Embedded Files
Of course the average person has no idea what type of measurement 10,000 ppt is and how small it is, so likely focus on the last line about 2,4-D being possibly carcinogenic.
This blurring of 2,4,5T and,2,4-D is one of the flaws in the film that could have been clarified a bit. But I do not think it takes away from the broader message of the film and the story of these two amazing woman who decided to stand up and fight those who were poisoning their environment. Carol and her community are still trying, as are other communities across the US who do not want a cocktail of herbicides sprayed by helicopters in their neighborhoods.
And this is why we are coordinating discussions around the film to try to help fill in the missing parts of the story and clarify where things need to be clarified.
Susan Hammond
From: Vsg <vsg-bounces@mailman11.u.washington.edu> On Behalf Of Greg Nagle
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 11:10 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: [Vsg] Problems with the recent film "The People vs Agent Orange"
I hesitate to post this to the vsg list but will be of interest to those in the US concerned with agent orange
Problems with the recent film "The People vs Agent Orange"
I live in Vietnam where I came 7 years ago to try to work on agent orange contamination which has been a consuming interest of mine for decades, and I once wanted to do my PhD work here on that.
I have issues with the recent film "The People vs Agent Orange" in how it presents current conditions with toxic herbicide use in the US. I cannot access the film here in Vietnam but a very informed friend in the US has seen it and I have read a number of news reports describing the film. It will soon be on PBS and will get a lot of attention.
My main issue is what is suggested in the film about TCDD dioxin in the 24D herbicide still used in the US. Implying that there is now TCDD dioxin in US 24D with dire health impacts is simply wrong and much of the film is focused on that. As a friend says after watching the film "the implication throughout is that since 50% of AO was 2,4-D, that means that half the dioxin is still being sprayed. "
I do not have any opinions on how the film presented the situation in Vietnam or the pending agent orange court case in France. I know it was much worse in Vietnam with many people once seriously exposed which has been very well documented.
Agent orange was a mixture of two chemicals, 24D and 245T, The key problem was the TCDD dioxin contaminant in 245T generated in the production process, often referred to as one of the most toxic substances known to science. There may well be other toxicity problems with 24D but TCDD dioxin is not one of them now in the US. I think it important to get such simple facts straight. TCDD dioxin can also be produced in very small amounts in other chemical processes but the 245T chemical in agent orange had the most. Now the largest source of TCDD dioxin in the US is back yard burning of plastic trash.
The 24D was not considered to have the TCDD dioxin contaminant although small amounts, a very small fraction of those in 245T, were later found in a few samples but cleaned up in the US after 1995. It has come up in small amounts in some 24D made in other countries such as China and Russia where there are less stringent controls on the industry.
For the most accurate account of the Agent Orange problem in Vietnam I always recommend “From Enemies to Partners- Vietnam, the U.S. and Agent Orange “ by Le Ke Son and Charles Bailey. George Black is also the most credible journalist writing on agent orange and he has a long article on agent orange coming out in the NY Times magazine on March 20.
In 1977 I worked with the first group to fund Carol van Strum's Oregon anti herbicide work which the film is focused on. I worked in the Pacific Northwest as a tree planter and forestry worker for 12 years during a time when the agent orange (AO) chemical 245T was still widely used to suppress competing vegetation in tree plantations. I was with a forestry workers association which played a role in convincing the EPA to remove 245T from most use in 1979.
More on TCDD dioxin below in stultifying but painstakingly accurate detail
It was not possible to work in Vietnam on agent orange in the early 90 so I went on to work on assessing the storage and movement of another chemical contaminant which behaves in soils much like agent orange.
TCDD dioxin is usually formed as an unwanted product in burning processes of organic materials or as a side product in organic synthesis. The greatest production occurs from waste incineration, metal production, and fossil-fuel and wood combustion. Dioxin production can usually be reduced by increasing the combustion temperature. Total U.S. emissions of PCCD/Fs were reduced from ca. 14 kg TEq in 1987 to 1.4 kg TEq in 2000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
The levels of TCDD dioxin in the Oregon 245T brew were a small fraction of those used in Vietnam, probably about 0.05 parts per million (ppm) by the late 1970s. That was as low as the chemical companies could get it since it could not be eliminated and why the chemical was finally banned in the US. The average TCDD level in Vietnam was 60 times more at about 3 ppm, sometimes much more, as much as 50 ppm in agent purple in the mid 60s. The spray in Vietnam was also 10-20X more concentrated and sprayed numerous times in places. All spraying of agent orange in Vietnam stopped in January 1970.
But even with the lower TCDD dioxin in the 245T herbicide used in the US, it had too many potential dangers and needed to be stopped. I am proud of the work we did to achieve that.
From EPA on TCDD dioxin in 24D
Dioxins are no longer found at detectable levels in 2,4-D products sold and used in the United States. Furthermore, EPA has canceled all uses of 2,4,5-T in 1985 and no longer allow its use in the United States.
US EPA - Pesticides - Reregistration Eligibility Decision for 2,4-D | US EPA ARCHIVE DOCUMENT
In summary, two of eight technical products had concentrations of 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD; dioxin) greater than the limit of quantitation (LOQ; LOQ = 0.1 ppb) and three of eight had concentrations of 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (PCDD) greater than the LOQ (LOQ = 0.5 ppb).
The 1995 estimate for dioxin emissions from 2,4-D, taken together with NAS estimates for 2002/2004 releases from other sources of dioxin in the U.S., suggest that 2,4-D applications to land ranks seventh (2.6% of all dioxin sources) behind backyard burning (57%), sewage sludge application (6.9%), residential wood burning (5.7%), coal-fired utilities (5.4%), diesel trucks (3.2%), and secondary aluminum smelting (2.6%) in terms of dioxin emissions (see The Inventory of Sources and Environmental Releases of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the United States: The Year 2000 Update, EPA/600/P-03/002A, External Review Draft, March 2005). According to 2,4-D registrants, since the 1990’s, the manufacturing processes for 2,4-D and its chemical intermediate, dichlorophenol, have been modified, and those modifications decrease the chance that TCDD and PCDD are formed during the manufacturing process.
https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/24d_red.pdf
==========================
I did calculations on the TCDD dioxin found in Chinese 24D found in Australia which was widely reported, and described in these links below.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-22/four-corners-dangerous-dioxins/4833848
In the Four Corners program the terms “low to moderate” in relation to dioxin content of 2.4-D were used, relating this to the FAO, EPA and WHO limits for exposure is, well, impossible. In the paper from the Queensland study their samples of 2,4-D had dioxins equivalent to 0.001-0.2 nanograms of the dioxin TCDD per gram of 2,4-D**. This is less than the international regulatory limit of 10 nanograms of TCDD equivalents per gram of herbicide. To put this in perspective, the highest dioxin levels in 2,4-D were 50-500 times lower than the levels of dioxin in the banned 2,4,5-T.
The “alarming” sample of Chinese sourced herbicide is not given a specific concentration, but is claimed to have 7 times the levels found in the Queensland study. Taking the highest 2,4-D levels in the Queensland study, then this would be 1.4 nanograms TCDD equivalent per gram herbicide, still reasonably below the international regulatory limit.
The few Australian /Chinese samples had TCDD from 1/15,000 to 1/2142 the average level found in the AO used in Vietnam.
nanogram is one billionth of a gram.
ng/g↔ppm 1 ppm = 1000 ng/g.
The TCDD content of the 245T used in Vietnam was average of 3 ppm, (the Dow brew was only 0.05 ppm)
3 ppm was 3000 ng/gm or 2142 X the highest levels found in the Chinese sample at 1.4 nanograms.
The other Chinese sample was 0.2 nanograms. The Vietnam agent orange had 15,000 of the average levels found in this Chinese sample, (0.2 ng is 1/15,000 of 3 ppm.)
Problems with the recent film "The People vs Agent Orange"
From: Vsg <vsg-bounces@mailman11.u.washington.edu> On Behalf Of David Brown
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:55 PM
To: Greg Nagle <gnagle2000@gmail.com>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Agent Orange in Laos
Thanks for passing on George Black's story, Greg. It all rings true.
David Brown
Independent analyst/writer
Fresno, California USA
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 7:59 AM Greg Nagle <gnagle2000@gmail.com> wrote:
I will offer that George is not only a fine journalist but also an exacting scholar. That is rare praise from me to those who write on agent orange. You might also check out his tenaciously researched books on Yellowstone and the Ganges River,
Interesting that these dire health impacts in Laos were from the short term aerial spraying, not the chemical spills seen across Vietnam which were a lingering problem, poisoning food and people for years. It is important that George brings up Agent purple, an earlier and much dirtier version of agent orange with more TCDD dioxin.
George offers a conservative but defensible estimate of 3X more TCDD dioxin than in agent orange. There were also agents pink and green with the same chemical
Not much published on agent purple.
A 2003 Nature paper by Stellman et al., which re-apprised the average TCDD content of Agent Orange from the 3 ppm that USAF had reported to a level of 13 ppm, also estimated that Agent Purple may have had 32.8 ppm of TCDD on average. A sample of Agent Purple archived at Eglin Air Force Base had an even higher content of 45 ppm TCDD.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Purple
Greg Nagle
PhD Forest and watershed science
Cornell University
Hanoi, Vietnam
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 9:33 PM George Black <ghsblack@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm glad that there seemed to be agreement in the recent exchange that Agent Orange is a worthwhile topic for discussion by the group, and although this is journalism rather than scholarship I thought colleagues might be interested in my story about Agent Orange (and Agent Purple) in Laos and its terrible present-day consequences. Published today in the New York Times Magazine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/magazine/laos-agent-orange-vietnam-war.html
646-361-3931
@georgehsblack
From: Vsg <vsg-bounces@mailman11.u.washington.edu> On Behalf Of Small, Ivan (Anthropology)
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 7:28 AM
To: VietnamStudies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: [Vsg] NY Times Magazine article on AO legacies in Laos and Vietnam
The New York Times Magazine is running a feature this Sunday on accounting and addressing legacies of Agent Orange from the U.S. Secret War in Laos. Congratulations to VSG list member Susan Hammond and War Legacies Project’s dedicated in country field staff for many years of hard work in Laos and Vietnam, described and photographed in the piece which can be found here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/magazine/laos-agent-orange-vietnam-war.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Cheers,
Ivan
--
Ivan V. Small, Ph.D.
Visiting Senior Fellow
Vietnam Studies Programme
ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore
Associate Professor of Anthropology
Central Connecticut State University, U.S.A.
From: Vsg <vsg-bounces@mailman11.u.washington.edu> On Behalf Of Greg Nagle
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 6:08 AM
To: Chuck Searcy <chuckusvn@gmail.com>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>; AO Working Group <aowg@ngocentre.org.vn>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Problems with the recent film "The People vs Agent Orange"
I do not want to burden the VSG academic list with too much talk on agent orange and did not want to send this response. My apologies,
I have been told that non US people on the VSG list get very tired of talk about agent orange which is a US/Viet issue.
Not worth it to translate into Viet, and google translate is not good enough.
My words were for for US people, and I do not want to confuse things here, The situation in Vietnam with all the TCDD dioxin in AO is another issue entirely, and very well documented. There was no doubt is was in the agent orange and it is still present in a few places, it was found in human blood and various foods over the years,
I am now in A Luoi where the army is doing the cleanup at the A So special forces base where there was a major agent orange spill in 1966.
greg
Greg Nagle
PhD Forest and watershed science
Cornell University
Hanoi, Vietnam
From: Vsg <vsg-bounces@mailman11.u.washington.edu> On Behalf Of Chuck Searcy
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 5:34 AM
To: AO Working Group <aowg@ngocentre.org.vn>; Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: [Vsg] Fwd: Problems with the recent film "The People vs Agent Orange"
This remains a sometimes contentious topic, still, even though there is more agreement today about Agent Orange and health impacts and other issues than in the past. I have not seen Greg Nagle's comments on the VSG list forwarded through any of the NGO Resource Center lists, so I'm passing it along now (with the additional comment by Ben Quick). We merged the Agent Orange Working Group with the Disability Working Group late last year since the focus in Viet Nam is moving from technical cleanup operations to assistance to People With Disabilities, but I'm using the AOWG mailing list in this case because this discussion is pretty specific.
I think we all would welcome comments and reactions. The film appears to be getting a lot of attention, which is a good thing, and broad public discussion -- even disagreements -- may help bring clarity to an issue which, obviously, continues to be a topic that concerns a lot of us.
Would someone be willing to translate Greg's comments into Vietnamese? Is it worth doing? I'm not yet confident enough of Google translation to rely on their service for a topic such as this.
Chuck
====================================
CHUCK SEARCY
President, Veterans For Peace Chapter 160
International Advisor, Project RENEW
NGO Agent Orange / Disability Working Group
71 Trần Quốc Toản
Hà Nội, Việt Nam
Email chuckusvn@gmail.com
Skype chucksearcy
Cell VN +8 490 342 0769
Cell US +1 404 740 0653
====================================
Dear Greg,
I am a victim of my father's dioxin exposure, a firsthand witness of the consequences of Agent Orange and the other rainbow agents in Vietnam as well as someone who's spent way too much time with the kind of research you point to below, and I have to admit that when I saw the promotional material for the film I had the same reaction. I feel like the attempts to address the very real aftereffects of herbicidal warfare and the efforts to legally establish the multigenerational dimensions of this problem are set back by this kind of alarmist media project. It's disappointing.
Best,
Ben Quick
American University in Vietnam
From: Vsg <vsg-bounces@mailman11.u.washington.edu> On Behalf Of Susan Hammond
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 11:34 PM
The film should be available to be streamed by people living in Vietnam this week. I will let you know when it is up. However, it will stream the original film in English, there are no Vietnamese subtitles, though Tran To Nga speaks in both Vietnamese and French during her part of the film.
It is true that the film a few times does blur the line between 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D as it jumps around from time frame to time frame, especially in the Oregon part of the story. You can easily get lost in which herbicide the various community members are talking about and when. It was a challenge, according to the editor, to meld the various stories across 5 decades into one film. But the majority of the film is not about 2,4-D but about Agent Orange or in the case of Oregon the combination of 2,4,5-T/2,4-D used from about 1970 to 1979 when it was being sprayed in Oregon State Forests and this is told through the efforts of Carol Van Strum and her community to stop the use of especially 2,4,5-T in the 1970s. The other main part of the film is Tran To Nga’s lawsuit against the chemical companies.
The film also does cover a bit about the post 1979 efforts in Oregon to stop the helicopter spraying of 2,4-D, glyphosate, Tordon (Picloram) and other herbicides this time being done by private timber companies in the area above their water reservoir. This is a much smaller part of the film and it is here that one could get the two confused because the same people are doing the advocacy and they often talk about both eras of the fight against the use of herbicides in their community in one scene.
And there are some scenes of current day spraying of a cocktail of herbicides that includes 2,4-D and it is this cocktail that Carol especially is concerned about because little is studied about impacts of a combination of various herbicides used at once. And they guy filming these scenes of the use of herbicides in Oregon today on his I-phone gets very sick, not surprising as he was pouring this cocktail into helicopters without much protection.
But at no point in the film does anyone say that 2,4-D is contaminated with dioxin and that is why they are fighting against it. In fact they are fighting against the spraying by helicopter of all herbicides which can cause drift, not the hand spraying of these chemicals. They won this fight through legislation in their county, but it is now tied up in a lawsuit as the chemical companies and timber companies claim communities can not make these types of bans.
And the community in Oregon does question whether or not 2,4-D is as safe as the chemical companies say it is while they fight against the use of 2,4-D. Not due to dioxin but in general, as this is still being debated. (i.e. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma may be linked to 2,4-D but not all studies show the link) And then add Glyphosate to the mix today that has already resulted in huge lawsuit settlements. It is not surprising that communities that have herbicides sprayed by helicopters are concerned about the impact of these herbicides on their health. And it is not surprising after what they (and veterans) have been told by these same companies about 2,4,5-T that they would doubt the word of Dow, Monsanto/Bayer et al.
And sadly many of the press stories have not helped matters. They, like most people who are not focused on the Agent Orange issue, conflate 2,4-D and Agent Orange all the time. And for that matter Glyphosate with Agent Orange.
But the filmmakers did not do this, at least not intentionally. This is what they say about Dioxin and 2,4-D in the film.
It safety continues to be disputed.
TITLE over tractor spraying cherry orchard: Half of Agent Orange, 2,4-D, is the active ingredient in some 1300 herbicides.
Bayer states the 2,4-D in its products is required to meet the European Union’s dioxin limit: 10,000 parts per trillion.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “2,4-D generally has low toxicity for humans.”
TITLE over aerial of creek and trees: The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified 2,4-D as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
Page updated
Report abuse