---our letter to JSRRC-----
Dear Mr. Baldini,
Thank you again for your wake-up call thismorning…nice to know we are on your list. Our little group of veterans isgrateful for the opportunity to detail our issues before the JSRRC.
The fundamentals of our issue are simple. TheC-123 aircraft we flew included many ships which previously sprayed AgentOrange in Vietnam. These airplanes remained contaminated through theirdestruction as toxic waste in 2010. The airplanes’ contamination resulted inexposure to dioxin (TCDD) of the aircrews, maintenance and aerial portpersonnel assigned to them.
In an earlier conversation with you, wediscussed the fact that a wing’s flying squadrons had assigned to them theirown crews, and attached to them for flying duties were other wing personnelsuch as flight surgeons, flying crew chiefs, aeromedical evacuation crews –these personnel would show formal assignment to their units with attachment tothe flying squadron for flying duties. If this needs clarification pleasecontact any Air Force unit. We need JSRRC not to contest a situation where,perhaps, a flight surgeon assigned to the 439th Tactical Hospital, willalso claim to be attached to the 731st TAS for flying duties andthus part of the population we address. Let the veteran’s own officialdocumentation, such as flight orders, address that peculiarity.
As to an individual veteran’s claims, we canleave it to the individual to establish duties with the aircraft using flightorders, Form 5s, or other documentation. Our concern here is to make clear thatthe aircraft were contaminated and the veterans exposed, in order that JSRRCmight more completely advise the VA when queried.
The first element of the issue is the historyof the C-123 aircraft which were used for Ranch Hand. In general, this isestablished by the 2011 report from Ms. Betty Kennedy[1],AFRC/HO who explained “The C-123 aircraftin the 731st TAS fleet had been used to dispense chemical defoliantsover Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War.” Further details of specificaircraft are provided by the AMARC list of C-123 aircraft tested and eventuallydestroyed and other commonly available lists of C-123 aircraft that flew inVietnam.[2]
The second element is to establish thecontamination by military herbicides of C-123 aircraft flown in Vietnam andalso flown by post-Vietnam squadrons. Only one aircraft had extensivedocumentation of such testing, Tail #362, and detailed in two toxicologicalexams performed by the USAF Armstrong Labs in 1979[3]and 1994[4].
Both tests confirmed “military herbicides” withthe 1994 test characterizing the airplane as “heavily contaminated on all testsurfaces” utilizing standard test techniques. It confirmed contamination bydioxin, but dioxin was not tested for in the 1979 test. The aircraft wassubsequently decontaminated to permit restoration.
This aircraft is identified in the HA AFRC/HOreport as assigned to the 731st TAS during the period 1972-1982. Sixto eleven other former spray aircraft were also assigned.
Other C-123 aircraft assigned to the 731stwere not tested for contamination until many years later, after long years ofstorage at Davis-Monthan AFB AZ, and all still reported between trace and lowlevels of dioxin contamination.[5]All were quarantined in HAZMAT storage in 1997.[6]Testing was accomplished many times between the 1982 date most entered AMARCstorage and their 2010 destruction, with either trace or low levels ofcontamination remaining on about half of the aircraft. 42%of the C-123 aircraft remaining in USAF inventory in 1982, upon theirretirement, were Ranch Hand aircraft.
The remaining issue is actual exposure to“military herbicides.” No mention is made in law nor C.F.R.s regarding theamount of exposure, the duration of exposure, the type of exposure, nor anyother qualification…only the word “exposure.” In every other instance, the USGovernment has treated contamination issues to have also been exposure issues,but in this instance the VA has allowed that some
When VA promulgatedits herbicide presumption in 2001, the issue of herbicide exposure outsideVietnam was also addressed. 66 Fed. Reg. 23166 (May 8,2001). VA explained if a veteran did not serve in Vietnam but wasexposed to an herbicide agent defined in 38 C.F.R. §3.307(a)(6) during active militaryservice and has a disease on the list of presumptive service connection (whichincludes diabetes mellitus type II and ischemic heart disease), VA will presumethat the disease is due to the exposure of herbicides. See 66 Fed.Reg. 23166; 38 C.F.R. §3.309(e).[7]
When asked, an executive of the EPA reminded meof the simple definition, both scientific and generic, of “exposure” which is“the contact between a chemical or biological agent and the outer boundary ofan organism.” Thus, we prove our claim to exposure…our skin came into contactwith what even the VA suggests is “dry dioxin” and thus led to contamination.Experts other than the VA, expertswho do not have a mindset to automatically deny veterans’ claims, dispute theVA’s literature review which led to the VA opting to refuse service connectionand decry it as “unscientific.”
Mr. Baldini, the veterans of the C-123 VeteransAssociation have done as asked of us this morning: we have identified officialgovernment documents detailing our C-123 aircraft fleet’s Vietnam service. Wehave identified official government documents detailing the contamination ofthe C-123 fleet, based on the only aircraft extensively tested over a longperiod of time and which remains existent at the USAF Museum, while nearly allothers were destroyed as toxic waste. And finally, we have identified numerousgovernment documents from a variety of federal agencies that confirmspecifically that C-123 veterans were exposed to military herbicides aboard thecontaminated C-123 fleet. Not detailed here are numerous independent scientificopinions submitted to JSRRC earlier from reputable institutions such asColumbia University and University of Texas Medical School reaching the sameconclusion.
I trust we have fulfilled your assignment givenme this morning. The many gigabytes of official USAF, EPA, CDC, NIH and GSA informationin the DVDs submitted to you last month and in print since 2011 go into thiswith even far greater detail, with numerous additional supporting officialdocuments all reaching the same conclusion. Many of these experts are membersof the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, well-qualified toaddress this issue even though not perhaps part of your examining of the issue.Still, you can see there is a general agreement in science and medicineregarding our claims.
If JSRRC for some reason, despite theseofficial documents and the others submitted to you over the years, remainsunconvinced that the VA should be informed that our veterans were exposedaboard the contaminated C-123 aircraft, I can only suggest you contact thefollowing federal or state officials, each of whom has already provided theiragency’s conclusion in confirmation of our exposure claims:
a. Dr. LindaBirnbaum, Director, National Toxicology Program and Director, NationalInstitute of Environmental Health Sciences “Accordingto the narrative [the 1979 & 1994 USAF tests], exposure is assumed based on wipe-tests demonstrating high dioxinconcentrations in the C-123K’s.”[8]
I cannot imagine if there was this volume of evidencethat somehow existed to argue against our claim, how we could possibly persuade.That’s not the situation however. Instead, we submit gigabytes of confirmingevidence. Official government historical record and agency opinions andqualified independent expert opinion…and lots of it.
How much additional confirming proof couldJSRRC possibly require? How much additional evidence should any veteran be required to researchhimself to provide to JSRRC and the Department of Veterans Affairs to receivemedical care for the hazards of military service long-ago concluded? Theairplane was contaminated. We were exposed. We call upon JSRRC to say so.
The VA can make its call on whether we meettheir requirements, but they should not do so based on an inaccurate ormisinformed JSRRC response.
I trust that JSRRC will consider that thetwenty years of official USAF descriptions by staff officers, general officers,heads of agency, GSA, the Air Staff and Judge Advocates General attorneys ofthese C-123s as “the Agent Orange airplanes” did not change until 2011 with thefirst C-123 veteran’s Agent Orange exposure claim.
Respectfully,
Chronology of SupportingDocuments (generally newer toolder) [11]: note: About one-quarter of all C-123K/UC-123Kaircraft were used for spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam until 1971. MostVietnam-based aircraft returned USAF Reserve inventory in 1971-1972, then flownuntil 1982 when most were sent to Davis-Monthan AFB AZ for storage with somediverted to museum use. 42% of allpost-Vietnam C-123 aircraft were Agent Orange spray airplanes. Fulldocumentation & discussion at http://www.c123cancer.org
footnotes in the cover letter:
[1]Mrs. Betty Kennedy, FOIA response, 1 June 2011 w/attach 731TAS flying hours andtail numbers
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder