I find this disturbing as hell!
Sent to me by one of my B Battery wives
The study is published under the title:
Exposure or Service in Southeast Asia Increase the Risk of
Cancer in Air Force Vietnam Veterans Who Did Not Spray Agent Orange?
Even Vietnam veterans who were not involved in spraying Agent Orange experience higher levels of dioxin contamination, which is linked to an increased overall risk of cancer, a study reports.
No kidding! What a damn surprise that is!!!!!!! Bet none of you guys or widows knew that!!!!!!
April 15, 2005- Even Vietnam veterans who were not involved in spraying Agent Orange experience higher levels of dioxin contamination, which is linked to an increased overall risk of cancer, reports a study in the April Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, official publication of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM).
I am almost, believe it or not, at a loss for words from this statement! Damn what is wrong with these people??? Veterans who were not involved in "actual spraying" are developing cancers?????
How about the guys that were drinking the water including the sediment, taking a bath in the toxic chemicals, cooking food, or making hot chocolate and coffee with the contaminated water.
Somehow this reminds me of the information I found in researching the Aussie impacts.
They had one guy that worked for the equivalent to our forestry service testify for the government to show this toxic swill was not causing any harm. He and his team had been spraying this stuff for 10 years and he stated he had no ill effects.
I guess one of the Australian government officials who had not been properly informed of what questions to ask and what questions to stay away from; asked the fellow. "What about the rest of your spray team? Where are they at today?" His reply???.............. They are all dead!!!!!!!
About 18 months after he himself became severely ill. Whether he took his dirt nap from this stuff I never did find out.
The study, conducted by a group of U.S. Air Force and other researchers, analyzed cancer rates among nearly 1,500 Air Force veterans who served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War, but did not actually spray Agent Orange or other herbicides. The men served as a comparison group in a previous study of cancer risk in veterans of Operation Ranch Hand, the unit responsible for spraying Agent Orange.
Even though they didn't work with Agent Orange, veterans in the comparison group had significant blood levels of TCDD, the highly toxic dioxin contaminant of Agent Orange. The current study was designed to assess whether low-level exposure to TCDD affected the later risk of developing cancer.
Now remember the Ranch Hand study compared those that sprayed the toxic chemicals versus those that did not spray but were Air Force Vietnam guys also. So in any comparison if both groups had an increase then that increase delta was zeroed out. This is because they arbitrarily picked some cut off point of only dioxin level. What the hell kind of study this was supposed to be is a real question. Considering the method used in blood evaluation when the study started was questionable even by the corrupt CDC and the method of tissue sampling for residual did not come along until 7 years after the study started.
Yes, something is rotten in Denmark and the United States.
This group of scientists has no clue to the exposure of the guys in the field and the many types of exposures and types of toxic chemicals while they lived in the toxic chemical environment; and I guess consider them nothing but chopped liver.
Higher blood levels of TCDD were associated with higher rates of cancer in the years after serving in Southeast Asia. For veterans with blood TCDD levels above the median, cancer risk was 60 percent higher than for veterans with lower levels. The increased risk wasn't limited to any specific type of cancer, although much of it was related to digestive and respiratory cancers and of the skin cancer melanoma.
Any of you seen our bogus AO hit parade list grow with the additions of digestive system cancers or melanoma by the secretary of cover-up and denial?
By the way they knew about the significant increase in skin cancer not associated in places where the sun gets to; as far back as 1987!
The study also looked at how length of service in Southeast Asia affected cancer risk. Veterans whose time in Southeast Asia was above the median were more than twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, compared to those with shorter tours of duty. Prostate cancer risk was unrelated to TCDD level.
Prostate cancer was unrelated to dioxin dose rate yet the VA says it is AO associated with out a linear dose response??? Damn what is going on here???
I will tell you what is going on. The EPA has concluded for many dioxin disorders there is no direct linear dose response that these scientists are chasing their tail over. It depends on the individual!!!!!
Including the dysregulation of B and T cells the Korean AO study found. Then again it goes back to the individual; not the dose rate!!!!!!!!! Once the dysregulation begins what I develop and what you and 10 other fellows develop is entirely based on the individual and his or her immune system. To include the cessations of the maturation of the cancer which leaves you with some unknown connective tissue disorder or autoimmune disease of which you can still become disabled from or cause a dirt nap.
There was also a significant interaction between duration of service and dioxin contamination-veterans who served longer in Southeast Asia tended to have higher blood levels of TCDD. Cancer risk was highest for vets who spent more than 2 years in Southeast Asia and had TCDD levels above the median.
I have found the same thing in my guys. Most of those with two tours or even 18 months are already dead!
The median meaning what. They established some arbitrary cut off at 10 ppt when the EPA has concluded that ppq can have an impact and that a standard size aspirin cut into 470,000 pieces is enough to do all kinds of harm.
I can assure you those that served along the DMZ meet that little requirement. In fact, just one gun park had more dioxin than the entire estimated amount found in the Seveso, Italy disaster. Yet, no one concluded that hill or hills along the DMZ with overlapping sprays from each other as well as the entire DMZ burm or any area for Veterans was a national disaster.
TCDD and other dioxins have been linked to cancer and a wide range of other health problems. A recent study found increased rates of cancer-specifically prostate cancer and melanoma-in Air Force veterans who sprayed Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. That study also suggested possible increases in cancer risk in the comparison group of Air Force veterans who served in Southeast Asia but did not spray Agent Orange.
What is this wide range of "other health problems?" Like autoimmune diseases and disorders that the White House appointed VA "guru of denial and cover-up" will not admit does indeed exist.
The new results support the finding of increased cancer rates for veterans with higher TCDD levels, even though they weren't directly exposed to Agent Orange. TCDD may promote the development of cancer even at very low levels of exposure. Another possible explanation is that blood TCDD levels reflect some other, unknown risk factor.
Other unknown risk factor? You mean like exposures to Agents White and Blue at the same time??? Including 2,4-D in AO but they are not checking for it.
Increased cancer rates "even though" were not directly exposed to Agent Orange? Damn what a novel idea for these PhD's to come up with.
Considering the following.
That spraying the herbicide in the conditions of ranch hand was probably the most benign exposure even considering they were in contact with a greater quantity of gallons per day; assuming they had missions every day, which I doubt. They more than likely had limited contact even in loading and spraying. Then the large bases they were on may not have had the heavy quantities of 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, arsenic acid, hexachlorobenzene, nitrosamine, picloram, and pentachlorphenol sprayed as to contaminate the water. Included in the known hot spots still in 2000 was not the larger bases but the smaller bases and areas where more offensive and defensive spraying would have taken place. Hot spots were recorded at still 65 ppt of dioxin 37 years after we left the DMZ.
They had access to wash facilities were they could wash their arms and hands or take daily showers. Remember these large bases had running water, including hot water. How many of you "boots on the ground" took daily showers? Or even had a chance to wash-up daily or even weekly?????? Even when you did take a shower or bath; it would have been in contaminated water.
Instead how many got water on the ground where ever the hell you could find it. Including men dying in trying to just fill the canteens as volunteers off of the hill fights.
One prominent EPA scientists told me that these toxins went to the bottom of the pools and such. Just where in the hell do they think we got water from? Off the top where the slime was? Of course not. We got it as close to the bottom as possible. Even the water trucks pumped off the bottom of the pools. These over educated idiots think we must have had bottled water or something.
Then in the water buffalos this became even worse as the more you pumped in from the water point daily the more cumulative it became. Those guys that got water after the buffalo return there is no telling how much toxic chemical they got until the stuff supposedly, as the scientist indicated, settled down to the bottom.
How many of those ranch hand guys or AF guys because of all the dead bodies in the area were directed to boil their water before drinking and then used 55 gallon drums of AO or AW cut in half to boil their water for drinking? 55 gallon drums that had not been decontaminated as that directive was not put out until mid 1969, even if everyone knew about it, which is doubtful. Now this was a dumb idea but no one told us we were killing ourselves.
However, we are only talking about dioxin and very possibly 2,4-D which actually likes water and the half life goes from 7-10 years to 10-15 years.
Not all toxic chemicals are not water soluble.
In fact, at looking at PCT while there is some scientific evidence that 2,4-D or 2,4,5-T was involved in this liver disorder. However, there is much scientific evidence, national and international, that Hexachlorobenzene is well noted for causing such disorders; clinical as well as sub-clinical.
The benzene family is also noted for the development of blood disorders such as leukemia.
So the bottom line is; these crafted and corrupted government studies actually prove nothing as it relates to the rest of the 3.2 million of us. What a total waste of over 300 million dollars in cumulative studies that mean nothing to the majority that participated in the overall 10 year campaign. As designed I might add.
The interaction between cancer risk, TCDD levels, and time served in Southeast Asia suggests that a combination of factors are involved. More research will be needed, including longer follow-up of Vietnam-era veterans and more detailed information on their individual tours of duty in Southeast Asia.
More research is needed? How about just call it what it is. Just more funded science tinker toy projects that Veterans and their widows could care less about. The hard data is there already.
The data at the BVA itself.
Toxic chemical medical history of the manufactures themselves going back to 1949.
The Japanese, German, Russian, and Korean civilian studies.
The many recorded studies of the Seveso, Italy dioxin disaster.
The Korean AO Impact studies of not only general medical issues found at incredible p-values to service in Vietnam and/or directly related to dioxin; but the second study on dysregulation of the immune system regarding B and T cells and the problems with various cytokines and cytokine ratios.
The Australian and New Zealand issues that match exactly to the same symptoms, disorders, and cancers that American servicemen have developed and continue to develop.
The study of dioxin involvement in the development of brain functions. Which is incriminating as hell. If it can interfere with the development of the brain does any body not conclude that it can NOT have an effect on the developed brain?
Including data that is gathered in our own government studies (over 300 million dollars worth) and then applied and presented to exonerate; rather than convict.
Love Canal, New York data.
Times Beach, MO data.
The excellent work our own EPA has done in their "1992 -1996 Dioxin Reassessment", after White House after White House has gotten out of their pants; at least temporarily.
Independent research by our most prestigious research centers and research hospitals which when it comes to Veterans means nothing. (Leaving out the NAS/IOM in that mix as they are contracted by the corrupt and biased government and seemed to, like the CDC, sell their soul in lieu of VA processes and White House favors versus science.)
The ironic thing is that when you compare all studies versus what the VA and the NAS/IOM say, it is what one congressman called; "Less than candid." I think that is putting it mildly!
ACOEM, an international society of 6,000 occupational physicians and other health care professionals, provides leadership to promote optimal health and safety of workers, workplaces, and environments.
I suggest if they are 6,000 strong, they
start doing their real homework and not these stupid assumptions and
The study is published under the title:
Did TCDD Exposure or Service in Southeast Asia Increase the Risk of Cancer in Air Force Vietnam Veterans Who Did Not Spray Agent Orange?
Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine. 47(4):335-342, April 2005. Pavuk, Marian MD, PhD; Michalek, Joel E. PhD; Schecter, Arnold MD, MPH; Ketchum, Norma S. MS; Akhtar, Fatema Z. MS; Fox, Karen A. MD
Sorry for the rant guys and gals as you know I usually try and address the specific issues LOGICALLY but this stuff is just utterly disgusting, and very very misleading, and getting out of hand!
By the way, the PhD listed Dr. Joel Michalek. As a Veteran, I personally would not trust that guy as far as I could throw him for whatever that is worth. I've seen too much of his "slanted work" in the Ranch Hand transcripts and the resulting publication in the Ranch Hand reports. The two do not jibe!
In addition, his statements, philosophy, and candor in the Ranch Hand congressional oversight review in 2000 was less than; lets just say not optimized for the truth and somewhat misleading.
There were other principal scientists there that actually stated the Ranch Hand study for 20 years had never given the Veterans' a fair assessment in many medical areas.
But I think we already knew that Veterans will not get a fair anything when it comes to the DoD, the VA, and our own government.
Best to all,