and third generation impacts are not yet recognized by official institutions.

Pam McElwee

Dr. Pamela McElwee

Assistant Professor, Department of Human Ecology

School of Environmental and Biological Sciences

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

ph: 480-252-0999

Co-editor, Journal of Vietnamese Studies

New publication: Gender and Sustainability: Lessons from Asia and Latin America. (2012) Edited by María Luz Cruz-Torres and Pamela McElwee. University of Arizona Press. http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/Books/bid2384.htm

Hi Pam --

Yes, thanks for this. Last I knew, there was very interesting work on

epigenetics being done at Vanderbilt. I'm grateful for other links, either

for this or for those with claims and counterclaims about genetics.

But I am puzzled by your read of the EPA findings for effects on the unborn

child. It would be good to get Linda Birnbaum in on this conversation, but

I took the quote I passed along about TCDD's effects on developmental

effects on "thyroid status, immune status, neurobehavior, cognition and

dentition" straight from her talk at Yale in 2002 that we both attended --

and then re-confirmed it with her by e-mail later.

That seems to me to mean more than spina bifida, no? I'd love help

thinking clearly on this!

with thanks,

Diane

Diane et. al.,

I think that Pam has shown, far more eloquently, and from a much more informed perspective than I, that the science is far from settled in some of these areas, particularly with regard to birth defects.

My point about uncertainty is that in and of itself it is neither good nor bad; it is what various groups do with that uncertainty that ultimately matters. My argument is simply that in just about every Agent Orange exposure case, we will never be able to determine that exposure to "Chemical A" resulted in "Condition B" on "Body C." American veterans did not win the class action lawsuit or a more expansive benefits regime because they were able to "win" the argument on scientific grounds. Far from it.

Rather, they mobilized, and shifted the politics of uncertainty in their favor, so that the U.S. government now assumes they were exposed to Agent Orange and, thus, TCDD, simply for having set foot in South Vietnam. It then gives the veteran the benefit of the doubt that if the veteran suffers from, say, type-2 diabetes, that this is therefore a service-related disability and therefore eligible for benefits. While there is clearly a great deal of science that underlies the "limited/suggestive" link between Agent Orange exposure and type-2 diabetes, this policy was, and remains, the result of a largely political decision based largely on the status of veterans in the United States.

To confirm this, one need only look at the fact that the same government that largely removed the burden of proof for exposure among its own veterans looks at the same diseases among Vietnamese who were, if anything, more likely to have been exposed to dioxin from Agent Orange, and says that there is "no conclusive evidence" supporting the link between exposure and their condition.

The degree of scientific (un)certainty is the same; the politics are different.

ed

Ed Martini

Department of History

Western Michigan University

Diane -

I take the EPA’s 2006 report, Health Risks from Dioxin and Related Compounds: Evaluation of the EPA Reassessment, as the definitive EPA statement, although if there is a newer one I would be interested to see it. The 2006 report says that developmental effects are mostly suggestive but inconclusive (chapter 6 on non cancer end points), based primarily on animal studies (e.g. there is a discussion of cleft palate in a number of species). Also folks should note that developmental problems (effects on development of the fetus) are not the same as heritable genetic alterations, which was the original point of discussion. Birnbaum has long argued that dioxin is a hormone disrupting chemical par excellence and one which accounts for developmental changes at birth in a number of animal species. Unfortunately there are also a lot of other hormone disrupting chemicals out there in the environment, both in the US and Vietnam, not attributable to AO, which makes positive association in the case of birth defects difficult.

But at any rate, the IOM and VA have not taken any of Birnbaum or others' work that suggests there are developmental concerns as the basis for policy changes. Again, other than spinal bifida, no other developmental effect is recognized by the US government as a basis for health claims is my understanding. That is not to say there is not active concern and debate over the other suggestive studies, but the original poster wanted to know what was officially recognized as a AO health outcome, and if genetic changes in second and third generations was one of those outcomes.

Pam

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No excuse needed, Drew. It was spot-on. You said what needs to be said to people who need to hear it. Viet Nam is much more than a "subject of study," to quote one VSGer. It is a country in which millions of our fellow human beings are suffering from war legacies, including AO. No more studies, no more conferences, no more evasion of responsibility. End, or at least mitigate, the suffering - sooner rather than later.

While this essay is not related to Viet Nam, it is worth pondering,

especially for those of you who make your living as academics:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2014/02/why-is-academic-writing-so-academic.html. (The comments are also quite revealing.) It is most certainly related to the letter and spirit of Drew's "war crime" post.

MAA

Hanoi

Doug Young comanche6 at gmail.com

Wed Mar 5 09:15:02 PST 2014

Previous message: [Vsg] re Ben Quick post on Agent Orange and dioxin

Next message: [Vsg] re Ben Quick post on Agent Orange and dioxin

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello to all -

This has been a very interesting thread for me, both as a veteran of the

American war and as a person who lived in Hue in 2005-06.

There are a number of people with genetic birth defects in Vietnam,

especially in Hue. As an example, I was once escorted through a

rehabilitation vocational training center by one of my former students. It

was obvious that many of the residents in the program suffered from

physical deformities and others from mental retardation. When asked,

Trâmtold me that most of the people had suffered from Agent Orange -

then

smiled as she said "Yes, I now you were an American soldier, Th?y."

As another example, I took this photo at a local hospital of a young woman

who had given birth to her third child with severe deformities.

[image: Inline image 1]

The baby also had a serious heart defect, and died three days after I took

this photo. In talking to the physician, I found she was a Bru, from the A

Lu?i district (what we Americans called the A Shau Valley) which was

heavily sprayed with AO. The woman functioned as the village prostitute,

and being very poor, subsisted on a diet of cassava root all during her

pregnancy. The physician and I had the same question: was her history of

delivering children with birth defects the result of inbreeding, her diet,

or AO contamination - or a combination of the three? I certainly did not

know.

The topic of "uncertainty" interests me. There may be a tendency on the

part of the Vietnamese people and the government to assume that all birth

defects are the result of AO contamination. I'm not so sure. Not being a

physician or a scientist, I am ill equipped to make any judgements.

The assertion that it was "uncertainty" that brought about the automatic

assumption by the Veterans Administration that AO caused certain illnesses

in veterans who served in Vietnam is correct. The decision to assume that

if you served in Vietnam, and you developed certain diseases associated

with AO, then it was assumed that AO was the cause, was made because there

were too many coincidences that were brought forth to elected officials who

then made the decision for political reasons.

There can be little doubt the US is culpable - we sprayed a known

carcinogen on Vietnam. But, that also doesn't mean the US should take

responsibility for all observed birth defects.

Check the technical notes in the March of Dimes report. MOD did not conduct population surveys or record reviews in Vietnam. Instead they did statistical modeling and made projections and estimates ONLY FOR GENETIC ANOMALIES based on other global data. There was no attempt to consider environmentally induced birth defects, and no actual Vietnamese data on congenital anomalies. Nothing wrong with this as far as it goes, but (in my opinion) quite misleading as a means of ranking Vietnam internationally. Since no registry of birth defects exists in Vietnam, it remains to be seen how VN actually ranks globally – and no longer possible to get the most relevant data on births to heavily exposed women (though small area studies and qualitative research could certainly capture important information).

Trude Bennett

Department of Maternal and Child Health

UNC School of Global Public Health

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

Doug: About compensation to Vietnamese and the issue of whether dioxin causes birth defects: since individual compensation to Vietnamese for dioxin sicknesses is impossible to manage because there's no simple test for cause, the US Congress must fund assistance to Vietnamese health and social welfare infrastructure for everyone. Rural families work hard to get by even without serious illness in the family. But when one or more of their children needs constant care, they sink into poverty and mental illness. Also, a lot of people in the north today were in the south during the war and were sprayed repeatedly, especially on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, but also in many other locations.

In addition, unexploded ordnance continues to wound and kill people trying to work their farms. Helping to fund health infrastructure as well as social services would also assist these people.

I think Americans, generally, would understand this, but as Catherine Karnow knows, it's hard to get the funding to make these issues better known so Congress pays some attention. Hurry up Cathy! I'm trying too.

Andrew Pearson (I thought I posted this but don't see it; sorry if I'm repeating.)

A couple of points to add.

Regarding the lawsuit filed by the Vietnamese in US courts that was dismissed. The courts never looked at scientific evidence as the case was dismissed long before the case got to that level of detail on the issue. Even if it was submitted by the lawyers it was not a factor in the courts decision. The case was dismissed for several reasons but primarily because the courts determined that as government contractors that the chemical companies had the same immunity to lawsuit as the US government enjoys. Second, the court determined that because there was no ‘intent’ to harm humans with the herbicides it was not a chemical weapon in the sense that say mustard gas is a chemical weapon so their use was not a violation of international law. This is a very stripped down analysis, if you want a more comprehensive analysis see the piece Andrew Wells-Dang did for us on after the case was dismissed http://www.ffrd.org/Lawsuit/AO%20decision%20analysis.htm.

There is a great interview with Linda Birnbaum on the science of dioxin where she outlines the complexities of dioxin research and how dioxin impacts basic biological processes across many systems of the body. This makes it different from other toxic chemicals. She points out that dioxin affects many species and many body systems at many different stages of development so therefore it is more likely you can extrapolate what is learned from animal studies to humans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50E0eGwqPv4 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50E0eGwqPv4&feature=player_embedded> &feature=player_embedded. She of course is talking about potential impacts not that you can prove that one person’s cancer/birth defect is caused by dioxin. This interview was done nearly 10 years ago so it does not include information from more recent studies. I think Pam is right that the epigenetic studies will be where we will get more answers, one way or another about what dioxin can/does do in humans.

As for the birth defect rate in Vietnam. There are not very good surveys of birth defects or even disabilities in Vietnam. As Trude pointed out Vietnam does not have a birth defect registry so we really do not have good numbers to compare to other countries to know whether or not it is higher than it should be on average. The most recent census in Vietnam did have a few questions about disabilities over the age of 5. Not surprising the rates vary from region to region. But you do find that the provinces with the highest percentage of people with disabilities, disabilities, percentages of those with multiple disabilities and percentages of people with severe disabilities include the provinces that were heavily sprayed (Quang Nam, Quang Ngai, Quang Tri) and provinces where there are a lot of veterans who went south during the war (Thai Binh, Nghe An, Ha Nam). Does this mean the disabilities were caused by the herbicides? No of course we cannot make that direct link with this type of data. There could be many other factors. For instance some of the poorest provinces also have high rates (Cao Bang) not surprising as poverty and disability often go hand in hand.

But it does show regional variation that would be interesting to explore further and compare this to amount of dioxin contaminated herbicides sprayed. I for one do suspect the dioxin contaminated herbicides is one reason for these higher rates in some parts of the country. Not the only but a contributing factor. However, heavily sprayed with Agent Orange did not mean the area was heavily populated during the war so you do not always find high rates in more heavily sprayed provinces. For instance Dong Nai was heavily sprayed but mainly in low population areas. On the other hand Ben Tre area (Kien Hoa) was not heavily sprayed by volume compared to other provinces but populated areas of Ben Tre were sprayed many times. According to the census Ben Tre does have a high percentage of people with disabilities but I am not sure what types to know if they are ones often attributed to AO/Dioxin.

Jeanne Stellman at Columbia is working on a website where you can input hamlets during the war and find out which herbicide was sprayed, how many times an area was sprayed and the pdf’s of spray reports. So you may be able to dig deeper into what areas were heavily sprayed and at least identify areas where you would want to do some comprehensive survey of disabilities. If one was so inclined.

By the way, the Vietnamese do not think all people with disabilities or people with birth defects are caused by Agent Orange/Dioxin. The very limited surveys usually done by groups like Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange or the Red Cross attribute about 25% of people with disabilities as those who would be classified as an “Agent Orange Victim”. VAVA and Red Cross gather this information for provision of social services so this is by no means a scientific list but even these two groups who work with AO impacted communities do not claim everyone with a disability is due to AO.

Thankfully for my work to assist families caring for severely disabled children in Vietnam I do not need proof of what caused their child’s disability. A child in need is a child in need and there are a lot of them in Vietnam as services for children with disabilities are limited. Until recently most families had to just manage on their own the best they could to face their fate of having a child with a disability or birth defect. Though we do focus our work in those areas that were heavily sprayed by herbicides because that is where we find the largest numbers in need of assistance. Is AO the cause? Is this coincidence? Who knows. Others can do the scientific valid studies/surveys to try to answer that. I am too busy trying to bring medical care/rehabilitation services, education/vocational training and livelihood support to those in need.

Susan

Susan Hammond

Executive Director

War Legacies Project Inc.

Chuck Searcy chuckusvn at gmail.com

Wed Mar 5 17:17:20 PST 2014

Previous message: [Vsg] re Ben Quick post on Agent Orange and dioxin

Next message: [Vsg] re Ben Quick post on Agent Orange and dioxin

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Susan, for this is very helpful contribution. This discussion seems

to be welcomed by all as a needed exchange and update, a reminder of what

we *do* know (complicated though that can be) along with many unanswered

questions need still need much work. But your point is absolutely on the

mark: while the research and the scientific arguments continue in the

shadow of sometimes obstructive political agendas, we have to find ways to

bring medical care and rehab and other support services to families in

need, who have suffered for so long with too little help.

Andrew Pearson pearson.drew at gmail.com

Wed Mar 5 17:51:52 PST 2014

Previous message: [Vsg] re Ben Quick post on Agent Orange and dioxin

Next message: [Vsg] re Ben Quick post on Agent Orange and dioxin

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, exactly, Susan expresses better than I was able to, my frustration with the linkage question, scientific "proof" for cause and effect before much can be done. Wrong… get on with the work AND find ways to get significant US funding to improve health care for all Vietnamese in areas of great need. Andrew Pearson

On Mar 5, 2014, at 8:17 PM, Chuck Searcy <chuckusvn at gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Susan, for this is very helpful contribution. This discussion seems to be welcomed by all as a needed exchange and update, a reminder of what we do know (complicated though that can be) along with many unanswered questions need still need much work. But your point is absolutely on the mark: while the research and the scientific arguments continue in the shadow of sometimes obstructive political agendas, we have to find ways to bring medical care and rehab and other support services to families in need, who have suffered for so long with too little help.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Naturally I agree with the position being put here by Andrew and very eloquently by Susan. That said, here is an article that attempts to deal with the scientific evidence question in significant detail, including in relation to second and third generation victims, by an Australian doctor Coral Wynter: http://links.org.au/node/3636

This article also has considerable information on the issue of Australian veteran victims. Anyone wanting to investigate further the issue of Australian veterans who are victims of Agent Orange, I can put you in touch off-list with a very active Australian veteran, Clarence Ormsby, though I probably shouldn’t spread his email around the whole list here.

(On a technical point – maybe vsg’s IT people need to look into this: the number of times people in the last few days have either sent the whole list stuff supposed to be for one, or sent to one what was intended for the list, is unsurprising: when I hit “reply” to a vsg message, the name of the individual who sent the last message comes up. Only by using “reply all” can I get vsg as a recipient (in the CC box).

Michael Karadjis

President

Agent Orange Justice

www.agentorangejustice.org.au

Michael, that's an powerful report by Dr. Coral Wynter. Perhaps others on this list know all this but I didn't. I had also meant to include, and it fits well with the Wynter article, material from a lecture given by Dr. Barry Commoner, the public interest scientist. Now dead. Here's the entire document:

Here's the title of his address:

Keynote Address at the Second Citizens Conference on Dioxin,

St. Louis, Missouri, July 30, 1994

The Political History of Dioxin

by Barry Commoner, Center for the Biology of Natural Systems

And here's an interesting excerpt: (my emphasis)

… the EPA document also acknowledges that the newly appreciated hazards of dioxin go far beyond the risk of cancer. At or near the observed levels of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in the US population, the expected non-cancer effects include:

disruption of endocrine hormone systems, especially those related to sexual development;

disruption of critical stages of embryonic development, for example of the nervous system;

damage to the developing immune system, leading to increased susceptibility to infectious diseases.

These are intergenerational defects, they are imprinted for life on the developing fetus by the effect of dioxin on the mother and sometimes the father. In its recent Seventh Biennial Report on the environmental impact of persistent toxic substances such as dioxin on the Great Lakes, the International Joint Commission has bluntly confronted the catastrophic implication of this threat, stating:

Surely, there can be no more compelling self-interest to force us to come to grips with this problem than the spectre of damaging the integrity of our species and its entire environment.

Andrew Pearson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael, since they are using mailman, I'm relatively certain that this is

a configurable option. Some folks prefer this way. Others prefer that all

responses, by default, go to the list.

Also, some mail clients default to reply to sender, others default to reply

to all. It's complicated and there's no "right" way to do it.

As for the article that you linked to, it could hardly be called an

unbiased look at AO. To start with, the title of the picture calls it

chemical warfare, which it was not. Secondly, the third paragraph is

filled with falsehoods about the war.

Paul Schmehl

Independent Researcher

Thanks to all for this remarkably informative and civil conversation.

In 1966-69, I was a very junior member of the US Embassy’s political

section stationed mainly in Bien Hoa with responsibility for following

opinion trends in the 11 provinces surrounding Saigon (i.e., III Corps

Tactical Zone, or ‘mi?n Ðông). Inter alia, I was the principal manager of

a group of 24 Vietnamese ‘attitude surveyors’ that were deployed in three

man teams into contested areas, typically in response to reports of

incidents (including bad behavior by RVN or US Forces elements). In late

1967, as I recall, the survey teams began to report not only on crop

destruction in ‘friendly villages’ but also of health effects, particularly

in areas of Biên Hoà (now Ðông Nai) province north of Highway 1 (and south

of ‘War Zone D’ aka the ‘Iron Triangle’ – an area that had been heavily

sprayed). Re animals, the effects reported were typically “the chickens

staggered around and then died.” Re humans, there were reports of

transient respiratory distress and occasional reports that I now recognize

(thanks to this discussion) as chloracne.

Altogether, to my recollection, we collected about a dozen of these reports

and sent them up through channels. They showed rather conclusively that

drift of the chemicals sprayed over ‘VC base areas’ was far broader than

the Ranch Hand project leaders had claimed. John Vann was then head of the

pacification effort in III Corps and, as many VSG members know, not the

sort of person to shy away from a fight. He pressed successfully for a

substantially greater buffer zone around ‘friendly’ and potentially

‘friendly’ areas. (Someone with access to the Ranch Hand spraying

statistics may be able to confirm a sharp reduction in spraying in III CTZ

from about late 1968.)

Subsequently, while pursuing a graduate degree in 1969-70, I was able to

work with Matt Meselson, the Harvard biologist who led the AAAS’s initial

assessments of the defoliant strategy and its effects, and then, assigned

in 1971 to the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, I

had an active part in the intra-US Government dialogue that led to

suspension of Ranch Hand that year and ultimately to US renunciation of

chemical weapons.

That’s all prologue to a somewhat testy conversation I had with Tom & Nhu

Miller in Hanoi many years later, which prompted me to browse the ‘net

specifically in search of information on scientifically valid research in

Vietnam to document the impacts of dioxin contamination. What I found (and

subsequently lost in a computer crash in 2010) indicated that

notwithstanding repeated official and unofficial proposals by Americans

dating as I recall from the 1980’s for joint collection and study of data,

the Vietnamese side refused such joint effort.

Hanoi seems to have consistently regarded any effort to examine its claims,

let alone express skepticism, as hostile behavior. It was fully capable

all through the postwar period of keeping the systematic data on birth

defects that one contributor to the thread says began only in 2005. In

short, there was plenty of political obfuscation also on the Vietnamese

side. Tragically, the Hanoi regime seems to have believed that joint study

could or would turn up data that undercut its own effort to score

propaganda points.

Tragically, the time when on the ground surveys or statistical compilations

in Vietnam could be expected to turn up much useful data is likely now long

past.

Others on the list may have looked into the history of US-Vietnamese

dialogue over dioxin impacts – particularly with respect to systematic

collection and study of data – in considerably more detail, and perhaps

have reached different conclusions. If so, I hope they’ll add to our

understanding on this point.

David Brown

Fresno, California

Dear David and others,

I have also seen other people mentioning that the Vietnamese government was

reluctant about the joint research project because they were afraid that

such research might reveal that not all diseases (especially birth defects)

allegedly caused by Agent Orange are actually not caused by it.

But I wonder if another interpretation is not possible.

As far as I could gather, the Vietnamese government was never so

enthusiastic about politicizing the issue of Agent Orange until the 2000s.

Research on Agent Orange was considered classified material in Vietnam for

a long time. This suggests that it was hardly a propaganda material.

Isn't it also possible that the Vietnamese government was behaving just

like any other modern government faced with toxic epidemics, i.e. conceal

information?

It also seems to be a question of sovereignty, of wanting to maintain

control over the knowledge on its population. In 2008 and 2009 when I was

in A Luoi for my doctoral fieldwork, the Vietnamese government had in place

its own Agent Orange compensation scheme, which was loosely based on

medical identification, and more strictly based on the affiliation to the

North during the war.

A universal Agent Orange compensation/pension based on scientific knowledge

(if such thing is ever possible) would be extremely costly, and would also

not agree with the Vietnam's official memory politics.

I have also heard people in Vietnam mention the Japanese experience of

Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, which treated the victims of a-bomb in

Hiroshima and Nagasaki like guinea pigs. That the knowledge for knowledge's

sake is scorned doesn't seem to be so surprising.

Tak

Paul, you and I are obviously going to disagree about the war and other

issues. What you may see as 'full of falsehoods" I may have a different

opinion about (for example, calling it chemical warfare). But it doesn't

matter. Dr. Wynter is entitled to her views. I didn't sent the article

for its title, its picture, or paragraph 3. I sent it for the scientific

evidence contained in it, written by someone with obvious scientific

knowledge, as a contribution to the "evidence" discussion.

Michael Karadjis

Michael, I'm certain you're right that we would disagree. At least we can

do it amicably.

The problem I have with articles like this one is that, if you begin by

stating "facts" that are clearly false, then I can't trust you to

accurately represent the research you cite. Therefore I stop reading.

For example, if you look at the chemical warfare conventions, you will find

that the use of pesticides in uninhabited or enemy areas to reduce

vegetation is not considered chemical warfare. That's a fact. Spraying

pesticides in highly populated areas is considered chemical warfare.

Now, we can disagree on whether it should be. We can even lobby to get the

convention changed to classify it as chemical warfare or not. But the fact

is that when Agent Orange was used in Vietnam, it was not considered

chemical warfare to use it and its use was not illegal.

Calling it that immediately shrinks the audience that might be receptive to

your ideas. If what you believe to be true actually is, you should be able

to support your position with facts and not resort to distortion or

falsehood to make your point.

A second problem I have with the article is that she flatly states that

dioxins do not occur naturally. That's simply false. Dioxins are a

byproduct of combustion, for example a forest fire started by lightning.

So, if you state they don't occur in nature, how can I trust you to

accurately represent the research that supposedly supports your position?

I can't.

It's hard enough doing research without polluting it with biased

information.

There are other problems as well, but I won't get in to those.

A lot of people are not aware of this, but members of the Operation Ranch

Hand team, as part of their "initiation" when first arriving in Vietnam,

drank Agent Orange. (Crazy, I know, but it's true.)

For the record, I think the large sites, such as Khe Sanh, should be

cleaned up by the US. But the Vietnamese government has to cooperate.

(And really, they should have been cleaned up when they were abandoned.)

Paul Schmehl

Independent Researcher.

Whatever. Look, I sent what I consider an excellent scientific article

that you and others can look at if you want, or not. Up to you. If you

want to get into some pointless semantic discussion about whether the

longest chemical war in history, that ahs millions of victims, was a

chemical war or not, I won't be indulging you OK?

Michael Karadjis

Agent Orange Justice

FOR MY OPINION BELOW, I STARTED WITH TWO STATEMENTS OF TWO

MEMBERS OF VSG : Susan Hammond: “The courts never looked at scientific evidence

as the case was dismissed long before the case got to that level of detail on

the issue” . Andrew Pearson:“Hatfield and Dr. Hoang Dinh Cau proved

that there were heavy concentrations of dioxin in the soil and that dioxin was

getting in to people (and animals.) But they couldn't explain how dioxin

functioned to cause specific illnesses.”

The thick volumes of

the studies of Hoang Dinh Cau’s Committee 10-80 might have not stated the

specific biological pathways of the Dioxin-diseases connection inside the

bodies of the victims of Agent Orange in Vietnam (This is just my hypothesis,

because in leafing through the volumes with him at his house, I had not had a

chance to ask him about this biological pathway of disease and I have not read

the studies) But Dr. Cau told me, while showing many tables and maps in the

volumes, that he was convinced that his statistical findings have shown the

general causal connections between dioxin in Agent Orange sprayed from the air ,and

the diseases on the ground among the people, because he had used the right scientific

method of handling mass data: a)he drew maps of the various flight paths of

spraying aircraft over many years, in various areas of Vietnam, in (1)

intensive spraying area, considered as experimental group, as well as in (2)lightly

spraying areas, considered as control group—in the usual scientific method;

then (b) he compiled the incidences of

diseases on the ground in (1) the

intensive spraying areas , as well as in (2) the lightly spraying areas.

Finally by comparing the two sets of data on spraying activities and diseases in

the experimental group and the control group, he has found statistical

correlation, and therefore inference of causal connection, between spraying and

disease on the ground, through the masses of data: the more spraying the more

incidences of disease, the less spraying, the less incidences of diseases.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers in this class action

suit, who have had the solicitude of the federal district court judge Weinstein

in his use the Alien Tort Act and his easy certification of class action status,

should be blamed for not helping the courts with presenting the findings of

Hoang Dinh Cau’s studies as evidence to support a favorable ruling for plaintiffs

(please correct me if I am wrong on this). The scientists should not be blamed

as the culprits who failed to help reach a humanitarian result for the victim.

Dr.Cau said he advised the government

against the suit, and urged negotiation with the US to request for humanitarian

help in getting treatment for the victims, probably for knowing the limits of

his general conclusion on causation of diseases on the basis of statistical inference,

without an explicit description of the biological pathways of the diseases

among the subject population on the ground, but probably also for the sake of

political good will between the US and Vietnam.

Tai Van Ta

Tai, were you able to see the list of diseases he was able to correlate? I

don't think there is a need to define the mechanisms before being able to

prove correlation. I think we have enough research now to prove elevated

risk (at a minimum) for cancer, heart disease and diabetes. If he was able

to find a correlation between dioxin and birth defects, that would be

groundbreaking.

Paul Schmehl

Independent Researcher

For what it's worth, when I lived in Saigon (until 1966), rumors that Agent Orange caused a greater incidence of birth defects were coming out of Tu Du Maternity Hospital. When Prof. Matthew Messelson reported on his findings at Harvard to a packed audience, (I believe in 1968), I did raise this issue. Unfortunately, he argued, since Tu Du had not kept statistics on birth defects prior to the use of Agent Orange, there was no baseline for comparison and thus, not even correlation. I suspect this is even more true today.

Hue-Tam Ho Tai

Kenneth T. Young Professor

of Sino-Vietnamese History

I apologize for rejoining this conversation so late. I've been grading

essays and meeting with students around the clock since my first post. I

agree with Susan. She knows of what she writes. One of the problems I've

had with the current state of American AO activism is the failure to agree

on a common, narrowly focused mission and put the mission before individual

emotions. Another problem is the hyperbole and melodrama that overwhelm

those on the outside and hinder the ability to reach the American public in

an effective way. As any good corporate marketer knows, making 50 claims

about a product when only half are true can ruin trust in not only that

particular product but every product produced by an entire brand. As

someone familiar with the American AO activist community, I can tell you

that there is no coherent strategy and certainly no common mission. I've

witnessed

As far as I'm concerned, we have it pretty damn good here in the States. I

could complain about my limitations, but those complaints would ultimately

be selfish and reflect self-interest instead of a desire for justice. My

focus is on my friends in Vietnam, where true suffering from the aftermath

of the American War is ongoing and generally dealt with in almost

unbelievably forgiving and practical ways by folks like Dr. Nhan, who've

grown tired of debating and instead have started working with families in

the community on minimizing genetic risk to future children through

education and nutrition programs.

As Dr. Nhan has repeatedly told me: "The time for blame is over. We can

only move forward." I predict a future like this: With mutual incentives

for a symbiotic relationship between the Vietnamese and American

governments, certain issues on each side will either continue to be given

lip service or ignored altogether. A few million or even tens of millions

of dollars will continue being allocated here and there for so called "hot

spot" cleanups and batteries of new studies. Public figures and a few

select others will be featured in photo ops and articles. And not much will

change. Those on the list familiar with Alfred W. McCoy's monumental volume

on the global drug trade The Politics of Heroin must surely agree.

Sincerely,

Ben Quick

University of Arizona

Dear All,

I'm coming to this late but on the question of genetic damage caused by dioxin/Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam, I know of one study - of New Zealand veterans that seems to provide some proof...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070419103733.htm

"A study published in the journal "Cytogenetic and Genome Research" shows that exposure to Agent Orange, and other defoliants, has led to genetic disturbance in New Zealand Vietnam War veterans which continues to persist decades after their service."

Bill Hayton

Dear all,

since Seveso disaster was recall in the discussion I can add a few words. This was a major disaster for Italy and for Europe - today the EU directives on hazardous industrial production are called "Seveso Directives". However, the scale of that disaster cannot be compared to the Vietnamese case. In Seveso less than 300 people were directly exposed to high level of dioxin (thus creating statistical problems in assessing long-term effects). There were delays in evacuating people and starting a clean up. But in about two weeks bold measure were taken. The rehabilitation of the contaminated area was so thorough that people now say that Seveso is the least polluted Italian area.

I am wondering how statistics from Seveso can be used to assess the long-term impact of AO in Vietnam. In the Vietnamese case the contaminated area and the people involved were on another scale altogether and exposure was protracted in time.

Best regards

Pietro

Chuck Searcy chuckusvn at gmail.com

Thu Mar 6 17:49:34 PST 2014

Previous message: [Vsg] re Ben Quick post on Agent Orange and dioxin

Next message: [Vsg] re Ben Quick post on Agent Orange and dioxin

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks very much, Pietro Masina, for adding important information to this

discussion, which is increasingly informative. Maybe others also were not

fully aware of the dimensions of the Seveso disaster -- and the

similarities, and significant differences, between that situation and

Vietnam. Specifics along with context are quite useful.

I was also unaware of the New Zealand vets study noted by Bill Hayton.

Yes --

This, taken together with Hien's analysis, is very helpful. Thanks so much

to you both.

And I just want to add my appreciation to what many people have already

said about Susan's eloquent contribution.

Such a great discussion, all around!

Diane

A discussion begun by Catherine Karnow and Ben Quick… and: Cathy got her funding for the photojournalism project in Vietnam, with Peter Arnett. Good!

Andrew Pearson, journalist

This thread and its various sub-threads are really valuable. They add to our common understanding both about what happened and the imperative need to respond to the Agent Orange legacy. I'd just like to add the following.

We may not say for sure now, but historians looking back on the recent period might find two significant milestones (or at least bookmarks) with respect to Agent Orange, the U.S. government, and Vietnam. The first was President Bush's visit to Hanoi for APEC in November 2006 and a joint statement with President Triet which for the first time officially acknowledging the need for the U.S to respond to its use of military herbicides in the war: "The United States and Vietnam...agreed that further joint efforts to address the environmental contamination near former dioxin storage sites would make a valuable contribution to the continued development of their bilateral relationship." Limited though this statement was, it created valuable political space.

The second potential milestone occurred on July 26, 2013 when President Sang met President Obama at the White House to launch a bilateral Comprehensive Partnership. Their joint statement included these sentences: "The two Presidents agreed that extensive cooperation in addressing war legacy issues to deepen mutual trust has allowed both countries to develop a relationship that looks to the future...The Presidents expressed satisfaction with progress on USAID and the Vietnamese Ministry of National Defense's project to clean up dioxin contamination at Danang International Airport. President Truong Tan Sang welcomed plans by the U.S. Government to conduct an environmental assessment of dioxin contamination at Bien Hoa Air Base... President Obama reaffirmed the United States' commitment to providing further medical and other care and assistance for persons with disabilities, regardless of cause."

Before 2007, foreign funding was negligible for programs to explicitly address the Agent Orange legacy in Vietnam. Since 2007 foreign contributions for assistance to people with disabilities and clean-up of dioxin contaminated soils have reached $141.7 million. The U.S. government has now become the single largest contributor to this effort--$23.1 million for disabilities assistance and $84.6 million for clean up as of 2014-with additional amounts at the moment projected each year through 2018. But even as the issue is being addressed, the problem is certainly still not solved, and while there has been progress, people on the ground in Vietnam are not yet feeling its effects. The two governments have come closer on this issue, but not close enough. You can follow this process more fully (I hope!) at www.aspeninstitute.org/policy-work/agent-orange<http://www.aspeninstitute.org/policy-work/agent-orange> .

In earlier posts Prof. Hue Tam Ho Tai and Oscar recommended Tine Gammeltoft's new book and I look forward to buying it and reading it. I think everyone should also read Ed Martini's careful historical analysis. My review of his book appears in this month's Pacific Affairs (Vol. 87 No.1)

Charles Bailey, Director

Agent Orange in Vietnam Program

Aspen Institute

Washington & New York

too was unaware of the New Zealand study. I need to take the time to

track down the study itself and read it carefully.

I think what Seveso adds to the mix is additional data about the impact of

massive exposure to dioxin. I don't think it will provide much knowledge

regarding long term exposure, because of the cleanup. It may provide

useful data regarding long term effects, however, and that can be valuable.

The problem with Vietnam is that the exposure continues because the sites

have not been cleaned up. That needs to happen.

Paul Schmehl

Independent Researcher

All,

I, too, have enjoyed this discussion, and can't wait to read Tine's book. My last comment on the matter, re: the New Zealand study, which I touch on very briefly in my book, is that this is exactly the type of study that comes along every year or two which is immediately held up as a smoking gun from one group, and dismissed as having too small a sample size to be meaningful by others.

Again, my point would be that scientists, historians, and journalists could argue all day about what constitutes a meaningful sample size (only 24 in this case, which is awfully small as these things go), but progress will only be made if the burden of proof in cases over aid and benefits is removed from victims (and likely victims) and placed back on states and corporations that were ultimately responsible. This remains primarily a political, rather than a scientific or historical problem.

With best wishes to all,

ed

Ed Martini

Department of History

Western Michigan University

Well stated, Ed. We should keep that context in mind always when

discussing the merits and validity of conflicting claims. It is very

difficult, in today's world, to separate "pure science" with a bright line

from political and historical considerations -- particularly given the

sources of funding for research. In any case, absolutely the burden of

proof should not be on the victims.

CHUCK

Dear list,

I've been enjoying this debate from the sidelines, so to speak, but had one

point to add.

I'm hardly a scientist, but there is some basic statistics that can't be

overlooked. The issue is not some indeterminate debate between social

scientists and scientists that ultimately comes down to politics. That

turns all science into nothing but politics by other means.

The issue over scientific results so far, I am sure, is rooted in arguments

over research design (poor or bad), sample size, and over statistical

significance of results. In a trial of drug efficacy, for example, a drug

will not be "proven" to work if it has a p-value of over 0.005 -- in other

words, that there is only 5% chance that the hypothesis of efficacy is

wrong, and is (conversely) a 95% chance that it is right. This is a

somewhat arbitrary value -- one could chose a p-value of 0.10, and have a

90% chance of being right. *Nonetheless, if you don't reach a p-value of

0.05 or lower, then your result may not be considered "statistically

significant" to a scientist even if, to a historian or social scientist,

it might seem obviously significant. *

Second, a sample size of 24 may seem small. For example, in drug trials,

one may test a drug on over 1,000 patients in order to assess statistical

significance of results, because a smaller sample does not provide

statistically significant results.

But small size of a study may not always be a problem. The New Zealand

study (I was curious, so I read it) concluded that those New Zealand

soldiers exposed to dioxin had genetic damage (compared to a control

group), and the results indicated a p-value of 0.01. That is a HIGHLY

statistically significant result. (Remember -- a p-value of 0.05 is usually

considered statistically significant). Now, saying that dioxin created

genetic damage does not fully resolve the case: as the author notes, "The

SCE assay cannot be applied as a diagnostic tool. Although it is

interpreted as a sensitive and powerful bioindicator of genetic damage, it

cannot predict specific health outcomes." That last point is key. But it

provides yet more evidence that dioxin causes genetic damage to humans, and

thus provides more evidence for further studies.

Shawn McHale

Many thanks, Charles, for bringing us up to date and for providing the link

-- and for all your long, hard work on these issues.

For everyone on the list, but especially to those with decades of

experience focused on this issue on the ground in Viet Nam -- people we've

heard from so far like Charles, Susan, Pam, Chuck, Nhan, Tina, Tak (please

add to this list!) -- and those who have not spoken yet, perhaps because

they are not on the list, or are so immersed in the work they have no time

to write -- Mike Boehm and Ken Hermann come to mind...

I'd love to know what tasks you see that lie ahead. How can those on this

list and elsewhere (journalists and academics, public health workers,

lawyers, v.v. ... tam va tai, head and heart) contribute to work on this

issue now?

"Let Knowledge Serve the City" is the motto emblazoned over an arch to

Portland State University in Oregon. What are some of the various ways you

see that various ones of us can do that? What is the intellectual work

(research and reporting), the policy work, the medical, environmental and

other on the ground work that needs to be done now, and who do you see

doing that work that we can support through our drawing attention to that

work or in other ways--what ways?

with many thanks for your thoughts,

Diane

PS -- Trude! How could I forget to include Trude on the list, with all her

many recent years of public health work. Surely I have forgotten many

others too... please let the list know of your work!

apologies!

Diane

Diane, one thing I can think of that might have an impact is a book that

pulls together all of the research work that's been done and describes

research that still needs to be done. To get an overall picture of the

impact of dioxin on humans would be invaluable, I think.

At the present time one has to find the studies and read them individually

and then put together a patchwork quilt that portrays the real impact of

dioxin. Having a book that reviews all the work that's been done,

describes the research that still needs to be done and then summarizes the

results of completed research would be invaluable.

It would have to be devoid of politics and emotion, be very sound

scientifically and simply portray the current state of knowledge. As

others have pointed out, the real issues are political and policy related,

but to make progress in those arenas you have to start with facts that

can't be refuted.

I think it is incontestable that research has found an elevated risk for

certain cancers, certain heart diseases and diabetes. There is no question

that exposure can cause chloracne and transitory respiratory problems.

In the realm of birth defects, the research that I'm aware of is weak and

contestable. (I still need to read the New Zealand study.) Is there an

indication that dioxin elevates the risk for birth defects? Are there

specific birth defects that appear in anomalous clusters among people known

to have been exposed. (The "webbed" hands, for example, which appears

likely to have been caused by dioxin.) Are the birth defects caused by the

high levels of dioxin in the mother's system? Or are they caused by some

fundamental alteration to her genetic makeup? If the source of dioxin

contamination were removed, would these problems recede? Or are the

impacts multi-generational and no longer dependent upon dioxin exposure?

All these questions need to be addressed, but someone has to fund the

research, and someone has to want to do the research.

Paul Schmehl

Independent Researcher

In case anyone is interested here's the information on the New Zealand

study:

Elevated sister chromatid exchange frequencies in New Zealand Vietnam War

veterans.

Authors: Rowland, R. E.1 R.E.Rowland at massey.ac.nz, Edwards, L. A.1, Podd,

J. V.2

Source: Cytogenetic & Genome Research. 2007, Vol. 116 Issue 4, p248-251.

4p. 3 Graphs.

Author Affiliations: 1Institute of Molecular Biosciences, Massey

University, Palmerston North (New Zealand)

2School of Psychology, Massey University, Palmerston North (New Zealand)

ISSN: 1424-8581

DOI: 10.1159/000100407

Accession Number: 24676030

Paul Schmehl

Independent Researcher

If VSG had a best-thread-of-the-year award to hand out, I'd vote for this

one!

On sources, I'd like to second recommendations for the new ones, especially

Ed's *Agent Orange: History, Science and the Politics of Uncertainty* and

Tine's *Haunting Images: A Cultural Account of Selective Reproduction in

Vietnam*. Two books published a few years back that are also informative

are David Zierler's *The Invention of Ecocide: Agent Orange, Vietnam, and

the Scientists Who Changed the Way We Think about the Environment* and

Alvin Young's *The History, Use, Disposition and Environmental Fate of

Agent Orange*. Dr. Jeanne M. Stellman at Columbia is putting finishing

touches on a website soon-to-be-launched that features major improvements

on the HERBS spray data with GIS-backed maps generated and a trove of data.

For those interested in the Meselson-led AAAS trip to Vietnam, I believe

Dr. Meselson is in the process of turning over his entire archive of

materials to Harvard Special Collections. These materials include much of

the data gathered during his trips to Vietnam, perhaps useful to those

interested in a present-day comparison.

Finally, *huge thanks* again to all who have contributed to this thread -

most of whom have also published fine works over the years on Agent

Orange-related topics.

I do have one contribution to the thread, too.

One thing that has always bothered me with the hotspot-based emphasis on

dioxin cleanup at sites such as Danang and Bien Hoa is that these efforts

seem isolated from what should be a comprehensive environmental remediation

program for former military installations in Vietnam. Does anyone know

whether Ministry of Defense in Vietnam or USAID in collaboration with

Vietnamese agencies has advanced any sort of comprehensive installation

remediation programs that look at the whole slate of environmental

contaminants?

Base cleanups in the United States and Europe typically address dioxin

cleanup among a long slate of other "contaminants of concern" such as

solvents, fuels, unexploded ordnance, explosives, PCBs, and other stuff. In

the United States, the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (

http://www.denix.osd.mil/derp/) manages this. Its comparable to EPA

Superfund cleanups in many ways. John Wargo's book *Green Intelligence

Creating Environments that Protect Human Health* considers how exemplary

this cleanup process can be in places like Massachusetts (esp with former

Sen. Ted Kennedy sitting on the Senate Armed Services Committee). Wargo

also notes how far short it falls in areas like Vieques Island, Puerto Rico

(where there is no representation in Congress). He leaves us to conclude

that beyond U.S. territories or active U.S. bases in places like Okinawa or

Korea, there's no legal obligation and hence no U.S.-funded cleanups.

Obviously the recent Congressional appropriations of funds to clean up

Danang and Bien Hoa are sizable and laudable, thanks in large part to the

work of people like Charles Bailey, Ford, and Aspen Inst.; and I hope these

multi-million-dollar programs include comprehensive remedial

investigations.

Having spent time visiting former American base sites in Vietnam, what's

amazing to me is that, like the U.S. and its territories, as well as

Okinawa, Guam, Thailand and S Korea, here we once had dozens of large

installations in Vietnam that were moving the same chemicals and materials,

disposing of waste in the same manner in the same era (1965-72), but

because of US-VN relations or what I don't know, there's been little effort

to clean ALL of them up in a comprehensive way. I know this thread's

already touched on Vietnamese as well as American perspectives on problems

with sites identified as dioxin-contaminated. There are many reasons

(economic and political) for states and local governments *not* to

broadcast their pollution problems. Its complicated (ph?c t?p)!

If anyone knows of developments in the area of comprehensive installation

remediation programs beyond Agent Orange, esp. bilateral initiatives, maybe

involving EPA?, I'd love to hear about it.

David Biggs

Dear David,

I am not sure I answer your question, but noting the depth of this thread,

I would like to show a link to a bill by Barbara Lee called HR 2519

http://www.vn-agentorange.org/edmaterials/bills-113hr2519ih.pdf

which

-- provides medical assistance and disability benefits to affected children

of American Vietnam veterans

-- provides health care and social services to affected Vietnamese

-- provides health care for affected Vietnamese Americans and their

offspring, and

-- clean up the lands and restore eco-systems contaminated by

Agent Orange/dioxin in Vietnam.

in the lines of the Agent Orange policy of the American Public Heath

Association in 2007 and several reports by the Congressional

Research Services after that.

Best,

Nhan

Chuck Searcy chuckusvn at gmail.com

Sat Mar 8 08:21:43 PST 2014

Previous message: [Vsg] re Ben Quick post on Agent Orange and dioxin

Next message: [Vsg] re Ben Quick post on Agent Orange and dioxin

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our Agent Orange Working Group, part of the NGO Resource Center in Vietnam,

is made up of NGOs, some Vietnamese and other government officials,

institutions and individuals who are involved in Agent Orange in some ways

or who may just be interested in the issue. Some are already part of the

VSG, but maybe not so many.

I would like to share this thread with the AOWG, if no one on the VSG list

has any objection. It is a very informative and enlightening discussion.

If I don't hear any negative response in the next couple of days, I will

forward the thread on to members of the Agent Orange Working Group.

CHUCK

Yes, Nhan, it's a good bill. But it went nowhere in our currently dysfunctional Congress. It would have gone nowhere even if Congress were less dysfunctional. (I'm ashamed to say.) But I'm happy to see that one of Maine's Congresswomen, Chellie Pingree, is a co-sponsor. (Because that's where I live) But there's a problem in this country. Good information is not getting out to the public in a way they understand and appreciate. So people are not pushing their representatives in Congress to do the right things. Sure, journalists should be coming to you to ask questions and spread the word. But they're not because their institutions have suffered economic decline and rules set by the FCC permit cable and broadcasting to devote themselves fully to entertainment. Republicans call this "the market place of ideas." Democracy here doesn't work if good information isn't getting out to millions of people. We have a popular channel, Fox News, that's devoted to propaganda. A remarkable development. You academics know a lot, share information among yourselves of a very specialized and often important nature, but what then? The papers and books on this subject, and occasional documentaries are reaching a minuscule audience in this anti-intellectual nation. Not your problem? It's enough that we teach and write, you say? We're busy? It is your problem because when the US makes great mistakes you are the ones who must speak up. You are right there in the first rank because journalists falter right now. You need to become communicators to keep our "free" society going, with a broad audience of students at your institutions, in letters and articles to your newspapers and online news sites, to your representatives, state and federal. To douse a country with poison and pollute its ecosystems, is a war crime, on its face. Spraying Agent Orange over large parts of South Vietnam and bordering areas of Cambodia and Laos is chemical warfare. On its face. Food was poisoned, crops were destroyed, water was made a source of sickness, the rivers acted to send the poison on to the mangrove and into rice fields and on to the South China Sea, where even American ships taking on water to distill for drinking, took it on. Good going JFK. How could he have signed the document that approved the spraying? To be effective communicators, maybe you don't want to use that term, "war crime," or maybe you're waiting for the "scientific" evidence to come in. It's in. (If the act of simple observation is not enough- a "stunning" observation, one of this group observed that they never expected to see on this "academic" site.") The evidence is in, because Dr. Hoang Dinh Cau, a scientist, provided it. But too many American "scientists" are picky and find fault with spread sheets or methodology. These reservations distract. And they distract you academics too much. I'm glad to see the emphasis placed, finally, on the political nature of this issue, if it is to be dealt with in a sane manner. Political in a broad sense too it seems to me, because it involves academic politics, scientific politics, governmental and social politics. The big question remains- how to take responsibility for a war crime. Have a look at the Geneva Conventions: http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/index.jsp Of course, poisoning food is not one of the permitted functions of war, (and just because the military said it was only to take care some underbrush where the enemy could hide, doesn't cut it. That's a backward and banal justification, too often repeated) nor is burning down the homes of civilians, "permitted," or moving civilians by force from their communities. Haven't read Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, by Telford Taylor, US Chief Council at Nuremberg? Especially the last chapter. I read it in 1970 when it was published. It was hard for me to take in, fully, even at that late date, but I did. Charles Bailey has said that he feels he and others have brought the issue of American responsibility for large funding to help with AO cleanup to "the end of the beginning." Large, government funding by the United States is now required to mend, at least to a significant extent, the horrible damage done to people in Vietnam. Academics, scientists, journalists need to work harder for that. The issues of unexploded ordnance has to be part of it, also, because it still wounds and kills people trying to work their fields. It was easy for industrialized America to drop a few hundred pounds of high explosive (not to mention napalm, artillery, and all the other bomblets) for every man, woman and child in agricultural Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Harder to clean up the remaining explosive detritus in what constitutes a continuing American war on Vietnam, wanting to be at peace.

Andrew Pearson, journalist, nearly 80 years old, but I remember.

Thank you very very much, Andrew.

Someone told me that it took a century for labor in this country to adopt

8-hour work day. The Agent Orange justice may have to take a long time,

but it may be shorter--when wars are no longer a path to wealth in

the US. Bill 2519 is another big step.

There is a tradition in this country, victims collectively use campaigns side

by side with legal strategies to raise funds and counter the media advantage

of rich perpetrators (usually big companies). The campaigns are aimed at

public and grassroots… It was this same method visioned by a far-sighted

late president of Veterans For Peace, Dave Cline, who built the Vietnam

Agent Orange Relief and Responsibility Campaign (VAORRC), independent

but supportive of the Agent Orange lawsuit by Vietnam Association for

Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin (VAVA). The mean has always been

a grassroots campaign. It was launched in January 2005 at the hearing

by Judge Jack Weinstein. And it always targets the US government, which

was the one who sprayed Agent Orange but who cannot be reached by our

legal system.

Best,

Nhan

About my "war crime" post. Excuse me for being so strident and "lecturing." I'm not usually that way, although there is certainly cause. But the point is not to be strident and make points but to ease, if not resolve, the broad problems that people still face. I know I have some ptsd, my family realizes it, because there's only so much violence one can witness and also deal with it. I don't offer that as an excuse, really, just a consideration. Best to you all. Andrew Pearson

Mark Ashwill markashwill at hotmail.com

Tue Mar 11 20:48:20 PDT 2014

Previous message: [Vsg] re Ben Quick post on Agent Orange and dioxin

Next message: [Vsg] re Ben Quick post on Agent Orange and dioxin

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Dear Mark,

You wrote "Viet Nam is much more than a 'subject of study,' to quote one VSGer", and seem to use that as an argument to dismiss scholarship and call for action in the light of all the Agent Orange-induced suffering going on. Probably there are VSGers who said that Vietnam is more than a war, and also more than a legacy of a war - here meaning Vietnam's recent war with America. If scholars write about history beyond Vietnam's war with America, about education, about health, about politics, economics, ethnic relations or religious change, it does not make their work inconsequential for the simple reason that it is not about the suffering brought about by Agent Orange. Other subjects are also important for millions of Vietnamese and many non-Vietnamese alike.

On another score: as an academic who has worked in the field of development as well I have seen the damage that action based on ignorance can do. Anybody who has studied the process and effects of all sorts of policies may know that ill-conceived policies and programs can do more harm than good. This is not to advocate for inaction when it comes to the effects - both real and imagined - of Agent Orange, because in my view the suffering of people with health problems and birth defects should be enough reason to act, regardless of the exact cause. However, I for one would take exception to your statement "No more studies, no more conferences, no more evasion of responsibility", as if studies and conferences would equate with evasion of responsibility. I would be inclined to think that studies and conferences on Agent Orange helped put the question on the political agenda in the country where it should be, namely the US.

Best,

Oscar Salemink

Professor in the Anthropology of Asia

Department of Anthropology

Faculty of Social Sciences

University of Copenhagen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of weeks ago I sent an article by Dr. Coral Wynter dealing in some depth with the scientific evidence side of the question. Dr. Wynter has now written a second part, this time even more thoroughly scientifically-based than the first, and importantly, going into some depth regarding the scientific basis for AO’s intergenerational effects (on the “germline”). It is a remarkable report, the conclusions though are if anything grimmer than one might have assumed. At this stage it hasn’t been published, but she has given permission for me to send it to he vsg list as an attachment for discussion.

Michael Karadjis

President

Agent Orange Justice

Australia

Return to top of page