What killed the fish?
David Brown nworbd at gmail.com
Thu Apr 28 10:57:27 PDT 2016
For Asia Sentinel today, I've written about a massive fish kill on
Vietnam's central coast. By one estimate, 70 million fish died. Suspicion
is rampant that a huge Taiwanese-owned steel-making plant released toxic
chemicals into the sea. The incident is shaping up as a classic conflict
between industrialization and the environment, a catastrophe for tens of
thousands of fishermen and their families, and a test of the management
skills and political acumen of Vietnam's new leaders.
Remarkably, the regime seems (so far) not to have given guidance to the
mainstream media. The incident has been thoroughly but still
inconclusively discussed by the newspapers as well as by posters to the
cybersphere. My story is, I believe, the first full airing in English
language media. Here's the link:
*www.asiasentinel.com/politics/fish-kill-test-vietnam-new-regime/
<http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/fish-kill-test-vietnam-new-regime/>*
David Brown
freelance writer/analyst
Fresno, California USA
David Brown nworbd at gmail.com
Thu Apr 28 11:05:45 PDT 2016
correction: the estimate is that 70 tons of fish were killed. Db
Thaveeporn Vasavakul Thaveeporn at mail.kvsinter.com
Thu Apr 28 13:55:02 PDT 2016
I would like to share additional information related to the comments made by Mr. Chu Xuan Pham about trade-offs and the possible causes under consideration.
(1) There have been comments on FB that the VTC 14 journalist/editor heavily edited the interview information given by Mr. Chu Xuan Pham. In the original clip, Mr. Chu Xuan Pham explained that the company had already paid the fishermen living around the steel plant and helped provide them with new skills for new types of jobs as after the steel was completed, it would not be possible to do fishing
I have no particular comment on the original clip but would like to share it and the FB message (in Vietnamese) with those interested.
Kien Tran (Ph?n du?i có cái clip g?c 1.35 phút ông Ph?m tr? l?i r?t chân tình và nh? nhàng, không h? có ý "thách th?c" gì c?, khác h?n cái clip b? c?t xén thô thi?n c?a VTC d? quy ch?p ngu?i ta. Coi xong s? hi?u là con ngu?i, nh?t là dám dông d? b? truy?n thông x? mui th? nào)
Tru?c tiên mong m?i ngu?i xem l?i video VTC14 cho ki. Xem di xem l?i nhi?u l?n xem h? ph?ng v?n do?n nào và c?t video ? do?n nào. Rõ ràng là không có d?u duôi mà vác khúc gi?a c?a ông ?y lên. Nhìn cái b?ng khi cô Lan Anh kia h?i thì bi?t. D?n khi ông kia v? ông gi?i thích th? này :"vùng bi?n dó dã c?p phép, thuy?n l?n ra vào thì ngu?i dân không du?c phép dánh b?t ? vùng dó n?a, chúng tôi dã d?n bù gi?i t?a r?i. L? may tàu nh? di vào dó tàu l?n không th?y nó gây tai n?n thì làm sao? v?y nên "Nhu v?y ho?c là máy thép, ho?c b?t cá". N?u cô kia dua video g?c ra thì nguyên van nhu th?. D?ng này d?n do?n ho?c nhà máy thép, ho?c b?t cá cô ta ch? l?y do?n này. Làm nhu v?y ngu?i dân n?i diên gây b?o lo?n v?i FHS thì ai ch?u trách nhi?m. Mà v?n d? này có liên quan d?n cá ch?t dâu..FHS có x? th?i hay không m?i ngu?i hãy ch? k?t lu?n. Còn v?n d? này nhu dang kích d?ng... r?t nguy hi?m.
N?i dung tham kh?o, c?m sao chép du?i m?i hình th?c:
(2) On 27 April, the government issued a press release on 27 April stating that its team of experts was not able to confirm the causes of mass fish deaths. The press release, nonetheless, has mentioned two possible causes under consideration: the toxic chemicals released by “human activities carried out along the coast and on the sea”; and an unusual phenomenon called “algal bloom” or “red tide. http://tuoitrenews.vn/society/34531/vietnam-holds-tenminute-meeting-on-mass-fish-deaths-no-cause-confirmed According to a researcher interviewed, earlier collections of samples did not follow required procedures and were done long after the discovery of fish deaths.
(3) I sent out a short message for Face Book friends on 23 April. FYI. The warning about seafood safety stands at least until there is a public statement on how some 70 tons of fish ++ have been handled.
Thaveeporn Vasavakul, Ph.D
GoSFI - Governance Support Facility Initiatives
Liam Kelley liam at hawaii.edu
Thu Apr 28 15:44:47 PDT 2016
There have been a couple of major "fish kills" this year: one in Chile and
another in Florida. In both cases, conditions created by El Nino were seen
as contributing to or causing the disaster.
>From what I understand of the Florida case, heavier than normal rains
(because of El Nino) washed fertilizers and pollutants (created by people)
into waterways and that led to an explosion of algae which depleted the
oxygen for fish.
>From what I've read so far about the fish kill in Vietnam, people seem to
be looking for a single cause, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was the
result of a convergence of unfavorable conditions (1. toxins getting
released into an environment that is 2. already in a weakened condition).
Liam Kelley
University of Hawaii
Bill Hayton bill.hayton at bbc.co.uk
Sat Apr 30 13:36:53 PDT 2016
It’s not just VN being affected by ‘red tides’ – here’s a report about the unusual number affecting Hong Kong this year…
“Red tide season appears to have struck early, too. According to the Post’s review of data from the department’s red tide monitoring network, Hong Kong has seen 29 days with red tide sightings in the first three months of the year, more than any year in the same period over the last decade. While formations of algal blooms are indeed completely natural, scientists believe their frequency and persistence are anything but. “They are correct when they say they are formed naturally by natural organisms. But it’s their abundance and occurrence, which is extremely unnatural,” said ecologist Dr David Baker, an assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong Swire Institute of Marine Science.
Bill Hayton
Chuck Searcy chuckusvn at gmail.com
Sat Apr 30 20:46:54 PDT 2016
As noted in a couple of blogs which were passed along to me (and sorry not
to have the links handy to pass along at the moment), none of the
characteristics of "red tide" were in evidence along Viet Nam's coastline
-- such as coloration of the water which is sometimes visible at sea level
and certainly from aerial or satellite photography. CS
*============================================*
*CHUCK SEARCY*
*Mobile +8 490 342 0769*
*Skype chucksearcy*
*Email chuckusvn at gmail.com <chuckusvn at gmail.com>*
*============================================*
David Brown nworbd at gmail.com
Sat Apr 30 21:09:47 PDT 2016
Some folks have noted that a 'red tide' photo in the Party organ Nhan Dan
was obviously photoshopped. Not only the water but also the posts sticking
up from the water of an aquaculture site were red.
Liam Kelley liam at hawaii.edu
Sat Apr 30 21:23:18 PDT 2016
To me this story is a wake-up call about the intense environmental
degradation that has been taking place in Vietnam over the past 2 decades.
However, the fact that there is a Taiwanese/Chinese company to potentially
blame makes it easy in this case to avoid looking at the larger problem. So
fish contain toxins. Ok, is that because Formosa Steel has suddenly
discharged toxins into the pristine ocean, or is it because multiple
companies (both Vietnamese and foreign) have for the past 2-3 decades been
discharging toxins into waterways that flow into the ocean? It's convenient
to blame Formosa, and if they have done something wrong, by all means
prosecute to the fullest, but there is a much larger issue of environmental
degradation in the background here that can't be dismissed by blaming
foreign companies. My fear is that the convenience of blaming "someone"
will prevent people from realizing the culpability of "everyone." That's my
reading of the media, anyway.
Shortly before this story broke, there was a news report that put Vietnam
in the top 5 (congratulations!) of polluters of the ocean when it comes to
plastics.
http://in.reuters.com/article/science-oceans-idINL1N0VL1IF20150212
My point is that there is a very large issue in the background here that is
not getting addressed.
Liam Kelley
University of Hawaii
Anh Pham gaupvn at gmail.com
Sat Apr 30 22:00:00 PDT 2016
People on FB were quick to detect that People Daily's photo of the red tide
was doctored. They then offered a few alternatives.
Anh Pham –DC
Hollis Stewart hollisstewart90042 at gmail.com
Sun May 1 10:51:51 PDT 2016
Has anyone thought about the fact that the area around Da Nang was heavily
attacked by the US with Agent Orange during the American War and that folks
are still being exposed, infected, and severely damaged by dioxin? I
learned while living in Vietnam in for about 10.5 months in 2014-2016 that
the toxins are still very strong in the lakes and ponds as well as the soil
-- this is/was a long lasting and potent genocide and herbicide weapon.
Reports are that the US is attempting to help Vietnam clean up the toxic
pollution in this area? Is the process being monitored so the recovery
project isn't just pushing the poisons into the ocean?
David Brown nworbd at gmail.com
Sun May 1 12:41:58 PDT 2016
@Hollis -- Danang wasn't sprayed with Agent Orange. The contamination you
refer to was the consequence of leakage and spillage from drums of poison
stored at the air base, where one of the 'Ranch Hand' aerial herbicide
spray detachments was stationed. A lake near the air base (now the Da Nang
Airport) was heavily contaminated as well. For several years now, the US
has funded cleanup of the areas on and near the base that were
contaminated. I believe a similar project has just been launched at the
other Ranch Hand site, Bien Hoa Air Base.
When the US forces sprayed the herbicide to clear jungle cover (1967-70),
everyone in the chain of command seems to have believed what they were told
-- that the chemicals were not toxic to humans or animals. We know better
now. The 2-4-D was bad enough; worse, it was contaminated by dioxin, which
even then was known by scientists to cause birth defects. It was a tragedy,
perhaps an avoidable one, but that situation does not merit your use of the
very strong term, genocide.
Responsible people are managing the clean up at Danang. Presumably they are
managing it in a way that doesn't spread the poison further. I doubt very
much that the Agent Orange toxins are associated with the extraordinary
fish kill that began suddenly in early April far to the north (Vũng Áng, Hà
Tĩnh province) and was pushed south by prevailing currents. Circumstantial
evidence and the lack of other plausible explanations points to a sudden
release of a large quantity of potent toxins from an industrial source, a
conclusion that the Hanoi authorities have not yet embraced.
Regards,
David Brown
freelance writer/analyst
Fresno, California USA
Tom Miller milltom at gmail.com
Sun May 1 17:48:42 PDT 2016
that is a possibility, but since the fish were killed at sea all at once
dioxin was probably not the cause. we are looking for an independent
expert from outside vietnam to research the cause. suggestions would be
welcome.
tom miller
green cities fund
Diane Fox dnfox70 at gmail.com
Mon May 2 09:24:15 PDT 2016
A minor correction to David’s comment… and I would love to have someone else correct me if they know more. In my understanding it was the 2,4,5-T that was contaminated with TCDD dioxin, a contamination with effects DOW was aware of by 1965, when they called a meeting of other manufacturers of the product to introduce a cleaner (but much slower) manufacturing process that would reduce contamination… a process largely ignored in the push to meet the war-time demands of government.
For those interested in following this tangent, check the website of the Hatfield Group of Canada, which played a key role early on in the testing around Da Nang.
Diane
Diane Fox
Independent
Thomas Jandl thjandl at yahoo.com
Mon May 2 11:50:27 PDT 2016
The question was not about dioxin itself, but the now beginning clean-up effort. And there we can say with some certainty that no, the cleanup effort is most definitely not the cause. The soil is placed in "ovens" and superheated to immense temperatures. How would that cleanup cause mass fish deaths?
And even if the process didn't work as well as hoped (I believe this is a well-established method, not some experiment), why would a mass die-off result now, not all those years prior to isolation of the materials? And why did fish in heavily contaminated ponds not die off suddenly, but heavily diluted pollution causes such a die-off in the oceans?
I think looking at the dioxin clean-up project is a waste of resources, and would just slow down (further -- for slow it already is) a long overdue project.
_________________________________ Thomas Jandl, Ph.D. Non-Resident Scholar Viet Nam National University -- Ha Noi Partner, TJMR Asia Consultants Washington: 443-901-2612 Viet Nam mobile: 0121 402 3242thjandl at yahoo.com
Deo Huu deochienhuu at gmail.com
Tue May 3 08:49:57 PDT 2016
I have studied the whole herbicide topic at some length, was a guest at the
reunion of the Ranch Hands and spoke to them at length, reviewed the
chemistry of the herbicides and the 20 year Air Force study of the Ranch
Hands, and finally, in Da Nang last year got to meet one of the American
engineers involved in the cleanup of the airfield there.
Neither of the herbicide components of Orange are poisonous themselves to
human beings or any other animals tested, and one of them has been used
since Truman had it applied to the White House lawn to kill off the
dandelions and in fact is in regular use to this day. (It is in one of the
weedkiller sprays in my garages as I write.) Dioxin was present in Orange
at a level of 2 parts per million, and breaks down with sunlight and water
when exposed to the elements. Only where it has soaked into soil or been
washed into pond basins does it survive at all. There are four "hot spots"
in Viet Nam, all of them airbases like Da Nang where the drums were stored
and the material dispensed, where enough spillage soaked into the ground.
Aside from them, there are no significant levels of dioxin to be found
anywhere, other than the background level that is common across the world,
including here, from natural sources like forest fires and burning garbage.
When in Da Nang last year I met one of the US engineers involved in the
airfield cleanup there. To say it's being done right is an
understatement. They have even brought in special equipment to cut through
up to six feet of concrete to get to the soil beneath just in case there's
any residual dioxin there, and all the soil undergoes an incredible
treatment to drive off and capture (in activated charcoal filters) any
remaining trace of contaminants. The USA is paying something over $33
million to underwrite this, part of which is directly to the foreign firms
doing most of the work, and some of which goes to the government there for
providing some of the labor, etc.
The toxicity of dioxin has been somewhat overstated, the original tests
that gave some lab mice cancer when exposed at high levels were repeated
with Guinea Pigs, who showed no such reaction. A much higher concentration
of dioxin than ever seen in Viet Nam was spread around the plant explosion
is Serveso, Italy, directly exposing many thousand people, but all the
years of the government monitoring since has not shown any significant
health effects. Someone believing dioxin is a deadly poison snuck a huge
dose into a Georgian politician some years ago, he had the 3rd highest
level of dioxin in his tissues ever recorded, broke out with an ugly case
of chloracne, but recovered fully and has been fine since.
The incidence of birth defects in Viet Nam overall puts them right in the
middle of the world's overall distribution of such problems. When I
visited both Catholic and Buddhist orphanages in Viet Nam that were
supposedly for AO victims, both of them had children with the full range of
birth defects seen in the world, including hydrocephaly and brittle bone
disease. When I mentioned to the nun running the one orphanage that these
conditions have never been associated in any way with dioxin, she told me
that the instructions from the government were to tell everyone all
problems were due to AO exposure. I and my companion made contributions to
the orphanages in any case, because they were very worthwhile causes, but
not remotely because of any thoughts about herbicide use in the war.
The government at times has claimed that birth defects in the North were AO
related, which is pretty much impossible given the lack of any spraying
there. All spraying was stopped before US forces left, so the many
thousands of northern soldiers who ended up in the South from then until
the end were never exposed to anything they could bring back north.
Providing aid to the many poor and disadvantaged all over Viet Nam is a
wonderful thing to do, I have been involved in it for ten years now. But I
don't see any connection between herbicide use overall with health there.
(The few families that have consistently eaten fish from the contaminated
pond near Da Nang are an exception.) Pollution from all sorts of other
sources is the real problem that needs to be dealt with, there as in
China. (I went through Beijng last November, and the level of air
pollution was stunning.)
Any connection with fish kill can be ruled out.
R J Del Vecchio
Independent Researcher
Andrew Pearson whaleback at gwi.net
Tue May 3 10:02:49 PDT 2016
On May 3, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Deo Huu <deochienhuu at gmail.com> wrote:
I have studied the whole herbicide topic at some length
Are you related to R J Del Vecchio? Who did you do the studies for and where were they published?
Andrew Pearson
Journalist
Thi Bay Miradoli thibay.miradoli at gmail.com
Tue May 3 10:17:34 PDT 2016
I will let the many people on the list who are way more qualified than me,
and who actually have studied the herbicide topic to great lenght, address
the history of Agent Orange and dioxin in Vietnam. I however wish to point
out that the Serveso explosion released no where near the amounts of
dioxin that were released into the environment in Vietnam. Many studies
were undertaken up to decades after the incident to monitor the lingering
effects on human health. Immediately following the accident a great number
of livestock had to be killed. In spite of abortion being forbidden at the
time, exemptions were made for women at risk of having been contaminated.
Several legal proceedings followed the incident and those responsible had
to pay huge sums of money to those affected and to pay for community
projects. A last point I'd like to make is that while what happened in
Italy was an accident and yet there was some form, although merely
financial, accountability, what happened in Vietnam was deliberate and to
date there hasn't been any real accountability.
Regards
Thi Bay Miradoli
Andrew Pearson pearson.drew at gmail.com
Tue May 3 10:37:47 PDT 2016
On May 3, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Deo Huu <deochienhuu at gmail.com> wrote:
You say: The government at times has claimed that birth defects in the North were AO related, which is pretty much impossible given the lack of any spraying there. All spraying was stopped before US forces left, so the many thousands of northern soldiers who ended up in the South from then until the end were never exposed to anything they could bring back north.
Me: You seem confused about the chronology of events in the war, for instance: the first North Vietnamese soldiers arrived in the south in 1964. The last spraying was in 1971.
Andrew Pearson
Journalist
Thomas Jandl thjandl at yahoo.com
Tue May 3 12:25:40 PDT 2016
Seveso and Viet Nam are not comparable. In Seveso, immediately after the accident, all efforts possible were taken to contain, and then remediate. In Viet Nam, due to the nature of the release (intentional, in war, over a wide area) and the ignorance of the consequences, neither containment nor remediation were undertaken, and people took no precautionary measures when eating shrimp from contaminated waters, for ex.
Comparing Seveso and Viet Nam is absolutely impossible. _________________________________ Thomas Jandl, Ph.D. Non-Resident Scholar Viet Nam National University -- Ha Noi Partner, TJMR Asia Consultants Washington: 443-901-2612 Viet Nam mobile: 0121 402 3242thjandl at yahoo.com
Deo Huu deochienhuu at gmail.com
Tue May 3 20:39:08 PDT 2016
The Serveso explosion liberated not as much dioxin as all the years of
spraying across huge areas of South Viet Nam did, but it put out an
enormously more concentrated dose of it given the limited area and
extremely short time involved. Thus the comparison is more like a lot of
bullets sprayed at a huge building over months or many fewer bullets but
sprayed all at once inside a room. You're a lot safer in the building than
in the room. The exposure to human beings was a great multiple of anything
that happened in Viet Nam, for one thing, hundreds of Italians came down
with chloracne, which comes from serious dioxin exposure. Nobody in Viet
Nam, not even the Ranch Hand guys soaked in the stuff (and drinking bits of
it on occasion to show off), came down with chloracne.
What was deliberate in Viet Nam was the use of herbicides to first, make
the roadways safer from ambushes, and secondly, to make it more difficult
for enemy to hide under the canopy. There was no deliberate action to
cause harm through what was, in the technical parlance of the time, a trace
of a suspect chemical. In those days concentrations in parts per million
was as detailed as analyses could be, and not often thought of as being
very important. Now we can analyze down to parts per trillion, and have
become tremendously more sensitive to what is in the environment and our
own bodies. (We all have lead, mercury, uranium, and other bad things in
our bodies in parts per trillion, but at those levels our bodies don't
really notice, any more than we notice the few molecules of carbon monoxide
we all inhale every day, every one of which wipes out a molecule of
hemoglobin when it gets into our blood.)
Secondarily, yes, there were NVA in the South from 1963 or so on, but the
bulk of them died there, only a fraction ever went back up the HCM Trail.
(Famous tatoo they wore, which I saw myself "Born in the North to Die in
the South") The greatest number of northern soldiers by far came South in
the Easter Invasion, the time after that before the final invasion, and of
course the 1975 invasion. The spraying was gone by then. If there were in
fact any major effect from the spraying, then the rate of birth defects and
other maladies would have been a multiple in the South as it was in the
North, and the WHO and other agencies would have noted that pretty
quickly. This did not happen.
Interestingly, the rate of birth defects in Cambodia is much greater than
in Viet Nam, and there was no spraying there; but incidence of birth
defects in badly traumatized populations has been known to rise, and the
horrors of the Pol Pot years was a level of trauma for that society that is
difficult to comprehend. (A great book about it is "For the Sake of All
Living Things
but I must warn that it's a terribly disturbing read.)
R J Del Vecchio
Independent Researcher
Tobias Rettig tobias_rettig at yahoo.com.sg
Tue May 3 20:58:29 PDT 2016
Hi,
The Italian town 20km north of Milan is called Seveso (without the 'r') - the wiki entry on the 1976 disaster discusses some of the immediate and long-term consequences (health, effect on EC/EU legislation, criminal proceedings, etc): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveso_disaster
Cheers,
Tobias
Tobias RettigIndependentSingapore
Deo Huu deochienhuu at gmail.com
Wed May 4 05:18:01 PDT 2016
Thank you for the reference, which contains a lot of the same data I have
previously examined. (And I don't know why I keep putting the unnecessary
"r" into Seveso after reading about it for so many years.)
The only thing the article doesn't mention is that there were numerous
other complex and potentially harmful chemical species released in the
explosion also in appreciable concentrations, which would have contributed
substantially to the deaths of animals. It gives the lowest estimate of
dioxin released, 1 Kg, other estimates are a bit over double that. By
contrast, the 11 million gallons of Orange at 2 ppm contained about 80 Kg
of dioxin, let's say 40 times as much as in Seveso, but spread out over ten
years means 4 times as much in a year over thousands of square miles as was
liberated in Seveso in minutes over a comparatively tiny area. There is
simply no real comparison between exposures in these two very different
situations.
The article says the Seveso park has lower levels of dioxin than the common
environment, but the Italian government still catches and tests the tissues
of small animals living in the park, and they still show mildly elevated
levels of dioxin. It would indicate that some of the dioxin seeped far
enough into the ground there that there's still some exposure to creatures
living there. However, the people using the park would not have enough
exposure to make any difference.
R J Del Vecchio
Independent Researcher
Michael Gray maigray at yahoo.com
Wed May 4 10:05:04 PDT 2016
This just in - http://tuoitrenews.vn/society/34627/sea-turns-red-in-vietnamese-province-where-fish-died-en-masse
However my contacts are saying the main image used was printed previously and has already been found to have been manipulated (Photoshopped) to add colour. (I have seen the jpeg test result and it found "Photoshop IRB detected." That may mean nothing as photos are always adjusted before printing).
Red bloom or the Secretary threw some red dye in the water? Let's wait for test results for either algae or Red #3. :)
Mike Gray
Hollis Stewart hollisstewart90042 at gmail.com
Thu May 5 10:22:50 PDT 2016
Everyone. A few days ago I used the word genocide when suggesting that the
use of Agent orange in Vietnam might have some bearing on the dead fish in
Vietnam fishing waters. I received a bit of criticism for suggesting that
the US had committed an act of genocide but my thinking is something like
this: our country sprayed a very deadly poison over vast areas of Vietnam.
The US did not spray the communes, villages, jungles, forests, and crop
lands as humanitarian gestures. The areas were sprayed to drain the pool
where the enemy swam and to do that the US intended and worked to destroy
forests, crops, and other living things. That is a fact, jack and if
elders, women, men and children suffered, well they were in enemy territory
and these were zones for killing aka "free fire zones". And if the agent
orange itself didn't damage and kill folks then human engineered starvation
from destroying crops would effect the population. Yes, there had been
efforts by our allies in the puppet government of South Vietnam to force
their people into concentration camps called "strategic hamlets" but that
effort was resisted by the populace (I know I would have resisted if a
foreign invader came into the US and worked to conquer it.). All in all, I
guess I stand by my use of the term "genocide" because from all I have read
the use of agent orange, (and "carpet bombing" and other tactics) were
actions to destroy millions of human beings not humanitarian gestures to
enhance the lives of the people targeted. It is only with tears in my
heart that I use this ugly word for actions that my nation carried out --
but reality must be respected and no amount of politically motivated
nationalistic blather can alter the reality of what was done.
As others who have commented on my comment have attested, the US knew this
was dangerous, why else would the operation "ranch hand" folks have worn
protective clothing (Pictures of the hands in their gear are out there.) in
a place as hot and humid as Vietnam? And the fact that some ranch hand
operatives drank some agent orange does not speak well to their IQs, if it
is even true and not bravado.
If they haven't passed away I know US veterans who have suffered from AO
with lesions on their arms and other body parts, cancers, and other
illnesses. I was corrected that around Da Nang and by other AO bases that
the contamination was from spills, etc.
To finish I will state paraphrasing an old slogan from the sixties and
seventies, "Agent orange is not good for humans and other living things".
Thu May 5 10:55:34 PDT 2016
Dear all,
Why would anyone these days credit a claim that using Agent Orange was not genocide in intention and results? In my view and in the view of all political humanitarians, as well as supported by the facts: it was.
Regards,
Joanna Kirkpatrick, PhD
Anthropologist, ret.
Independent Researcher
Thomas Jandl thjandl at yahoo.com
Thu May 5 11:58:14 PDT 2016
I would argue that the use of genocide in this context trivializes the concept of genocide.
In any way, shape or form. _________________________________ Thomas Jandl, Ph.D. Non-Resident Scholar Viet Nam National University -- Ha Noi Partner, TJMR Asia Consultants Washington: 443-901-2612 Viet Nam mobile: 0121 402 3242thjandl at yahoo.com
Thomas Jandl thjandl at yahoo.com
Thu May 5 12:41:21 PDT 2016
This debate has veered dramatically -- but it is now a great example how over-ideologized arguments can lead to absurd discussions.
Genocide is defined as:"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group ..."
It would be absurd to argue that the United States, in its support for the Southern regime, intended to destroy the Vietnamese race.
It is equally absurd to argue that the United States intended the consequences of spraying. First, AO was in essence an agricultural chemical used in the war as a defoliant. Nobody knew its long-term consequences. Evidence: Open barrels at US bases, harming our own soldiers. Had we known, would we have done that. That leads me to: Second, by spraying it over areas where US troops were active as well, are some here arguing the government was intending to engage in genocide against US military personnel?
The whole debate started with a question that was rather uninformed about the project to contain dioxin in Da Nang. Then came an answer that argued that AO is no problem at all. Rather than rejecting that response, which I think can easily be shown to be inaccurate (and badly argued, in its comparison to the Seveso accident), and rather than arguing for a muscular US support of AO victims and even more support for cleanup, we are now engaging in an absurd discussion about genocide.
The topic of this thread: What killed the fish? Answer: So far, we don't know. Maybe it is a fishocide -- but I doubt that anyone intended to wipe out fish in the Da Nang coastal region. What I do know is that this discussion will not help shed light on this issue, or contribute to a serious debate over environmental protection; or US responsibility for the aftereffects of AO._________________________________ Thomas Jandl, Ph.D. Non-Resident Scholar Viet Nam National University -- Ha Noi Partner, TJMR Asia Consultants Washington: 443-901-2612 Viet Nam mobile: 0121 402 3242thjandl at yahoo.com
David Marr david.marr at anu.edu.au
Mon May 9 16:13:56 PDT 2016
The possibility of deliberate killing of the fish should not be excluded totally.
David Marr
ANU
From: Vsg [mailto:vsg-bounces at mailman11.u.washington.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas Jandl
Sent: Friday, 6 May 2016 5:41 AM
To: Hollis Stewart <hollisstewart90042 at gmail.com>; Michael Gray <maigray at yahoo.com>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg at u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Was it a fish-ocide?
This debate has veered dramatically -- but it is now a great example how over-ideologized arguments can lead to absurd discussions.
Genocide is defined as:
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group ..."
It would be absurd to argue that the United States, in its support for the Southern regime, intended to destroy the Vietnamese race.
It is equally absurd to argue that the United States intended the consequences of spraying. First, AO was in essence an agricultural chemical used in the war as a defoliant. Nobody knew its long-term consequences. Evidence: Open barrels at US bases, harming our own soldiers. Had we known, would we have done that. That leads me to: Second, by spraying it over areas where US troops were active as well, are some here arguing the government was intending to engage in genocide against US military personnel?
The whole debate started with a question that was rather uninformed about the project to contain dioxin in Da Nang. Then came an answer that argued that AO is no problem at all. Rather than rejecting that response, which I think can easily be shown to be inaccurate (and badly argued, in its comparison to the Seveso accident), and rather than arguing for a muscular US support of AO victims and even more support for cleanup, we are now engaging in an absurd discussion about genocide.
The topic of this thread: What killed the fish? Answer: So far, we don't know. Maybe it is a fishocide -- but I doubt that anyone intended to wipe out fish in the Da Nang coastal region. What I do know is that this discussion will not help shed light on this issue, or contribute to a serious debate over environmental protection; or US responsibility for the aftereffects of AO.
_________________________________
Thomas Jandl, Ph.D.
Non-Resident Scholar Viet Nam National University -- Ha Noi
Partner, TJMR Asia Consultants
Washington: 443-901-2612
Viet Nam mobile: 0121 402 3242
thjandl at yahoo.com<mailto:thjandl at yahoo.com>
Thaveeporn Vasavakul Thaveeporn at mail.kvsinter.com
Mon May 9 19:15:22 PDT 2016
I have put it on the list of possible causes. Thanks! :)
Thaveeporn Vasavakul, Ph.D
GoSFI - Governance Support Facility Initiatives
Deo Huu deochienhuu at gmail.com
Wed May 11 17:19:58 PDT 2016
I regret that you don't find any of the facts and science useful. Whatever
pictures you saw of Ranch Hands in any kind of dress were utterly
misguiding. They wore flight suits sometimes, like every crew member on
planes did, I know those men personally, heard their own accounts, had one
give me a tour of the last remaining spray aircraft, now in the Air Force
Museum. (Nicknamed "Patches" because of the over 800 bullet holes in it
from small arms since it was flying so low over areas that very often did
contain enemy soldiers.) None of the herbicides were "deadly poison", if
that were the case all the Ranch Hands would be dead by now, and they are
not at all that different in health history than anyone else of their age
range who served in the Air Force in that time but not in Viet Nam. They
were often wet with the stuff, and when the bullets that hit the planes hit
the tanks the herbicides were in, they got totally soaked in it. The
spraying of Orange in particular was not done near villages, although they
might have appreciated it, since it kills off the weeds that grow in rice
paddies but has no effect on rice. (Rice plants are very different from
the kind of vegetation that Orange affects.)
All flights had to be cleared by both the US military and the RVN
authorities, and in neither group was there anyone even thinking about
"genocide". Villages were seldom targets of spraying, the point was to
clear the roadways from ambush coverage and also the canopy jungle where
the NVA and VC would hide. Villages are in cleared areas, then and now, so
there was no reason to spray them with Orange. If anyone wanted to really
kill off large numbers of people, there were and are so many very deadly
agents available. That the population of all of Viet Nam actually
continued to increase during the war, and certainly after it, makes claims
of genocide somewhat specious. At war's end there were not more than 30
million living there, over 2 million left (Boat People) but the population
today is near 85 million.
There was never anything like the carpet bombing of WW2, and the
comparatively undamaged city of Hanoi even after the massive Christmas
bombing was noted by French journalists who toured it at the time. It was
the advent of precision bombing, done very carefully to avoid civilian
casualties. A serious multiple of the tonnage dropped on Dresden, where at
least 30,000 people died in one night, was dropped on Ha Noi and Hai Phong
over ten days, with a total of about 1500 people being killed. Those are
the numbers from the Hanoi reports, not US figures. If that doesn't make
it clear that there was no carpet bombing, then I don't have any idea of
what other evidence could possibly clarify things better.
When concentrated bombing was done, as in the kind of Arc Light drops from
B-52 flights used near Khe Sanh during the siege, there is no question of
what happens to the area, as large as several football fields, targeted. I
have walked through such an area, and it is total devastation where nothing
remains standing but a few shattered tree remnants, and the ground is
several inches deep in bits of debris. Such areas are unmistakable, aerial
photos of them are dramatic, but there weren't any such images from the
North after all the bombing, and had there been such, they would have been
published far and wide across the world.
I am sorry to even address this subject again, but when people express
ideas and opinions as if they know the actual facts, but the facts are very
different, it is an obligation to present them.
R J Del Vecchio
Independent Researcher
Anh-Minh Do anhminhtrando at gmail.com
Wed May 11 19:34:02 PDT 2016
Hi all,
I rarely jump into these discussions, but I thought I'd chime in with a
definition of genocide from the United Nations <http://Killing members of
the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures
intended to prevent births within the group, or forcibly transferring
children of the group to another group.>:
"Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of
life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in
part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, or
forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
As far as I can tell, genocide, as it is rooted in the word genos, wouldn't
necessarily describe the use of Agent Orange since it's primary use was in
what I thought was an ideological war (democracy/capitalism vs. communism)
and it had nothing to do with the extermination of the Vietnamese as a race.
Back to the real topic at hand, talking to my Vietnamese friends following
the issue closely...the fish issue, the visit of Obama, and the new
incoming prime minister all have people (especially in the business
community) uneasy about Vietnam's future in the new few years. Somehow, a
year ago, even with the Chinese conflict on the forefront of people's
minds, seemed to be more stable and predictable.
Cheers,
Minh
*I'm sorry, I usually answer my personal emails one time per day (11am
Singapore time). If you urgently need to reach me, please message me on
Whatsapp at the number below.*
anhminhdo.com
Skype: caligarn
Whatsapp: +6586795140
Shawn McHale mchale at gwu.edu
Wed May 11 19:55:41 PDT 2016
I imagine I am a "political humanitarian," but think that using the term
"genocide" when discussing the effects of Agent Orange (and White, and Blue
. . ) trivializes the term.
But this is an old debate. The inventor of the term "genocide," the jurist
Raphael Lemkin, defined the term as "the destruction of whole populations
-of national, racial and religious groups - both biologically and
culturally. "
Unfortunately, this reasonable definition was soon expanded in an untenable
way in the 1948 Convention on Genocide to refer to
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or
in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
(http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html)
This definition is untenable because it criminalizes INTENT, and because it
criminalizes intent "to destroy, in whole or in part" a variety of groups.
Think about this -- it is so broad that any act of violence, even
defensive, against any subpopulation of a larger population, could be
called genocidal, as could any family planning. Unfortunately, this
expansive definition of "genocide" captures the imagination of many.
I personally do not see why we can't simply recognize that, whatever the
intent behind US use of Agent Orange, and whatever the lack of care in
spraying for whatever reason, its impact has been devastating. AS a
2008–2009 Annual Report of the US President’s Cancer Panel put it,
"Approximately 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange,
resulting in 400,000 deaths and disabilities and a half million children
born with birth defects."
Shawn McHale
George Washington University
Thi Bay Miradoli thibay.miradoli at gmail.com
Wed May 11 20:10:35 PDT 2016
I m in cuba with limited internet and cant look for the article number now but the Rome Statute of the international criminal court, i m pretty sure, specifies that in order for acts of violence intended to destroy a race or ethnicity to be considered genocide they need to be carried out in an official capacity. Otherwise they are considered hate crimes and are not subject of international jurisdiction as in the case of genocide and the international tribunal.
Thi Bay
Sent from my iPhone
Anthony Morreale amorreale22 at gmail.com
Fri May 13 04:14:13 PDT 2016
Hi all,
Another update from the same blog about the new turn in protest strategy
toward the backpacker area, and a translation of Chau Thi Phan's report on
her experience being arrested on May 8th.
Anthony Morreale
MA Asian Studies
UC Berkeley.
Bill Hayton bill.hayton at bbc.co.uk
Sat May 14 14:05:46 PDT 2016
This from the US Government’s Department of Veterans’ Affairs:
http://www.benefits.va.gov/compensation/claims-postservice-agent_orange.asp
Veterans Exposed to Agent Orange
Veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicides during military service may be eligible for a variety of VA benefits, including disability compensation for diseases associated with exposure. Your dependents and survivors also may be eligible for benefits. "Agent Orange" refers to a blend of tactical herbicides the U.S. military sprayed in the jungles of Vietnam and around the Korean demilitarized zone to remove trees and dense tropical foliage that provided enemy cover. Herbicides were also used by the U.S. military to defoliate military facilities in the U.S. and in other countries as far back as the 1950s.
In addition, VA has determined there is evidence of exposure to Agent Orange for Air Force and Air Force Reserve members who served during the period 1969 through 1986 and regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained, or served onboard C-123 aircraft (known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent during the Vietnam era). For more information about service qualifications and other eligibility criteria, visit our Agent Orange C-123 web page.
VA and federal law presumes that certain diseases are a result of exposure to these herbicides. This "presumptive policy" simplifies the process for receiving compensation for these diseases since VA foregoes the normal requirements of proving that an illness began during or was worsened by your military service.
It seems unusually generous of the US Government to pay out large sums of money if all the herbicides were safe and those claiming the money are simply malingerers.
Bill Hayton
Diane Fox dnfox70 at gmail.com
Sat May 14 21:42:30 PDT 2016
Thanks for this, Bill.
So much of the discussion of Agent Orange has for decades lurched between hyperbole on the one hand (everything is the result of exposure) and denial (nothing, or nothing except chloracne, is). In the early 1970’s, US veterans were sent to the psychiatric ward, not compensated. Then followed a series of studies and counter-studies, Reagan’s formation of an Agent Orange Working Group to try to sort out claims and counter-claims, and finally George HW Bush and Clinton’s turning it all over to the Institutes of Medicine for a “study of studies” to determine what, to the best of our ability to produce scientific knowledge in a time frame commensurate with a human life-span, we could and could not say about the effects of the particular form of dioxin in several of the defoliants (Agents Purple, Pink, Green, and Orange. Agents Blue and White, which did not contain TCDD dioxin, and were mostly used for crop destruction, had their own problems, but that is another story.) The list of diseases for which they found possible links has grown steadily over the years, made available to the public in updates that appear every two years, which are the basis for the VA benefits. It can be found on their website, under (working approximately here— my computer is not letting me into the internet at the moment) “Veterans and Agent Orange: Updates.”
Over the course of the years since the issue was first raised, science has developed in ways that have increased our understanding: for but two examples, the AH receptor has been shown to be the way dioxin enters the cells of the body, the development of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry has enabled us to refine our measurements to the necessary degree, fruitful international conferences on dioxin research (yearly? every two years?) have been held since 1980.
Some confusion persists when people who were paying attention at an earlier time don’t realize the evidence has amassed, or people don’t have the breadth of vision of a “study of studies”, but take the one corner of the problem they are focused on, or the particular people they have spoken with, as true for the whole.
Along the lines of your comment about the US govt paying large sums of money, Bill — there was a time when the US would not publicly say the word Agent Orange, and yet began working with the Vietnamese military on the ‘dioxin hot spots” around the Da Nang airbase, which were producing readings far in excess of WHO safety standards. They were making arrangements to clean it up, all the while denying that dioxin had any toxic effect, if I understand correctly. It is hard to understand the logic there… why bother to clean it up then?
I agree with Deo Huu / Del Veccio to this extent, when he echoes the thoughts of several doctors I have spoken to in Viet Nam and the US who insist that the important thing is finding help for the children and others, not getting into a debate that could last a lifetime (as one put it to me). There is a Buddhist sutra that goes something like that (I’d be happy to get the exact version, if someone reading this can help!): “When you see your brother with an arrow in his eye, you don’t stop to discuss the source before taking the arrow out.”
Diane
now independent
David Brown nworbd at gmail.com
Sat May 14 22:18:35 PDT 2016
Diane, thanks for spreading around some common sense. Is there a link to
somewhere that we can access reliable *summary* information on "the fruitful
international conferences on dioxin research since 1980"?
David Brown
freelance writer/analyst
Fresno, California USA
Paul Schmehl pschmehl at tx.rr.com
Sat May 14 22:56:06 PDT 2016
1996 - we don't really know much -
2004 - we still don't know much, but the EPA is at odds with the WHO and
many scientists -
<http://www.dioxinfacts.org/dioxin_health/media_statements/national_academies2.pdf>
There are two main arguments these days. Is there a threshold level below
which dioxin has no negative risk to health? EPA says no. WHO says yes.
Does dioxin cause cancer or increase the risk of cancer. EPA says it
causes cancer. WHO says it increase the risk of cancer.
Birth defects are still unconfirmed in the literature.
Deo Huu deochienhuu at gmail.com
Sun May 15 18:30:19 PDT 2016
The 20 year super study of all 1200+ Ranch Hands demonstrated exactly one
statistically valid contrast, and that was a slightly higher incidence of
Type 2 diabetes. Since the particular group also were on average
overweight and alcohol consumers, more so than the control group, it
becomes impossible to clarify exactly what caused the contrast, but it was
finally recognized by the VA after years of fighting about it.
Once the long fight with the VA was won and Type 2 diabetes became an
automatically assigned condition, the many other studies continued
contrasting Viet Nam vets with the general population, and it finally
became policy to qualify ailments by "association" rather than
statistically compelling contrasts. So if it could be shown in any study
that the vets have an average rate of incidence higher than the general
population, even though the differential does not qualify statistically,
the condition became legitimized as an herbicide related one. At this
point the list of "presumptive" conditions for qualification has grown
extensively, starting with prostate cancer and many others, such as heart
attacks. All things that happen very naturally to men as they get older.
It has become a supersensitive political and emotional topic, and the rush
to jump in for benefits has led to things like sailors on US ships who
never set foot on Viet Nam being qualified and awarded benefits. At some
point I expect that the crews of planes that flew over the country will be
applying for benefits.
Knowing many vets who are on AO disability for one or another of the
several qualified ailments, I can certainly affirm that most are totally
sincere in their belief that their diabetes or heart attack or cancer had
to be due to some kind of exposure to herbicides in Viet Nam. Sick people
find great comfort in being able to assign some exterior cause to their
situation, and getting a VA disability with both a monthly check and
priority in free health care is a very positive thing to have. There is no
blame for these vets to listen to the publicity and then sign up for the
benefits they have been told they are entitled to.
Only a very few who have one of the conditions but know more about the
reality refrain from applying for the benefit. (Having had a heart attack
myself, I could readily qualify, but have not and will not apply.)
BTW, I now see that the blame for the massive fish kill is apparently from
terrible pollution from an industrial source.
R J Del Vecchio
Independent Researcher
Carl Robinson robinsoncarl88 at gmail.com
Sun May 15 20:07:54 PDT 2016
Why can't we get back to talking about the Fish Kill, please?!
Now, we've got the government blaming "terrorists" .
.
Best,
Carl Robinson
USOM/USAID '64-68; AP/Saigon '68-75
Convenor, Google Group "Vietnam Old Hacks."
Anh-Minh Do anhminhtrando at gmail.com
Sun May 15 20:26:41 PDT 2016
Agree with Carl. This group just got particularly derailed.
I heard from friends on the ground that many people have been arrested
(maybe over 1,000). Some people were beaten (
https://www.facebook.com/tranbaoy90/posts/1402311236460923
<https://facebook.com/tranbaoy90/posts/1402311236460923?__mref=message_bubble>).
I also heard that the Vietnamese police may have been using the mafia to
incite violence. This may be the largest demonstrations we've seen in a
decade (I can't remember when there was this much hub bub). When the China
protests occurred a few years back, we didn't see this many numbers. Some
also say it's possible this was incited by existing political groups, but
that may also the usual Vietnamese rumors.
To recap, we've had three protests since the fish thing went off: May 1st,
May 8th, and now May 15th. Not sure if this will continue, and I wonder if
the usual cynicism is turning into something else. Especially since now
social media is a big part of the picture.
Protesters were known to be using technologies like FireChat, burner
phones, and VPN. Police were also asking people to open up their Facebooks
and emails to track etc, possibly blacklisting people.
Cheers,
Minh
*I'm sorry, I usually answer my personal emails one time per day (11am
Singapore time). If you urgently need to reach me, please message me on
Whatsapp at the number below.*
anhminhdo.com
Skype: caligarn
Whatsapp: +6586795140
Michael Gray maigray at yahoo.com
Mon May 16 05:26:18 PDT 2016
Hi all,The photo of lone protester is quite striking. The man picture is Huynh Ngoc Chenh:
There was quite a cat-and-mouse game (online and off) between activists and authorities, which including a full blocking of Facebook on Saturday and a rapid subsequent spread of VPN use. This time, the authorities were clearly successful in preventing any widespread protest.
Regards,Mike
Pierre Asselin, Ph.D passelin at hpu.edu
Tue May 17 06:09:33 PDT 2016
Dear All:
I’m in Hanoi at the moment, and just heard from a Hanoian that many people across the country have stopped eating seafood because – allegedly – recent piscine casualties are being sold as frozen product by unscrupulous entrepreneurs. Any evidence/substantiated claims of the latter allegation? While we’re at it, any truth to the first?
Aloha,
Pierre
Pierre Asselin
Professor of History
Hawai'i Pacific University
1188 Fort St., Suite MP 409
Honolulu, HI 96813
Caitlin Wyndham cmwyndham at gmail.com
Tue May 17 07:34:56 PDT 2016
I’m also in Hanoi, and I would also be avoiding seafood products. No one knows what’s happening with the dead fish, and there’s all sorts of rumours floating around. Of course the government is trying to ensure that no dead fish make it into the food chain - but that’s a hell of a lot of coastline to police, and a hell of a lot of families who have lost their livelihoods. There is of course no evidence/substantiated claims, just as there is no evidence/substantiated claims about what’s killing the fish (or at least none in the public domain)
The pork is good - I would err on the side of caution for a while ;-)
Caitlin