A Vietnam Veterans view of the history, cover-up and abuse of chemicals in the Vietnam war.

I did two tours of duty in Vietnam. The first was with A Company, the Sixth Battalion in 1966/67, and being part of a large combat unit gave a feeling of security. We were like family and supported each other in every way. We came home together on HMAS Sydney, and in hindsight that was the best way to come home from Vietnam. We had time to relax and wind down from operational service. Our nerves had time to settle and our minds had time to adjust, and switch off from the constant state of combat readiness we had been in for twelve months. Even so, family and friends said that I had changed dramatically. After a couple of weeks, I realised that some of them were scared of me.

My mother was devastated in the change. She said that I had gone away young and carefree, always laughing, and had come home from Vietnam emotionless and cold, a nervous and jumpy wreck. I honestly did not notice at first, but after a few weeks, I could not stand being around any of my old civilian friends. They were like children. All of them were completely ignorant of the war in Vietnam, they complained about the weather, or the traffic, or their football team losing. I felt that my country had sent me and thousands of others to fight a war in Vietnam and no one back home gave a damn.

Most of the anti-Vietnam protesters that I met were completely ignorant of the facts and were involved because it was trendy. Others were simply short on guts and had to justify that somehow.

My second tour was with the 1st Australian Reinforcement Unit, (1ARU) in 1970/71. Coming home after that year was bad news, I could not adjust. I was patrolling in Vietnam one day and home in Sydney the next. Too quick...on a plane, off a plane. Jumpy, animal instincts still working. Angry...we flew into Sydney at about one in the morning to avoid demonstrators. A few Australians returning home from a year at war, and Americans coming to Australia for R & R. Even at 1am though, the demonstrators were there. I remember thinking to myself, "Hell, they’re supposed to be greeting us not calling us names and spitting on us." I remember thinking about the men that didn’t make it home and wondering about how they would feel, the ones that had been shot, blown apart, mined, booby trapped, poisoned with chemicals.

I will never understand why those uninformed bastards were directing their anger at us. No one wanted the war stopped more than we did. Why did they blame us for the war? Why weren’t they down in Canberra, tearing Parliament House down brick by brick, instead of attacking war weary men.

Anyway, I was home alive, but I felt like a criminal trying to sneak in the back door early in the morning. That is one of the huge differences between Vietnam veterans and veterans of all other wars. Most of the veterans of World War 2, and Korea, travelled with their units and spent weeks or months returning on ships. During these long trips home they had the closeness and emotional support of each other and were able to talk about the horror and trauma that they had experienced together. The epitaph for a lot of Vietnam veterans was a solitary plane ride home with complete strangers and a head full of grief, conflict, and confusion.

It is obvious that the vast majority of Vietnam veterans have had a much more problematic readjustment to civilian life than did their World War 2 and Korean counterparts. When we first arrived home the joy of being alive, of surviving, made us happy and carried us along as we tried to fit back in to society. However, after a couple of years, sometimes less, a lot of us started to notice changes. Those that applied to the Department of Veterans Affairs found that the department did not recognise their problems as being service related and in most cases ruled out compensation and treatment. Veterans began to suffer depression, we became cynical and angry, and trusted no one.

When I started to talk to other veterans about my problems, I quickly realised that most of them were the same. We all experienced sleep problems, temper outbursts, depression, intrusive thoughts...could not get Vietnam out of our minds. When we did get to sleep, nightmares were a problem. Feelings of Isolation, Rage, Alienation, Anxiety reactions, Survival guilt, headaches. All of these symptoms were, and still are common amongst many Vietnam veterans and in the early days, following the war there was very little help available. Most veterans with these symptoms were labelled as being crazy...mad. Many started to believe that they were crazy, and tried to hide out, isolate themselves from society.

The civilian population of Australia was indifferent to the Vietnam War, to Vietnam veterans, and to our problems. This did a lot of damage to our emotional state, but most of the damage, most of the hurt, came from politicians. Politicians mislead us about Vietnam, about how we got involved, about how the war was going, and about the use of herbicides and pesticides in Vietnam. From about March 1979, when questions were first being asked about Australians using herbicides in Vietnam, politicians, the government, continually denied all knowledge of it. It was not until 1982 that the government admitted for the first time that herbicides were used in Vietnam.

We could still smell the stuff, taste it. It was in the air, in the water we drank, the food we ate, the bush we patrolled. In some cases it was sprayed directly on top of us, but even if it wasn’t, the spray drift spread it all over South Vietnam. No area was sprayed more heavily than Phuoc Tuy Province, the Australian area of responsibility.

Vietnam was a completely different war. All the things mentioned so far point out how it was different, and why it caused so many problems for a lot of Vietnam veterans. The sense of alienation that returning veterans felt, the public ignorance and the lack of public support in Australia hurt us a lot.

I am pointing out all these differences between the Vietnam war and other wars because these events had such a huge effect on us, the veterans who did the work. The blame for the confusion, the attitude of the civilian population to returning veterans, and the emotional trauma suffered by veterans because of it lay with politicians, not with the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force.

Politicians in Canberra, those who ran the nation, and those in opposition who demonstrated against us, used the Armed Forces of this country as a political tool to further their own ambitions. Veterans have suffered the consequences since then, and will for the rest of their lives.

Nothing however can detract from the Armed Forces undoubted quality or standard of performance. We were sent to Vietnam and asked to do a job without proper resources, without a comprehensive policy, and without adequate financial support...and we did it well.

"The Onus of disproof rule."

I read a paper some time ago written by Graham Walker and presented on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans Federation to the Vietnam Voices Conference held at the Casula Powerhouse Arts Center. He said, and I quote:

"So what is the Onus of Disproof Rule? To explain that I must take you back to the 1914-18 War. Parliaments then were grappling with what responsibilities they had to the soldiers returning to Australia from the front. The Commonwealth Governments answer was the Australian Soldiers Repatriation Bill.

In introducing this bill into the Australian parliament in 1917, Senator Millen explained:

Repatriation, he said, was an attempt to indicate Australia’s obligation ‘to those who on its behalf have gone into the Valley of the Shadow of Death.’ "

The Prime Minister at that time, Billy Hughes, had no doubts that this obligation was the result of an unwritten but binding contract between the Australian parliament and Australia’s service men and women. He declared:

"…We say to them, You go and fight and when you come back we will look after your welfare."

And:

"We have entered into a bargain with the soldier and we must keep it…"

Billy Hughes was also clear that the servicemen and women had every right, to expect that the government would honour its promises.

"The Soldier will say to the Commonwealth Government: "You made us a promise, we look to you to carry it out."

In framing a new act in 1941, much thought had been given to how difficult it should be for sick and disabled veterans to have their illness and disabilities accepted as war caused. The thought of sick war veterans having to fight their way through court hearing after court hearing, with a heavy burden of proof on the veteran to prove his case, was abhorrent to the Parliament and to the Australian people. So the new legislation included a more lenient test of whether a veteran’s service could be linked with war service. The Attorney general, during the parliamentary debate on the bill, explained in the following terms:

"The whole purpose of this provision is to reverse completely the method of proof and put the burden of proof upon the authorities to negative any connection between war service and the disability.

In other words, if any question which is material to the case before any of these tribunals cannot be placed beyond reasonable doubt, the question must be determined in favour of the member of the forces. (Emphasis added.)"

Successive Federal Parliaments have supported these provisions of the Repatriation Act, so that it was these provisions which were in force when Australians were again sent to war, this time in Vietnam.

These provisions were part of what Billy Hughes had described as the bargain, the promise.

Even in 1977 when the Repatriation Act was completely overhauled, these onus of proof and standard of proof provisions were retained, indeed, they were made more explicit. So when Vietnam veterans began applying for compensation for cancer on the grounds that it was caused by Agent Orange, it was under these long standing provisions.""

ANALOGY

Vietnam veterans are constantly being asked why veterans from other wars don’t have the same problems. The fact is they do to a certain extent. Their circumstances are completely different of course. They were always treated as heroes and had the full support of all the people at home, so they didn’t have to deal with feelings of guilt about whether or not they should have been fighting. They did have to deal with the same combat related problems as Vietnam veterans though and American records show that at one point in the Second World War, the number of men being discharged from the service for psychiatric reasons exceeded the total number of men being newly drafted.

Australian records show that one Field Ambulance alone reported that for a single month (July - August) in 1916, fully 22 percent of casualties passing through the unit were diagnosed as ‘shell shock’, i.e. a psychiatric casualty.

The point is that many of the problems Vietnam veterans have, were, and still are suffered by other veterans. They were not compounded by all the other factors that Vietnam veterans had to put up with. Things like rejection by the people at home, the constant arguing about whether or not we should have been in Vietnam. They were not called names such as "baby killer" or "murderer" and they were not confronted by demonstrations when they came home.

We were, in fact we were even rejected by some World War Two veterans, and by some branches of the RSL.

Vietnam cannot be compared to other wars because so many things were different. World War 2 was a joint effort by all the people of Australia, men and women. Whether fighting on the front line or working back in Australia, it was a united effort against a uniformed and identifiable enemy. The task was clear-cut, our country was under threat and the Australian people responded.

Vietnam was not clear-cut. It was Australia’s longest war. It went for ten years, and every day was shown on television sets for people back home to watch. They were treated to the horrors of the war every day on the six o’clock news, but to them, it was a television program. By the time veterans started coming home from the battlefields, the public was tired and numb to the whole experience.

Politicians got us into Vietnam. The Menzies government contrived to become involved in Vietnam, they were over eager, and it is doubtful that the South Vietnamese government of Dr. Pham Huy Quat ever requested Australian military assistance. When we did become involved we didn’t get support from the people at home and it seemed that our own government sent us to fight the war and then sat back and hoped for the best.

The government of South Vietnam was riddled with instability and fraud. The whole environment was different, foreign to everything we had been taught, and this fostered distrust and added to our personal fears.

To us, the statements made by Australian politicians simply did not mesh with the war’s reality. Enemy body counts were more important than ground taken and military tactics were compromised for political expediency.

We started to wonder what we were doing there. The protests at home made no sense to us, the soldiers in the field. Why were we dying if no one wanted us to be there? Why did we fight over a piece of real estate, and then walk away and give it back, only to fight over it again later on.

Vietnam cannot be compared to other wars because there was no front line. It was a never-ending nightmare and we could never relax completely, because we did not know who the enemy was. Out the bush, in base camp, on leave, it made no difference, you had to watch your back. Friend and enemy looked the same. Friendly villagers by day were Viet Cong by night and even the children and the elderly had to be viewed with suspicion and distrust, because they were the offspring and the parents of the enemy all around us.

The demonstrations at home made us angry. Not because they were objecting to the war, but because they were blaming us, the soldiers, for what they were seeing on their television sets. While we were engaged in the real combat, the people at the moratoriums got all excited because they were part of the action. The good citizens of the moratorium marches showed their true colours when they started taunting the wives of men serving in Vietnam. They terrorised some of them by saying things like, "your husband’s a murderer", or "your husband’s a baby killer", or "he’s fucking Vietnamese harlots."

The fact is we were the ones putting our lives on the line, no one else and all the ranting and raving in Australia did nothing but irritate us.

Graham Greene got it right when he said, "To the soldier the civilian is the man who employs him to kill, who includes the guilt of murder in the pay envelope and escapes responsibility".

In a quote from "The Cream Machine" a soldier focuses on home.

"People back home are driving around with ‘stop the war in Vietnam’ stickers on the backs of their motorcars and every now and again when they wipe the frost from their windows they will be reminded of their conviction and feel outraged. I wonder how many of them knew where Vietnam was in 1965? They have jumped onto the current protest band-wagon, understanding all that is happening here, which makes them rather unique, as we don’t. They have a conscience where we have only an icy ache. They possess the conscience when convenient, appropriate, or stylish...Why not? The bleeding hearts have always existed, through all the ages they have thrived, the non-combatant, non-participating objector; tear jerking, psalm singing, eloquent intellectual, a million miles from the action, well fed and farting."

It is too easy to sit on the fence and get involved only because it is fun.

From ‘The Odd Angry Shot.’

"The dying face; tears pouring, nose running, blood spitting. Remember when you thought, what if he does make it, what if they give him a nice new tin leg and get him on his feet again, how do you tell some randy typist that you’re sorry you can’t screw her because you lost your manhood on a dirt road in a place called grid reference one eight three - one niner six? She’ll look sorry in her sweet suburban way and she’ll be busy the next time he asks her out.

Half a man. And so much more of a man than any one of the smug bastards safe at home who stand in the streets and scream to stop the war. Ask him if he’d like to stop the war, smug bastards. At least he came."

THE KILLERS

Everyone has heard of Agent Orange. Not everyone takes much notice of what those words mean. I am sure a lot of people laugh about it and think it is a lot of noise about nothing. Alternatively, perhaps they think that it is merely some chemical that is a bit unpleasant; but whatever they think of it, you can bet that they are completely ignorant of the real facts.

Over the years I have listened to and been part of conversations about this issue with people from all walks of life, all levels of intelligence, and the one thing they all have in common is ignorance. Because they are all educated and most of them can read and do read more than the sports pages, they know that the name Agent Orange refers to chemicals used in the Vietnam War. Without exeption these people have all expressed an opinion on the chemicals and on their effect both on the countryside and on people.

I have never heard anybody outside the veteran community or the scientific community say anything that is even remotely close to the real facts on these horrific chemicals, how they were used, what if any safety precautions were taken, or what effect they have had on people in the thirty years since they were first used in Vietnam.

What interests me about what all these people say and how they have come to even have an opinion about something so horribly misunderstood is that none of them are concerned about the health of veterans of the war or the people of South Vietnam. Veterans are getting sick and or dying from cancers and other illnesses at a rate much higher than the general population of this country. The South Vietnamese countryside has been devastated and changed beyond belief by the chemicals and the rate of deaths and birth abnormalities amongst the Vietnamese people is beyond words. Yet, the public of this country is completely unaware of all of this.

I’m not really surprised by their lack of knowledge given the history of understanding of the whole thing. Most of the Australian public took no great interest in the reality of what we the armed forces were doing there in the first place.

When veterans who are ill try to explain what is wrong with them it is like talking to someone from another planet. In fact, people who weren't involved know almost nothing about the War, or our involvement, or the turmoil we all found ourselves in trying to fight that war with our hands tied behind our backs by politicians and ignorant civilians.

I still have trouble coming to terms with what is wrong with me. I It is so easy for civilians who have never served to have opinions or to judge others and it is too easy to sit on the fence and that is what they do. Academics are the worst, they study the war or the politics behind it and from that they become experts.

These things are always easy to look at and be an expert on in hindsight. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it does not deal with the cold hard reality that was the war then. We had to deal with that and what we ask now is that we are looked after medically and that our families are looked after. We are owed that much.

I am always fighting with or writing to politicians about what we need or what has to be done from our view and it probably sounds sometimes as if we are blaming them for everything. That is not the case and like them or not most politicians are hard working men and women who mean well and try to do good for this country. Again though it comes down to ignorance or not being able to understand what it is we are saying.

I am sure many politicians think Vietnam veterans are looking for someone to blame. I know that I am not, and all the veterans I speak to about this are not. Mistakes were made, god knows so many mistakes, but wars are not scripted and this was different to all the others we have been in. There were political mistakes, many of them. There were military mistakes, there always are. In general though I believe the Australian Forces in Vietnam did an honorable and honest job in our efforts to stop the South Vietnamese being forced into communism and when all the garbage is pushed aside, that’s what it was about to us.

I went back to Vietnam in 1995 with a mate of mine from the same unit, 6^th Battalion. The Royal Australian Regiment. All of the people we spoke to in the south told us that life for them was terrible under the communists. They are in fact being punished for losing the war and so are their families. I asked them if they blamed us for leaving them to face the communist forces on their own. They all said yes, they blamed the politicians who allowed that to happen, both theirs and ours, meaning mainly the Americans of course, but not the soldiers. They did not blame the soldiers. They all said that the only hope they had to remain free from communism was when we, meaning the USA armed forces and Australia and the other allies were there to help them.

Again, people of this country know none of this and it amazes me that a country can send the cream of its youth to fight in these places and yet the population can take so little interest in what they are doing.

SPRAYED AND BETRAYED

This is the frightening story of the damage that has already been done to Vietnam War veterans, To our children as well as to adults, by the irresponsible spraying of chemicals in Vietnam. It investigates the lack of care taken, the sloppy practices within the chemical industry, and the problems with successive governments in this country, to have them accept responsibility, because it is their responsibility! To provide health care for veterans and their families, and compensation for disabilities caused by exposure to the chemicals. It is also about the future damage to our health and that of our children, and perhaps even their children. These chemicals sit in your system and can be triggered by many things at any time. No one knows at this stage how long this can last or what problems can arise because of exposure to any one of these chemicals, let alone the cocktail of all of them mixed together.

More than three decades have now passed since the start of spraying in South Vietnam, and not much less than that since problems were first noticed with the Vietnamese as well as with the allies. We veterans have always known that there was a problem, but until the last couple of years, I do not think we really understood how far reaching these problems might be. The mortality studies of veterans over the years have pointed out that a problem exists. None of us however was ready for the figures that came out of the last study. Our children are innocent victims of all of this and by extension so are our wives. There can be no argument about it, we have been saying for years that we can see a health problem within our ranks and the Governments own study now reinforces that fact.

Many of the health effects are just now being felt. It seems no accident that we are currently seeing a great number of our veteran friends dying from a range of illnesses, predominately cancers, at a relatively young age, most in their 50's. It would be plausible and prudent to assume that the chemicals that played such a huge part in our lives is a very significant factor. Chemicals are the common denominator linking all veterans. All veterans who are ill seem to have the same problems whether we served in Saigon, Vung Tao, Nui Dat, Phan Rang, Da Nang, or indeed anywhere else in that country. It doesn't seem to matter whether you were in combat or safe in a base job, if you served in Vietnam during the war, chances are you have or will have some of the problems common to Vietnam veterans. The only common link between us all is chemicals; the stuff was sprayed all over the place and the spray drift took it in the wind.

The only people on this planet who have a problem accepting the facts and admitting that it is as probable as not that most of our problems come from our war service for this country are Governments and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

This whole subject has been argued about, written about, researched and debated, published in magazines and newspapers, talked about on radio and television. It has been the subject of documentaries, legal battles, and here in Australia a Royal Commission that lasted some two years and cost about 3.8 million dollars.

The Commissioner found that veterans are ill as a result of our service in Vietnam. His ultimate decision was that the illness was caused by stress, although cancer, from which some veterans are suffering, may result from chemicals to which veterans were exposed. That was back in 1985 and a finding after an inquiry, that chemicals did not cause present illness in veterans, was acceptable to some people. Personally, I thought the whole Commission was a joke. I was more naive then and it was my introduction to the real world of legal maneuvering and the dirty world of cover-ups, lies and deceit involving chemical companies.

Shortly after spraying began, Australian soldiers started to feel the effects. Of course we did not know anything about what was being sprayed and we were very young and trusting, we did not question why some of us were ill. We were fighting a war and there were many other things to worry about, and anyway we trusted the powers that be --- They wouldn’t spray any chemicals that were harmful to us, would they?

We were not warned that there was any danger, in fact, the subject was not ever talked about. The spraying was to control mosquitoes and vegetation so it sounded like a good idea to us. When you spend your days patrolling and ambushing, watching your every step and looking out for mines and booby traps and enemy troops, the spraying of chemicals is not a huge worry. We trusted others with those things.

We were not warned of any dangers. We were not warned that there was a danger in drinking the water, or eating the food, or breathing the fumes. We could smell the stuff at times and I can remember my eyes stinging from something from the sky but at the time, as I said, we had other things to worry about.

Despite glib assurances from our government, we have suffered an extraordinary rate of cancers and other illnesses that could only have been caused by chemical spraying; there is no other common factor that could explain these illnesses. Though the DVA and Government has insisted all along that there was little or no danger from these chemicals, I believe there is irrefutable evidence, which has only gradually come to light, that it is as likely as not that many Vietnam veterans and our children have suffered and-or died from heart disease, chronic respiratory distress, progressive muscular weakness, leukemia, prostate cancer, cancer of the colon, other cancers, motor neuron disease, cleft lip or palate, absent body parts, spina bifida and many more. Also PostTraumatic Stress Disorder and other mental disturbances have ruined many lives.

Most tragically of all, some veterans’ children have been born with physical and mental handicaps. Yet in spite of overwhelming evidence, the Veterans Affairs department has in many cases adamantly refused to admit there is any proof that these illnesses are service-related, the veterans and their widows and children have been consistently denied compensation. Of course, no individual case of leukemia or cancer or birth defect carries a label saying exactly what caused it. But the statistics, gathered by the veterans ourselves, show that the chemicals were as likely as not responsible.

With shocking callousness, DVA and Government have refused to accept that it is as likely as not, (and I keep saying that because it can never be proven 100% either way) that veterans illnesses and that of our children are probably linked to chemicals.

When we look at the degree of toxicity of dioxin, it amazes me that anyone would bother to do surveys and health studies trying to prove or disprove a link. This stuff is unbelievably deadly.

Think of dioxin this way; it is measured in parts per trillion. This can be compared to a teaspoon of salt mixed evenly through a dump truck full of sand. The extreme toxicity of dioxin makes even this amount a potentially lethal dose. It is the most potent cancer-causing agent known to man. The tiniest amount causes malignant tumors in animals. It is also a powerful teratogen, causing birth defects and reproductive toxicity such as stillbirths and miscarriages.

The sick part is, TCDD does not kill plants. It could have been removed from 245T without affecting its purpose. The manufacturer knew its extreme toxicity and the danger of using it, but TCDD was not removed from 245T because that would have increased production costs.

Dioxin is only one part of one agent though and I believe that the "Cocktail Effect" is the real worry. The mix of all the different chemicals, and there were fifteen of them used in Vietnam, is the real problem and the reason that no definite link can be found to any one of these chemicals.

Evidence is now in hand, from veterans, private citizens and independent researchers, some scientists and chemical experts, Greenpeace, and many other groups and individuals that the rates of infant mortality and cancer and leukemia and many other illnesses are much higher in any community that has come in touch with these chemicals.

I will say it again...The incidents of serious illness is higher in the Vietnam veteran community than in the rest of the population.

The government response has again been a condescending and blanket denial. Or, they say that their last study into the mortality of Vietnam veterans and our families has shown some cause for concern and that the figures must now be validated.

Spina Bifida in Vietnam veterans' children is one such example. Our government is still "looking at it" and yet The United States accepted Spina Bifida in Vietnam veterans children as war caused in 1996 and pay them compensation and other benefits because of it.

The governments own record of health studies has been stained with serious scandal and obvious cover-up. Here are some examples of the things that went on during the Royal Commission. Taken from the VVAA's answer to the Royal Commissioner's report.

" 'C' Company 5 RAR was one of the units directly sprayed by Agent Orange and the herbicide positively identified. The Commissioner said: -

"It is significant to note that no member of "C" Company 5 RAR was called as a witness at the health effects hearing of the Commission. If the health effects alleged to arise from minimal exposure do, in fact arise, then this group, representing the best instance of direct aerial exposure, would be expected to be amongst those suffering adverse health consequences. The failure of the VVAA to call any member of this group is telling."

The last comment ignores the Commissioner's refusal to allow the VVAA to call a large number of witnesses and that the ten witnesses called at the health effects hearing were chosen by agreement between counsel assisting the Commissioner and VVAA counsel.

The suggestion that none of "C" Company were ill after the spraying is just wrong. A report by a Major Tripp shows that this particular spraying effected troops. This is typical of the carelessness with which the report was prepared.

However, it is absolutely astonishing that the Commissioner made no effort to follow up the health effects of this known spraying which involved about 120 men. Indeed the failure to find out what really happened to exposed troops afterwards is indicative of the lack of skill shown and indeed ordinary commonsense in directing the Commission and in compilation of the report.

Instead of concerning itself with what really happened, the Commissioner relied upon hypothetical models of exposed soldiers. Models were used to show how much dioxin a soldier in Vietnam could absorb. A Dr. Poiger is relied upon.

Unfortunately for the credibility of the report when Dr. Poiger's evidence is checked, we find that his experience related to direct application of dioxin to internal organs of dogs and to applications to the skin of hairless rats. He opined that human skin absorption would be about the same as hairless rats.

I could go on and on, page by page, about the contradictions, the mistakes, the misquotations, the errors, but this sort of thing occurs so frequently that it would take months."

Indeed, there are so many errors in the Royal Commission that the President of the VVAA at the time, the late Phill Thompson, commented that the report deserved a mention in the Guinness Book of Records.

The whole Royal Commission was a pathetic joke. It was proven beyond any doubt that the Department of Veterans Affairs conduct toward some veterans had in fact been life threatening, and that they had altered documents to cover that conduct. There was also evidence that veterans had died, but probably would not have, if the Medical Officers of the Department had been more active.

It is beyond my comprehension that Justice Evatt was not more concerned about this conduct...surely it is illegal, and immoral, and hardly in the spirit of a "fair go".

Where the Department of Veterans Affairs was caught altering veteran's documents, Justice Evatt said, (and it is in the report (Vol.7, p. XIV-227)

"The Commission notes that DVA frankly disclosed the falsification of the records. This is typical of the open way which DVA has accepted the investigations by this Commission."

What the Commissioner did not say was that the veteran took copies of his files before the falsification took place...the DVA was caught out by documents showing the falsification. Nevertheless, the good Justice Evatt seemed to believe that admission of guilt excuses the conduct.

That whole Royal Commission was a travesty and any government worth its salt would overturn the thing. Surely, it is an embarrassment for any person with any brain at all, to be associated with such a sick document. A whole body of expert medical and scientific evidence was ignored...Indeed evidence which showed chemicals to be harmless, was all that was accepted.

During the Royal Commission John Evans, a scientific adviser and consultant chemist advised the VVAA. A former employee of the CSIRO, Evans provided a written statement and testified before two of the senate hearings. It does not surprise me that this man has been attacked personally and his credibility questioned by the DVA and the Departments of Health and Defence. Evans said, every Australian soldier who served in Vietnam was exposed to chemicals, whether directly from aerial and ground spraying, or from drift, or through contamination of water and food chains.

He pointed out that many of the pesticides used in Vietnam were already known to be hazardous, and that the Australian Government should have taken precautions to protect Australian troops.

We veterans have been trying for years to make the point that the term "Agent Orange" does not refer to one chemical. The press and the DVA would have people believe that is the case because all they ever refer to is "Agent Orange". The daily press and releases from the DVA constantly put out that herbicide Orange was the only hazardous chemical used in Vietnam. This is not the case of course and again John Evans told the senate hearings about the known effects of cacodylic acid (Agent Blue) and the extensive scientific literature implicating 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D with cancer and other disorders. Evans also gave evidence on Malathion, which had been accorded little importance in depositions from the DVA and the Department of Health. Evans told of cases in which Malathion had been shown to cause damage to the central nervous system. The symptoms associated with this little beauty are dizziness, nausea, weight loss and depression, all of which are common amongst Vietnam veterans.

It comes as no surprise to hear that Senator Jessop criticized Evans for implying that the Senate committee had been preoccupied with the use of Agent Orange and had ignored the wide range of other chemicals used in Vietnam.

A close reading of the transcript of the hearings, does without doubt, justify Evans claim.

I could write about the lousy treatment we have received at the hands of Government and DVA for months but no one outside the veteran community seems to give a damn.

As early as 1961, long before the large-scale use of troops, American military planners were experimenting with herbicides for a large-scale defoliation campaign.

Once America, Australia, and the other allies became directly involved in the war, the defoliation campaign was dramatically stepped up, reaching its peak between 1965 and 1967. At the same time, the herbicides, especially 245-T, had been coming under increased criticism in the United States. The first reports of birth defects and abnormalities in Vietnamese children born in areas that had been sprayed began appearing in 1965.

We are still here. We are still fighting and we will not go away.

Why wont government live up to their responsibility and just admit the mistakes of the past? And why won't DVA live up to their charter? Have the employees of DVA even read their charter? I doubt it.

I will finish this chapter by quoting an old mate of mine, Phillip Thompson. O.A.M. "At times it was easier fighting the N.V.A. at Fire Support Base Coral, at least you knew who the enemy were."

Phillip Thompson committed suicide on 22nd November 1986, after a long, hard and tiring fight leading the Veterans during the Royal Commission.

We Vietnam veterans are still fighting the war. This is just another firefight. One by one Vietnam veterans are being cut down. The difference between this firefight and all the others is that these bullets were fired two to three decades ago.

Now after about thirty years of denial, the courts and the scientific community are beginning to recognize the deadly nature of DIOXIN found in Agent Orange.

Civilian victims, that is civilian victims in the United States, have filed lawsuits for damages caused by the chemical and have won substantial judgements. The courts have agreed that there is a link between their exposure to dioxin and subsequent illnesses.

Vietnam veterans, in the United States and here in Australia still receive nothing, not even recognition that we were poisoned.

The story of dioxin is a complex one, it includes cover-ups, lies, deceit, data manipulation by corporations and governments, and fraudulent claims and faked studies.

For the Vietnam veteran it is a story of pain, suffering, anger, betrayal and rage; of birth defects, cancer and many uncertainties about health problems for our families and us.

"In 1949, an explosion at the Monsanto chemical plant in Nitro, West Virginia, exposed many workers to the Dioxin contaminated herbicide 2,4,5-T. Thirty years later, Monsanto scientists and an independent researcher, Dr Raymond Suskind, compared death rates among workers they said had been exposed, to the death rates of workers who were not exposed. When no differences between the groups were found, Monsanto claimed that Dioxin did not cause cancer and that there were no long term effects from Dioxin exposure (Zack and Suskind, 1980).

Monsanto released additional studies from 1980 to 1984 showing no adverse health effects, other than chloracne in workers exposed in the 1949 accident.

Evidence of inaccuracies in both the Monsanto and BASF studies was first revealed during the Kemner vs. Monsanto trial, in which a group of citizens in Sturgeon, Missouri, sued Monsanto for injuries suffered during a chemical spill caused by a train derailment in 1979.

While reviewing documents obtained from Monsanto during discovery, lawyers for the victims noticed that in one of the Monsanto studies, certain people were classified as Dioxin exposed, while in a later study, the same people were classified as not exposed (Hay, 1992).

These documents revealed that Monsanto scientists omitted five deaths from the dioxin exposed and put them in the unexposed group. Based on this misclassification of data, the researchers concluded that there was no relation between dioxin exposure and cancer in humans (kemner, 1989).

In truth, the death rate in the dioxin exposed group of Nitro workers was 65% higher than expected, with death rate from certain diseases (such as lung, genitourinary, bladder and lymphatic cancers, and heart disease) showing large increases (Kemner, 1989.)

Another Suskind study did not look at an original group of workers known to be dioxin exposed, but instead looked at hundreds of Monsanto workers at the Nitro facility. Some of the same classification sleight of hand was performed in this study.

Again, documents uncovered in Kemner vs. Monsanto showed that in fact there were 28 cancer cases in the exposed worker group and only two in the unexposed group. Suskind however reported finding only 14 cancers in the exposed workers group, compared to six in the unexposed group.

Suskind also examined a group of 37 exposed Monsanto workers during the four-year period following the 1949 accident. Medical documents obtained by Greenpeace from the Sloan-Kettering institute in Cincinnati, Ohio, where Suskind worked, showed that workers suffered "aches, pain, fatigue, nervousness, loss of libido, irritability, and other symptoms, active skin lesions, and definite patterns of psychological disorders." All but one of the 37 workers had developed chloracne, a severe skin condition. But in a report to Monsanto at the time, Suskind concluded, without further explanation, that his "findings were limited to the skin;" in other words, all other health effects of dioxin exposure besides chloracne, were not reported (Greenpeace, 1994). Out of these studies grew the industry claim that chloracne is the only long-term effect of dioxin exposure.

Dow chemical company produced the herbicides 2,4,5T and 2,4D, Agent Orange, the defoliant that was sprayed on the jungles of Vietnam. Both herbicides are contaminated with dioxin during the manufacturing process."

So, there is no longer any credible argument that dioxin is not a deadly chemical, and as I have pointed out there is plenty of evidence as to the credibility of the chemical companies involved.

We should not have to prove anything against chemical companies who have been shown to be less than honest when it comes to testing for health effects from the products that they sell.

There are many other examples of criminal behavior and criminal cover up of dioxin contamination, and falsification of dioxin health studies.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency in Washington D.C. (EPA) has prosecuted Monsanto for a long pattern of fraud concerning dioxin. As I keep saying there is no longer any doubt that dioxin is deadly, that it causes all sorts of illness, or that it can be passed from generation to generation.

Because of all the lying and cheating, falsifying and altering documents and samples, dioxin has been given a lesser carcinogenic potential ranking.

This is the single biggest obstacle and the basis for denying compensation to Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange and our children suffering birth defects from that parental exposure.

THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT and AGENT ORANGE

The Agent Orange issue first broke in the Australian press in 1979, the Australian government quickly denied that Australian troops had ever used or come into contact with Agent Orange.

Vietnam veterans all over the country laughed at that and yelled that we were exposed to herbicides and pesticides on a daily basis during tours of duty. It was in the air, in the water we drank and showered in, in the food we ate and in the bush we patrolled and fought in.

Veterans knew that some of us were sick from the chemical, some had already died, and more were sick and dying. The more we veterans complained the more the officials denied.

This sort of action of course reveals completely the perceptions and mentality of those people and departments and goes a long way towards explaining their subsequent treatment (or mistreatment) of Vietnam veterans.

The health of Vietnam veterans was first raised in Parliament on 23rd November 1978. Labor member John Kerin asked Minister for Defence, Killen, how many veterans had been affected by exposure to Agent Orange whilst serving in Vietnam; what evidence was there of sterility or skin cancers, and would the government conduct a special inquiry into the matter. The minister answered that there were no recorded cases of Australian troops having come into contact with Agent Orange and no veteran had at that time made any claim for compensation. Furthermore the Australian Defence Force did not use Agent Orange in Vietnam.

This exchange took place thirteen months after the Agent Orange issue had been first publicized in the US daily press.

In a question to the Minister for Veterans Affairs, Senator Mason asked if there was any evidence of illness among veterans exposed to 2,4,5-T, a major component of Agent Orange, and if there was any evidence of birth defects among their children. The minister denied any knowledge of any illness or defects.

On 28th March 1980 John Kerrin again raised the issue of herbicides and made reference to tests on chemicals that had been carried out by scientists at Nui Dat. The Minister, Killen, replied that for all he knew or cared the chemicals concerned - Reglone, Hyvar, Gramaxone, and Tordon could have been racehorses. The Prime Minister supported Killen and repeated his claim that the use of herbicides in Vietnam had been "responsible and sensible."

Veterans continued to get sick, and newspapers carried story after story of sick veterans. Still Fraser and Killen continued to deny any use of Agent Orange.

Personally I don't care which chemical or chemicals or mixture of has done the damage, but it is obvious now to me and should be to everyone that veterans and their families are suffering from illnesses because of our service in Vietnam. It needs to be fixed.

Veterans gave their stories to the newspapers and to a Senate hearing and these stories formed a picture that Chemical spraying was a part of every day life at Nui Dat and at Vung Tau.

Veterans recalled becoming ill after exposure but we were at war and these (at the time) symptoms were not a real cause for worry when you put your life on the line every day. Besides, we trusted the government, they wouldn't allow any spraying that was bad for our health.... Would they ??

The Department of Veterans Affairs physicians showed a complete lack of interest in these stories and depositions by veterans. By its own admission, they had been monitoring the Agent Orange issue in the US long before it came to any ones attention in Australia.

What the hell was wrong with our Department of Veterans Affairs, isn't their charter to look after us, the veterans. If they didn't believe us then they were in fact calling us liars.

They WERE told about the drenching with chemicals and they WERE told about the illnesses that began immediately after the spraying of chemicals.

Several veterans went to the Department of Veterans Affairs with chloracne, a classic symptom of exposure to Dioxin, (TCDD) and yet not once did a doctor from the Department of Veterans Affairs ever suggest to those veterans that they might have that condition as a consequence of exposure to herbicides.

They can't have it both ways. They were either all stupid or they were treating us with contempt.

Either way the Department of Veterans Affairs have a lot to answer for.

The veteran community has been very patient. We have conducted our fight with the Department in a proper and legal way. We fought a Royal Commission to prove our case and had to put up with unbelievable treatment bordering on contempt from the Commission.

The fight is over now though surely? There is no longer any doubt that we were sprayed by all sorts of dangerous chemicals, the most toxic of them being DIOXIN, the most lethal known to man.

There is no longer any doubt that we are sick as a result of this spraying or that our children are sick and could get sicker from the same chemicals. Surely we can now all get together and work towards fixing the problem. Especially with the children and wives.

We Vietnam veterans are patriots, we were then and we are now. We are not looking for people to blame. We fought for our country. We love this country and I would do it again. We simply want a wrong righted, and all those who need treatment or incomes because of war caused illness looked after without having to beg for it, or jump through hoops for years while getting sicker, or dying, or committing suicide.

US DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

US Department of Veterans Affairs

Report

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

ON THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS

AND EXPOSURE TO AGENT ORANGE

CLASSIFIED

CONFIDENTIAL STATUS (1)

As Reported by Special Assistant

Admiral E.R. Zumwalt, Jr.

May 5, 1990

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

1. INTRODUCTION

On October 6, 1989 I was appointed as special assistant to Secretary Derwinski of the Department of Veterans Affairs to assist the Secretary in determining whether it is at least as likely as not that there is a statistical association between exposure to Agent Orange and a specific adverse health effect.

As special assistant, I was entrusted with evaluating the numerous data relevant to the statistical association between exposure to Agent Orange and the specific adverse health effects manifested by veterans who saw active duty in Vietnam. Such evaluations were made in accordance with the standards set forth in Public Law 98-542, the Veterans’ Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act and 38 C.F.R. 1.17, regulations of the Department of Veterans Affairs concerning the evaluation of studies relating to health effects of dioxin and radiation exposure.

Consistent with my responsibilities as special assistant, I reviewed and evaluated the work of the Scientific Council of the Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards and commissioned independent scientific experts to assist me in evaluating the validity of numerous human and animal studies on the effects of exposure to Agent Orange and/or exposure to herbicides containing 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD or dioxin). In addition, I reviewed and evaluated the protocol and standards employed by government sponsored studies

2

to assess such studies’ credibility, fairness and consistency with generally accepted scientific practices.

After reviewing the scientific literature related to the health effects of Vietnam Veterans exposed to Agent Orange as well as other studies concerning the health hazards of civilian exposure to dioxin contaminants, I conclude that there is adequate evidence for the Secretary to reasonably conclude that it is at least as likely as not that there is a relationship between exposure to Agent Orange and the following health problems: non—Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chloracne and other skin disorders, lip cancer, bone cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, birth defects, skin cancer, porphyria cutanea tarda and other liver disorders, Hodgkin’s disease, hematopoietic diseases, multiple myeloma, neurological defects, auto—immune diseases and disorders, leukemia, lung cancer, kidney cancer, malignant melanoma, pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, colon cancer, nasal/pharyngeal/esophageal cancers, prostate cancer, testicular cancer, liver cancer, brain cancer, psychosocial effects and gastrointestinal diseases.

I further conclude that the Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards has not acted with impartiality in its review and assessment of the scientific evidence related to the association of adverse health effects and exposure to Agent Orange.

In addition to providing evidence in support of the conclusions stated above, this report provides the Secretary with

3

A review of the scientific, political and legal efforts that have occurred over the last decade to establish that Vietnam Veterans who have been exposed to Agent Orange are in fact entitled to compensation for various illnesses as service-related injuries.

II. AGENT ORANGE USAGE IN VIETNAM

Agent Orange was a 50:50 mixture of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. The latter component, 2,4,5-T, was found to contain the contaminant TCDD or 2,3,7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (i.e. dioxin), which is regarded as one of the most toxic chemicals known to man.1

From 1962 to 1971 the United States military sprayed the herbicide Agent Orange to accomplish the following objectives: 1)

______________________

1 See CDC Protocol for Epidemiologic Studies on the Health of Vietnam Veterans (November, 1983), p. 4 ( The CDC Protocol also contains a literature review as of 1983 of the health effects on animals and humans exposed to herbicides and dioxin, pp. 63-78. The literature review documents health problems such as chloracne, immunological suppression, neurological and psychological effects, reproductive problems such as birth defects, carcinogenic effects such as soft tissue sarcomas, lymphomas and thyroid tumors, and various gastrointestinal disorders) ; See also General Accounting Office, "Report by the Comptroller General: Health Effects of Exposure to Herbicide Orange in South Vietnam Should Be Resolved," GAO-CED-79-22 at 2 (April 6, 1979) (hereinafter GAO Report, 1979).

Dioxin is a family of chemicals (75 in all) that does not occur naturally, nor is it intentionally manufactured by any industry. The most toxic dioxin is called 2,3,7,8 — TCDD. Dioxins are produced as byproducts of the manufacture of some herbicides ( for example, 2,4, 5—T), wood preservatives made from trichlorophenals, and some germicides. Dioxins are also produced by the manufacture of pulp and paper, by the combustion of wood in the presence of chlorine, by fires involving chlorinated benzenes and biphenyls (e.g. PCBs), by the exhaust of automobiles burning leaded fuel, and by municipal solid waste incinerators

4

defoliate jungle terrain to improve observation and prevent enemy ambush; 2) destroy food crops; and 3) clear Vegetation around military installations, landing zones, fire base camps, and trails 2

Unlike civilian applications of the components contained in Agent Orange which are diluted in oil and water, Agent Orange was sprayed undiluted in Vietnam. Military applications were sprayed at the rate of approximately 3 gallons per acre and contained approximately 12 pounds of 2,4-D and 13.8 pounds of 2,4,5-T.3

Although the military dispensed Agent Orange in concentrations 6 to 25 times the manufacturer’s suggested rate, "at that time the Department of Defense (DOD) did not consider herbicide orange toxic or dangerous to humans and took few precautions to prevent exposure to it."’ Yet, evidence readily suggests that at the time of its use experts knew that Agent Orange was harmful to military personnel.

PRESUMPTIONS OF AGENT ORANGE RELATED HEALTH EFFECTS

I have also given considerable thought to which health effects are to be presumed likelier than not to be related to TCDD exposure and therefore service—connected. Any such determination must be made in light of: 1) the review of the scientific literature, including animal studies where human data does not exist or has been manipulated; 2) the inappropriate processes of the Veterans Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards; 3) the past political manipulations of Ranch Hand and CDC studies; and 4) the recent discoveries of manipulation by scientists hired by chemical manufacturers of dioxin contaminants to evaluate the potentially best epidemiological data concerning TCDD’s effects on humans.

My evaluation of the evidence has been made with just such

52

considerations in mind. Additionally, I have conferred with several experts in the field. After evaluating all the evidence and material of record, I am convinced that there is better than "an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence" on a series of Agent Orange related health effects.

It can, in my judgment, be concluded, vith a very high degree of confidence, that it is at least as likely as not that the following are caused in humans by exposure to TCDD: non—Hodgkin’ s lymphoma, chloracne and other skin disorders, lip cancer, bone cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, birth defects, skin cancer, lung cancer, porphyria cutanea tarda and other liver disorders, Hodgkin’s disease, hematopoietic diseases, multiple myeloma, neurological defects and auto—immune diseases and disorders.

In addition, I am most comfortable in concluding that it is at least as likely as not that liver cancer, nasal/pharyngeal/esophageal cancers, leukemia, malignant melanoma, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, brain cancer, psychosocial effects, and gastrointestinal disease are service-- connected.

I have separated the two foregoing subsets subjectively only because there is somewhat more data to support the former than the latter. Nonetheless, immunological and toxicological theory supports both subsets and fully justifies, in my view, the inclusion of both subsets of the foregoing health effects in determining a service--connected injury.

53

Such a resolution of the embarrassingly prolonged Agent Orange controversy would be on the order of decisions to compensate U.S. soldiers who contracted cancer after exposure to radiation from atomic tests and U.S. soldiers involved, without their knowledge, in LSD experiments. With the scientific basis now available for it to be stated with confidence that it is at least as likely as not that various health effects are related to wartime exposure to Agent Orange, there is the opportunity finally to right a significant national wrong committed against our Vietnam Veterans.

RECOMENDATIONS

1. That the Secretary undertake a prompt reevaluation of the compensation decision impacting on Vietnam Veterans exposed to Agent Orange in light of accumulating scientific evidence that discredits earlier "findings" of an insufficient linkage between dioxin contaminants in Agent Orange and rare disease, such as cancer illnesses.

2. To the extent that the Secretary deems it necessary to use the Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards to assist in his reevaluation, the current members should be dismissed -— having demonstrated a disturbing bias in their review to date of the scientific literature related to Agent Orange and dioxin -- and new members should be appointed in accordance with Section G of the Veterans’ Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act, including persons with recognized scientific and medical expertise in fields pertinent

54

to understanding the health effects of exposure to dioxin. The Committee meeting currently scheduled for May 16th and May 17th should be cancelled.

3. That the Secretary in making his decision regarding Agent Orange compensation for Vietnam Veterans do so on the basis of his independent evaluation of the existing scientific and medical evidence on the health effects of exposure to dioxins, as cataloged and discussed in this Report, and in full recognition that the standard to be applied -- as mandated by both Congress and the courts -- requires the resolution of doubts as to a number of cancers linked to dioxins in favor of the Vietnam Veterans.

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

Appendix : The full report is available as Appendix A to this book. I have put it there because it is hard reading and some pieces are missing. It does though give the details of all the information behind the Admirals report and will be interesting to some people.

TREATMENT OF VIETNAM VETERANS AND FAMILIES BY SUCCESSIVE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS

Government is hooked on denying responsibility, and designer victimology, but fails to notice the real victims: in this case the entire Vietnam veteran community and our next generations. I fear that, over time, their tricks will be seen as uncontested fact, because so many politicians and public servants are afraid to search for solutions that are more creative and constructive than the typically narrow minded denials and closed-minded attitudes to a solution to the problems, for fear of having to accept responsibility, or having to admit a mistake.

There are two points we need to make here:

ONE:

The outcome of the struggle for Vietnam veterans to receive Gold Card medical treatment for the wives and children of veterans with accepted disabilities, will ultimately be decided by people of influence who are in no way fully informed about the problems we veterans face and who seem to think they are doing us a favor by looking at it at all.

TWO:

Those of us who have to deal with the victims of their inaction and in some cases their downright neglect and obstructionism don't find the governments, or DVA's, lack of understanding or assistance or even their doing their job as laid out in their own charter at all humorous.

Because of successive Australian Governments attitudes we find ourselves arguing that to ignore or stall or ask for more evidence on this issue is cruel in the extreme and amounts to nothing short of neglect. Governments should try being a little more open minded!

Governments' belief is that those rights and protections that we fought for, and that give us voice in a democratic society, are not really to be used against them, and that we should toe the Government line. In many ways the Government and DVA use the democratic process against us instead of looking at things from our point of view and helping instead of hindering us, the former Armed Forces of this nation.

What is this stupid fascination Governments have with delaying and obstructing? We certainly can't understand it. We sometimes joke about how we are in for another long hard battle against the ostentatious windbags. But seriously, it is getting out of hand and Governments seem to have an almost mystical faith in obstructionism!

We Vietnam veterans believe that we must all work together to solve the health problems faced by our families and us. We also believe that Government could do a lot more to help us.

We must not hold only Government accountable, for The DVA is the Department with the charter to look after the interests of Veterans and they are not always seen to do that. They accept the government line whatever it is without question.

We may very well ask why DVA does not question whether some of Governments solutions are seriously flawed, fail to meet minimal standards, and, on balance, are unfair?

We have a right, an indisputable, inalienable right, to expect the Government and DVA to work with us to solve the problems that were caused by our war service for this nation. There is evidence of cover-ups, obstruction, and denial upon denial of responsibility, even falsification of documents by DVA during the Royal Commission, amongst other underhanded tricks being used against us. All that is needed is a fair-dinkum look at our health needs and acceptance of the more than adequate evidence available all around the world of the damage done by the chemicals that we are saying poisoned us veterans, and emerging evidence that our families are now suffering because of that.

Over the years we Vietnam veterans have been tagged with names we don't deserve, "baby killers, murderers, wingers", and many others that wont be mentioned here. We have put up with that and continued on in a lawful way to put our case for medical treatment, pensions etc. We have been fighting for these things now for about thirty years so no-one can say we are not in for the long haul, or that we are only stirrers trying to hurt government.

The truth is that Governments have no moral qualities whatsoever if they don't now look at this whole problem from a humanitarian angle and not from the nations wallet or by putting us in with social security recipients and treating us as welfare cases. We are not!! We are War Veterans and deserve to be treated with respect by the so-called servants of the people, politicians and bureaucrats alike.

The Ranch Hand study has been used to discount any connection between Agent Orange and health problems in Vietnam veterans and our children. But a six-month investigation by the San Diego Union - Tribune has revealed such glaring flaws in the study that it may be useless.

"The study is named for Operation Ranch hand, a series of Air Force missions that were responsible for spraying 18 million gallons of Agent Orange, a herbicide that was used to defoliate over 3.6 million acres of South Vietnam. The Ranch Hand study has tracked the health of about 1000 veterans who directly participated in the spray missions. This group has been compared with an Air Force group that was not involved in the spraying. Both groups come to San Diego for medical exams every few years.

The study has been a key factor in determining compensation for Vietnam veterans who are suffering from illnesses they believe are connected to Agent Orange.

Reporters for the Union -Tribune conducted interviews with military scientists and reviewed transcripts of meetings, government reports and internal memos that revealed major flaws in the ranch Hand study. Their findings include:

• A report expressing concerns about links to cancer and birth defects was altered to make the risks seem less serious.

• Two study reports revealing serious birth defects among the children of veterans were withheld for years.

• The government ignored a National Academy of Sciences recommendation that the study be done by independent scientists outside the military.

• High-ranking Air Force officers interfered with the study’s data analysis, undermining its integrity.

• The Air Force stonewalled a U.S. Senator who wanted full disclosure of the data.

Richard Albanese, one of four scientists, who designed the study and was later taken off the project, said that it was manipulated to downplay health problems of Vietnam veterans. "This is a medical crime, basically," Albanese said. "Certainly this is against all medical ethics."

Albanese said the study was tainted because a government agency, the Air Force, was allowed to investigate itself.

In 1984, the Air Force scientists drafted two major Ranch Hand reports. One was withheld and the other was published, but only after its findings were altered.

The report that was withheld showed high rates of birth defects and infant deaths in the children of ranch hand veterans. The original version of the Air Force report said that ranch hand veterans reported significantly more birth defects amongst their children than did other veterans.

After the White House panels advisory committee reviewed the report, those details were downplayed or eliminated. The committee recommended omitting the birth defects table; softening the birth defects language and dropping a sentence that said that Agent Orange might have harmed Ranch Hand veterans.

A sentence that said some of the findings "were of concern" was also eliminated. Instead, a line was added saying the overall findings were reassuring.

Other discrepancies were found in the reporting of cancers. A high skin cancer rate in the veterans was attributed to overexposure to the sun and these cancers were not added to the overall rate of cancers.

Although Albanese considered going public with his misgivings about the Ranch Hand study years ago, he decided against it because he didn’t want to jeopardize his career as a government scientist. Because of the flaws in the Ranch Hand Study, Albanese said, "Vietnam veterans have not received the compensation they deserve."

Compiled from a Special Report by Clark Brooks, Staff Writer for The San Diego Union-Tribune. The entire article may be found in the archives of the San Diego Union-Tribune on their web site at www.uniontrib.com .

So this is another example of the lies, deceit and cover-ups that are thrown in our way. What are we to do? Who do we have to turn to for the justice that we deserve?

It can’t be that everyone wants to cover this thing up surely. The original plan was a good one. Defoliate the enemy trails and their hideouts, deny them the cover they needed and destroy the crops that fed them. I don’t think that any of the forces have a problem with that, but since it became obvious that the chemicals were harming friendlies as well as the enemy why not just stop it and treat the friendlies, and that is what we are. We are not the enemy, we are the former armed forces of our respective countries and we expect better treatment than we have had.

Brief History of Agent Orange

• In the early years of W.W.II, a grant was provided by the National Research Council to develop a chemical to destroy rice crops in Japan (the major food source). 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T (Agent Orange) was the result. A discussion between President Roosevelt and White House Chief of Staff, Admiral William D. Leahy determined that this heinous chemical should not be used. Agent Orange was not used during WWII.

• In 1961, President Kennedy signed two orders allowing Agent Orange to be used in Vietnam. One order to destroy crops, and another order to defoliate the jungle. [This was prior to major U.S. intervention.] Agent Orange and other herbicides were used extensively through 1970 (and thereafter until the end of the war).

• A class action suit against seven chemical companies (Dow Chemical, Monsanto, Uniroyal, Hercules, Diamond Shamrock, Thompson Chemical, and T.H. Agriculture) was settled out of court in May 1984 for victims and families of those exposed to herbicides for $180,000,000 (the lawyers got a staggering 100 million dollars).

The Royal Commission into the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam took about two years and cost some 3.8 million dollars.

The Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia was not happy with the report and personally, I do not believe that any thinking person could have been.

The VVAA answered it this way. "Upon issue it immediately became apparent that the report was not the usual sober document which has come to be expected from Royal Commissions particularly when the Commissioner is a member of the judiciary. Even at first glance it is apparent that the report is shallow, expressed in extravagent terms and is in fact unhelpful to Vietnam veterans, Scientists, Lawyers and to others that argue that chemicals did or could have caused illness in Vietnam veterans. The report suggests that chemicals used in Vietnam are harmless; that this good news should be shouted from the rooftops and that a further $40,000.00 of taxpayers money should be made available to sell this claim around Australia.

One assumes that the Commissioner and council assisting proposed to move around the countryside shouting the good news from the rooftops.

All of this of course is quite absurd. An enquiry properly carried out and carefully reported needs no selling, it would speak for itself."

The report is full of contradictions, it states that veterans are ill, that we were exposed to chemicals and even makes recommendations for safe use of these chemicals in future (bearing in mind what happened in Vietnam) but says they had no effect on veterans.

So the Commission formed the view that Agent Orange can be harmful to human health (See Vol.2,p.v-19) but accepted that it didn’t harm veterans.

Apart from one epidemiologist in Australia and one in the United States all witnesses called by the commission as its own witnesses were called to prove chemicals harmless. In one instance, a Dr. Hay, a world authority on dioxin, was approached in England by Mr. Ellis a junior barrister. When Dr. Hay said that in his view dioxin was a dangerous substance, he was informed that he would not be required.

Ultimately, Dr. Hay was called at the insistance of the VVAA. Meanwhile Mr. Ellis managed to find another witness, Dr. Aldridge, who was of the opinion that chemicals of the type used in Vietnam were fairly harmless.

The transcript also shows that when witnesses were called at the insistence of the VVAA, Senior Counsel assisting the Commission attacked them in cross-examination in an endeavour to break down the evidence given by them.

Although this approach was singularly lacking in success, it is in marked contrast with his approach to witnesses called by Monsanto.

Those witnesses who were called at the insistence of the VVAA were denigrated whilst witnesses who took the opposite view were said to be "eminent".

The medical and scientific witnesses were handled in such a way that a conclusion was reached that veterans were not and presumably could not have been harmed by chemicals used in Vietnam.

Dr. Shearer gave evidence concerning the effects of 2,4,5 -T and 2,4 - D and other chemicals upon humans. Justice Evatt said at Vol 4 p. V111-290:- (Commissioners report)

"Her training was as a nurse. Her evidence was based on a literature research only. She has no personal experience in any of the relevant chemicals but claimed experience in genetic toxicology. Any experience in pharmacology was retricted to that gained during her nursing training.

Her expertise, by comparison with the toxicologists truly expert in the field is negligible."

From what Justice Evatt says you would think Dr. Shearer has trained as a nurse and is a self styled expert in genetic toxicology.

What Justice Evatt doesn’t say is that after obtaining her primary degree, a B.Sc in Nursing, Dr. Shearer then obtained an M.Sc in Genetics (1966); Ph.d in Genetics (1969) and subsequently was a Post Doctoral Fellow in Pathology, University of washington, Seattle.

She has researched carcinogenics by chemicals, virus and radiation; molecular mechanisms of normal genes and effects of gene reputation during development.

She has been head of the Department of Molecular Biology, Research Foundation, Seattle, Washington: Program Director for Cancer Research, Issaquah Health Research Institute.

In addition she has published as author or co-author some 18 publications. She has served on numerous scientific and semi governmental bodies as a scientist.

Dr. Shearer has served and still works as an independent consultant to members in the medical profession in the United States for people poisoned by 2,4 - D.

Yet, Justice Evatt plays down her qualifications to the extent of suggesting that she is no more than a nurse.

Compare Dr. Shearer’s treatment with Dr. Brusick who is described in the report as a "most eminent genetic toxicologist".

His Curriculum Vitae is similar to Dr. Shearer - B.Sc., M.Sc and Ph.D with some postgraduate and teaching experience. However, Dr. Brusick claims to be a vice-president of the Molecular Science Directorate and a Director of Biological Safety Evaluation Division in Litton Bionetics Icorporated. (Sounds very impressive)

In cross-examination by senior counsel from VVAA, it is learned that Litton Bionetics is a private company which is employed by (and these are Dr Brusicks own words) virtually every chemical company in the United States and probably all the major chemical companies in Europe". He is engaged as a witness in litigation for chemical companies and was unable to recall ever giving evidence against a chemical company.

It should have been obvious to the Commissioner and Counsel assisting that if this witness gave evidence unfavourable to chemical companies, his livelihood might well disappear.

The treatment of Dr. Shearer compared with Dr. Brusick is just one instance of the total lack of even-handedness in the treatment of witnesses and which view they supported.

It is incredible that the commission would use its time and funds to bring out a witness who is little more than a chemical company employee, use his evidence and describe the witness as an "eminent scientist".

More confusing still is, as Justice Evatt must have been well aware Dr. Brusick studied under a Professor Marvin Legator. Professor Legator does not work for chemical companies only, he is independent. He is often called as a witness in the United States of America to contradict Dr. Brusick and with a good deal of success it seems. Whilst Professor Legator may not have been able to come to Australia, it is quite astonishing that there is no reference in the report to Justice Evatt or his staff interviewing or attempting to interview the Professor in the United States of America.

Since the Commission called Dr. Brusick, the failure to attempt to hear the contrary evidence is quite astonishing in this type of enquiry.

This is not the only instance of the uneven view of the evidence as described in the report. Dr Sildergeld is the senior scientist and chairperson of the toxic chemical program of the prestigeous Environmental Defence Fund. Her qualifications and experience are very impressive. She gave evidence of her expertise and opinions.

A look at the transcript shows that her evidence was not shaken in cross examination despite a carefully researched and thoughly prepared attack upon her evidence by the Monsanto representative. The opinion of people who heard her evidence was that she was an extremely impressive witness.

Notwithstanding this, she is described at Vol 4, p. V111-264:-

"…an admitted role as advocate rather than detached scientist, her evasions and lack of frankness, her broad assertions unsupported by authority and her highly coloured exaggerations have been noted by the Commissioner."

A fair reading of the transcripts do not show the things the Commissioner noted.

Dr. Silderberg of course said that the chemicals were harmful.

It is instructive to note the Commissioner’s reference Vol. 4, p V111-264/265. This was evidence in chief led by counsel for the VVAA (Transcript 5573 and sec.). What Dr. Silderberg said was that the scientific work she relied upon said dioxin was a complete carcinogen. She said that the actual words "complete carcinogen" may not have been used; the words used may have been "initiator" and "promoter" which together mean "complete carcinogen". It is for this she is taken to task. It is difficult to believe that the report could be so petty and indeed leads to speculation that the report was published in the belief that noone would read the evidence given and compare it with the report. One can only wonder that Justice Evatt was unable to find any valid ground for criticism and so resorted to a play on words.

The Monsanto submissions suggested this was the way of disposing of her evidence, and the Commissioner was only too ready to adopt Monsanto’s suggestion.

It is surprising that Dr. Brusick is not an advocate but Dr. Silderberg is. It is even more surprising that if she is of the view that chemicals are harmful, she should be decried because she advocates care in dispersal and handling of these chemicals.

The report contains conclusions repeatedly based upon the same type of reasoning (if reason it can be called).

Other scientific witnesses called at the insistence of the VVAA were disposed of in a similar unfair manner. These are but some illustrations of the way the scientific evidence was dealt with to achieve what appears to be the desired result.

The medical and scientific witnesses were handled in such a way that a conclusion was reached that the veterans were not and presumably could not have been harmed by chemicals used in Vietnam.

Only three witnesses called at the Commission had actual experience in dealing with persons (not necessary veterans) exposed to herbicide. The three were Dr. Shearer, Dr. Van Tiggelen and Dr. Orris. Predictably, none were called by the Commission or by Monsanto. Monsanto’s reluctance might well be understood but the Commission apparently did not even try to obtain the services of such a person.

Dr. Shearer has been referred to above. She, it is claimed, only did literature searches, i.e. she reads all the information available on the chemicals. But she did more as previously pointed out - she read out the medical case histories of people who had been exposed and examined by medical practitioners. She had first hand knowledge of symptoms of exposure. Her evidence was rejected.

Dr. Van Tiggelen, a medical practitioner, gave evidence of his experience with chemical exposed persons whom he had examined. His evidence was rejected because it was said he was a general practitioner. What was not said was that Dr. Van Tiggelen’s clinical observations of veterans were for the purpose of treating them, not discovering how they became to be in the state of health he found them. He did observe similarities between them and members of the farming community who had been exposed to chemicals.

His evidence is rejected because he is a general practitioner, because he refers to chemicals not used in Vietnam which cause toxicity and because he did not link specific disabilities with specific chemicals. The Commissioner preferred the opinion of others who had not had the advantage of examining people with symptoms, i.e. witnesses Holmstedt and Aldridge.

Dr. Peter Orris was another witness who works with and who had actual experience with Vietnam veterans. His evidence of actual examination and diagnosis was rejected in favour of other witnesses who gave what was no more than scientific opinions based on experience other than the examination of human beings.

Whilst it may be the Commissions right to reject evidence it is extremely surprising that counsel assisting did not call any physician, neurologist or the like who had dealt with persons exposed to chemicals.

APPENDIX A:

Full report by Admiral Zumwalt to The Secretary of Veterans Affairs in the United States. This is as downloaded from the internet and can get a bit confusing because of bits that are missing. My apologies for that , they were obviously removed from the original report.

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

2 See Bruce Myers, "Soldier of Orange: The Administrative, Diplomatic, Legislative and Litigatory Impact of Herbicide Agent Orange in South Vietnam," 8 B. C. Env’t. Aff. L. Rev. 159, 162 (1979).

3 See GAO Report, 1979 at 2, 3 n.1; See also Myers, 8 B.C. Env’t Aff. L. Rev, at 162. In contrast, civilian applications of 2,4,5—T varied from 1 to 4 pounds per acre.

4 General Accounting Office, ‘Ground Troops in South Vietnam Were in Areas Sprayed with Herbicide Orange," FPCD 80-23, p.1 (November 16, 1979).

5 Letter from Dr. James R. Clary to Senator Tom Daschle (September 9, 1988). Dr. Clary is a former government scientist with the Chemical Weapons. Branch,. BW/CW Division, Air Force Armament Development Laboratory, Eglin APE, Florida. Dr. Clary was instrumental in designing the specifications for the A/A 45y-l spray tank (ADO 42) and was also the scientist who prepared the

5

The bulk of Agent Orange herbicides used in Vietnam were reportedly sprayed from "Operation Ranch Hand" fixed wing aircraft. Smaller quantities were applied from helicopters, trucks, riverboats, and by hand. Although voluminous records of Ranch Hand missions are contained in computer records, otherwise known as the HERBS and Service HERBs tapes, a significant, if not major source of exposure for ground forces was from non— recorded, non Ranch Hand operations.

6

Widespread use of Agent Orange coincided with the massive buildup of U.S. military personnel in Vietnam, reaching a peak in

_________________

final report on Ranch Hand: Herbicide Operations in SEA, July 1979. According to Dr. Clary:

When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the 1960’s, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the ‘military6 formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the ‘civilian’ version due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However, because the material was to be used on the ‘enemy’, none of us were overly concerned. We never considered a scenario in which. our own personnel would become contaminated with the herbicide. And, if we had, we would have expected our own government to give assistance to veterans so contaminated.

See also notes 13, 73-75 and accompanying text infra for additional information of the manufacturer’s awareness of the toxicity of Agent Orange.

6 Combat units, such as the ‘Brown Water Navy,’ frequently conducted "unofficial" sprayings of Agent Orange obtained from out of channel, and thus unrecorded sources. Additionally, as Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, I was aware that Agent Orange issued to Allied forces was frequently used on unrecorded missions.

6

1969 and eventually stopping in 1971. 7 Thus, according to an official of the then Veterans Administration, it was "theoretically possible that about 4.2 million American soldiers could have made transient or significant contact with the herbicides because of [the Ranch Hand Operation]." 8

A. REASONS FOR PHASE OUT

Beginning as early as 1968, scientists, health officials, politicians and the military itself began to express concerns about the potential toxicity of Agent Orange and its contaminant dioxin to humans. For instance, in February 1969 The Bionetics Research Council Committee ("BRC’) in a report commissioned by the United States Department of Agriculture found that 2,4,5-T showed a "significant potential to increase birth defects." 9 Within four months after the BRC report, Vietnamese newspapers began reporting significant increases in human birth defects ostensibly due to exposure to Agent Orange.10

______________

7 GAO Report 1979, supra note 1, at 29. See also note 82 and accompanying text infra for a discussion of the correlation between the spraying of Agent Orange and the hospitalization of Vietnam soldiers for disease and non-battle related injuries.

8 House Comm. on Veteran’s Affairs, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., Herbicide "Agent Orange". Hearings before the Subcommittee on Medical Facilities and Benefits, (Oct. 11, 1978) (Statement of Maj. Sen. Garth Dettinger USAF, Deputy Surgeon General USAF at 12).

9 Myers at 166.

10 Id While birth defects did significantly increase in Saigon, critics contend that Saigon was not an area where the preponderance of defoliation missions were flown and argue that such increases were due primarily to the influx of U.S. medical personnel who kept better records of birth defects. Subsequent

7

By October, 1969, the National Institute of Health confirmed that 2,4,5—T could cause malformations and stillbirths in mice, thereby prompting the Department of Defense to announce a partial curtailment of its Agent Orange spraying.11

By April 15, 1970, the public outcry and mounting scientific evidence caused the Surgeon General of the United States to issue a warning that the use of 2,4,5-T might be hazardous to "our health". 12

On the same day, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Health Education and Welfare, and the Interior, stirred by the publication of studies that indicated 2,4,5-T was a teratogen (i.e. caused birth defects), jointly announced the suspension of its use around lakes, ponds, ditch banks, recreation areas and studies in Vietnam confirm the incidence of increased birth defects among civilian populations exposed to Agent Orange. See e.g. Phuong, et. al. "An Estimate of Reproductive Abnormalities in Women Inhabiting Herbicide Sprayed and Non-herbicide Sprayed Areas in the South of Vietnam, 152-1981 18 Chemospere 843-846 (1989) (significant statistical difference between hydatidiform mole and congenital malformations between populations potentially exposed and not exposed to TCDD); Phuong, et. al., "An Estimate of Differences Among Women Giving Birth to Deformed Babies and Among Those with Hydatidiform Mole Seen at the OB-GYN Hospital of Ho Chi Minh City in the South of Vietnam," 18 Chemosphere 801-803 (1989) (statistically significant connection between frequency of the occurrence of congenital abnormalities and of hydatidiform moles and a history of phenoxyherbicide exposure); Huong, et. al., "An Estimate of the Incidence of birth Defects, Hydatidiform Mole and Fetal Death in Utero Between 1952 and 1985 at the OB-GYN Hospital of Ho Chi Minh City, Republic of Vietnam," 18 Chemosphere 805-810 (l989) (sharp increase in the rate of fetal death in utero, hydatidiform mole (with or without choriocarcinoma) and congenital malformations from the pre 1965-1975 period, suggesting possible association to phenoxyherbicide exposure).

11 Myers at 167 Id.8

homes and crops intended for human consumption.13 The Department of Defense simultaneously announced its suspension of all uses of Agent Orange.14

B. HEALTH STUDIES

As Agent Orange concerns grew, numerous independent studies were conducted between 1974 and 1983 to determine if a link exists between certain cancerous diseases, such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and soft-tissue sarcomas, and exposure to the chemical components found in Agent Orange. These studies suggested just such a link.

In 1974, for example, Dr. Lennart Hardell began a study which eventually demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between exposure to pesticides containing dioxin and the development of soft tissuesarcomas_________________________

13 Id. Although Dow Chemical Company, the primary manufacturer of 2,45-T and 2,4-D, denied this teratogenicity, Dow’s own tests confirmed that when dioxin was present in quantities exceeding production specifications, birth defects did occur. See J. McCullough, Herbicides: Environmental Health Effects: Vietnam and the Geneva Protocol: Developments During 1979, 13 (1970) (Congressional Research Report No. UG 447, 70—303SP). Pressure from industry subsequently led to some relaxation of the limits placed on the 2,4,5—T and 2,4—D. The only current uses for these chemicals in the United States are on rice, pastures, rangelands and rights of way.

14 Id. at 167. See also Dow Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 477 F.2d 1317, 1319 (8th Cir. 1973) (secretaries announcement quoted in the opinion).

15 Hardell, L. and Sandstrom, A. "Case—control Study: Soft Tissue Sarcomas and Exposure to Phenoxyacetic Acids or Chlorophenols," 39 Brit. J. Cancer, 711—717 (1979). See also note 89 infra for the confirming results of follow-up studies by Hardell and others.

9

In 1974, Axelson and Sundell reported a two—fold increase of cancer in a cohort study of Swedish railway workers exposed to a variety of herbicides containing dioxin contaminants.16

By 1976, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, established rigorous exposure criteria for workers working with 2,4, 5-T.1 17

In 1977 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), while cautioning that the overall data was inconclusive, reported numerous anomalies and increased mortality rates in animals and humans exposed to 2,4-D or 2,4,5T.18________________________

16 Axelson and Sundell, "Herbicide Exposure, Mortality and Tumor Incidence: An Epidemiological Investigation on Swedish Railroad Workers," 11 Work Env’t. Health 21-28 (1974).

17 U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1976), Air Contaminants; U.S. Code, Federal Register 29, Part 1910.93 at p. 27

18 With regard to 2,4-D, the IARC found the following anomalies: elevated levels of cancer in rats; acute and short—term oral toxicity in mice, rabbits, guinea pigs and rats-—death, stiffness in the extremities, incoordination, stupor, myotonia, and other physical abnormalities; inmonkeys, injections caused nausea, vomiting, lethargy, muscular incoordination and head droop, fatty degeneration of the liver, spleen, kidneys and heart; foetal anomaly increases in some species; post—birth death rates increased in some. species; higher mortality rates and morphological alterations in pheasant embryos and their chicks when spraying took place under simulated field conditions; higher mortality rates in rat pups in a 3 generation exposure; gene mutation after exposure to high concentrations; chromosomal aberrations when cultured human lymphocytes were exposed; increased frequency of aberrant metaphases (2 to 4 times) in mice exposed to toxic concentrations.

In humans the IARC found that: a 23 year old farming student, a suicide, had 6 grams of 2,4-D in his body, acute congestion of all organs, severe degeneration of ganglion cells in the central nervous system; 3 cases of peripheral neuropathy in humans sprayed with 2,4-D with initial symptoms of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, swelling and aching of feet and legs with latency, in individual cases, paresthesia in the extremities, pain in the legs, numbness and aching of fingers and toes, swelling in hand joints, flaccid

10

In 1978, the Environmental Protection Agency issued an emergency suspension of the spraying of 2,4,5-T in national forests after finding "a statistically significant increase in the frequency of miscarriages" among women living near forests sprayed with 2,4,5-T.19

In 1980, another provocative mortality study of workers_____________________

parapheresis; similar case reports in agriculture workers sprayed by 2,4-D; workers associated with 2,4—D developed symptoms of somnolence, anorexia, gastralgia, increased salivation, a sweet taste in the mouth, a sensation of drunkenness, heaviness of the legs and hyperacusea, rapid fatigue, headache, loss of appetite, pains in the region of liver and stomach, weakness, vertigo, hypotension, bradycardia, dyspeptic symptoms, gastritis, liver disfunction, changes in metabolic processes..

With regard to 2,4,5—Vs effect on animals the IARC found: it can increase the frequency of cleft palates in some strains of mice; fetal growth retardation may also be observed; cystic kidneys were observed in two strains of mice; in purest available form, it induced some fetal effects and skeletal anomalies in rats as well as behavioral abnormalities, changes in thyroid activity and brain serotonin levels in the progeny; increases in intrauterine deaths and in malformations in rats; fetal death and teratogenic effects in Syrian golden hamsters; chromosomal abnormalities.

The IARC reported in 1977 with respect to 2,4,5-T’s effects on humans that: workers exposed at a factory in the USSR had skin lesions, acne, liver impairment, and neurasthenic syndrome; similar findings were reported by Jerasneh, et al (1973, 1974) in a factory in Czechoslovakia which in 1965—68 produced 76 cases of chloracne, 2 deaths from bronchogenic cancers. Some workers had porphyria cutanea tarda, urophryimuria, abnormal liver tests, severe neurasthenia, depression syndrome, peripheral neuropathy; in a 1975 accident in West Virginia, 228 people were affected. Symptoms included chloracne, melanosis, muscular aches and pains, fatigue, nervousness, intolerance to cold; 4 workers of 50 affected in a similar accident in the Netherlands in 1963 died within 2 years and at least 10 still had skin complaints 13 years later.

19 June 1979 Congressional Hearings before House Commerce Committee. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, quoted in "Human Disease Linked to Dioxin: Congress Calls for 2,4,5—T Ban After Dramatic Herbicide Hearings", 28 Bioscience 454 (August 1979). This study, otherwise known as the Alsea Study, has been cited as showing the first correlation between 2,4,5—T (and presumably its TCDD contaminant) and teratogenic effects in humans.

11. involved in an accident at an industrial plant which manufactured dioxin compounds suggested that exposure to these compounds resulted in excessive deaths from neoplasms of the lymphatic and hematopoietic tissues. 20

On September 22, 1980, the U.S. Interagency Work Group to Study the Long-term Health Effects of Phenoxy Herbicides and Contaminants concluded "that despite the studies’ limitations, they do show a correlation between exposure to phenoxy acid herbicides and an increased risk of developing soft-tissue tumors or malignant lymphomas."21

To be sure, there remain skeptics who insist that the studies failed in one respect or another to establish a scientifically acceptable correlation.22 Yet, it can fairly be said that the general attitude both within and outside the scientific community was, and continues to be increasing concern over the mounting evidence of a connection between certain cancer

___________________

20 Zack and Suskind, "The Mortality Experience of Workers Exposed to TCDD in a Trichlorophenol Process Accident," 22 Journal of Medicine 11—14 (1980).

21 See U.S. Interagency Workgroup to Study the Long-Term Health Effects of Phenoxy Herbicides and Contaminants (September 22, 1980) (executive summary).

22 See...e.g. "The Weight of the Evidence on the Human Carcinogenicity of 2,4—D" (January 1990) (This report, sponsored by the National Association of Wheat Growers Foundation and a grant from the Industry Task Force II on 2,4—D Research Data, an association of manufacturers and commercial formulators of 2,4—D, concluded that the toxicological data on 2,4-D does not provide a strong basis for predicting that 2,4-D is carcinogenic to humans. Nevertheless, the panel reviewing the evidence did conclude that "evidence indicates that it is possible that exposure to 2,4-D can cause cancer in humans.").

12

illnesses and exposure to dioxins.

III. VETERANS’ DIOXIN AND RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION

STANDARDS ACT OF 1984

With the increasing volume of scientific literature giving credence to the belief of many Vietnam Veterans that exposure to Agent Orange during their military service was related to their contraction of several debilitating diseases -- particularly non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, soft tissue sarcoma ("STS") (malignant tumors that form in muscle fat, or fibrous connective tissue) and porphyria cutanea tarda ("PCT") (deficiencies in liver enzymes) --Vietnam Veterans rightfully sought disability compensation from the Veterans Administration ("VA").

The VA determined, however, that the vast majority of claimants were not entitled to compensation since they did not have service connected illnesses. 23 As a consequence, Congress attempted to alter dramatically the process governing Agent Orange disability claims through passage of the Veterans’ Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act of 1984

________________________

23 By October 1, 1983, 9170 veterans filed claims for disabilities that they alleged were caused by exposure to Agent Orange. The VA denied compensation to 7709 claimants on the grounds that the claimed diseases were not service connected. Only one disease was deemed associated with service related exposure to Agent Orange, a skin condition known as chloracne. See House Report No. 98-592, reprinted in U.S.Code Cong. & Adm. News, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.,1984, at 4452. See also Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans Administration, 712 F.Supp. 1404, 1407 (1989).

13

(hereinafter the "Dioxin Standards Act") 24 To ensure that the VA provided disability compensation to veterans exposed to herbicides containing dioxin while serving in Vietnam,25 Congress authorized the VA to conduct rulemaking to determine those diseases that were entitled to compensation as a result of a service--related exposure to Agent Orange.26

In promulgating such rules, the Dioxin Standards Act required the VA to appoint a Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards (the "Advisory Committee") -- composed of experts in dioxin, experts in epidemiology, and interested members of the public -- to review the scientific literature on dioxin and submit periodic recommendations and evaluations to the Administrator of the 27 Such experts were directed to evaluate the scientific evidence pursuant to regulations promulgated by the VA, and thereafter to submit recommendations

___________________

24 Veterans’ Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act, Pub. L. 98—542, Oct. 24, 1984, 98 State. 2727 (hereinafter the Dioxin Standards Act). In passing the Act Congress found that Vietnam Veterans were "deeply concerned about possible long term health effects of exposure to herbicides containing dioxin,"(Section 2 (1)), particularly since "(t)here is scientific and medical uncertainty regarding such long—term adverse health effects." (Section 2 (2)). In responding to this uncertainty, Congress mandated that "thorough epidemiological studies of the health effects experienced by veterans in connection with exposure . to herbicides containing dioxin" be conducted, (Section 2(4)), especially in light of the fact that "[t)here is some evidence that chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, and soft tissue sarcoma are associated with exposure to certain levels of dioxin as found in some herbicides." (Section 2 (5)).

25 Id. at Section 3.

26 Id. at Section 5.

27 Id. at Section 6.

14

and evaluations to the Administrator of the VA on whether "sound scientific or medical evidence" indicated a connection to exposure to Agent Orange and the manifestation of various diseases.28

In recognition of the uncertain state of scientific evidence and the inability to make an absolute causal connection between exposure to herbicides containing dioxin and affliction with various rare cancer diseases,29 Congress mandated that the VA Administrator resolve any doubt in favor of the veteran seeking compensation. As stated in the Dioxin Standards Act:

It has always been the policy of the Veterans Administration and is the policy of the United States, with respect to individual claims for service connection of diseases and disabilities, that when, after consideration of all the evidence and material of record, there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of a claim, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. 30

A. NEHMER V. U.S. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

Despite Congressional intent to give the veteran the benefit of the doubt, and in direct opposition to the stated purpose of

_____________________

28 Id. at Section 5.

29 See Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans Admin., 712 F. Sup. 1404, 1408. (N.D. Cal. (1989). wherein the court found after reviewing the legislative history of the Act "that Congress intended service connection to be granted on the basis of "increased risk of incidence" or a "significant correlation" between dioxin and various diseases," rather than on the basis of a casual relationship.

30 See Dioxin Standards Act at Section 2 (23).

15<