Slashdot Mirror


Study Shows Agent Orange Still Taints Aging C-123s

__roo writes "Herbicides used in Vietnam in the 1970s still pose a threat to servicemen, according to a study published Friday. The U.S. Air Force and Department of Veteran Affairs denied benefits to sick veterans, taking the position that any dioxin or other components of Agent Orange contaminating its fleet of C-123 cargo planes would have been 'dried residues' and unlikely to pose meaningful exposure risks. According to the lead researcher, 'The VA, whether out of ignorance or malice, has denied the entire existence of this entire branch of science. They have this preposterous idea that somehow there is this other kind of state of matter — a dried residue that is completely inert.' To show that such exposures happened, her research team had to be 'very clever.'"

9 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. criminals!!! by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    if it was a private company that did not have a fascist relationship with the government you know the EPA would be all up in their asses

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  2. Enough witht the hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not saying that dried residues aren't dangerous, but the researcher's quote in the summary comes off as extremely disingenuous.

    Of course being exposed to dried residues will result in much lower levels of exposure than being REPEATEDLY DOUSED with liquid herbicide as were field infantry in the Vietnam war.

    Toxicology is all about maximum safe dosages - scary sounding toxins like arsenic, radon, dioxin, mercury, and even radionucleotides are pervasive in our environment. The question is whether the level of exposure is biologically significant or not. While the VA's contention that the levels of exposure to Agent Orange residues is safe is a valid matter for debate, they nowhere claim that it has magically transformed into some heretofore unknown state of matter.

  3. Serving in the Military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yet *another* reason not to serve in the military.

    1. Re:Serving in the Military by o_ferguson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...said the anonymous coward.

      --
      - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
    2. Re:Serving in the Military by Trepidity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's always the idea the U.S. Founding Fathers had: citizens should join a defensive militia, but not a standing army.

  4. Re:Malice? I think not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Psychologists everywhere are the worst. It's not the VA that's the problem, it's the profession. It needs to be purged with fire and sword.

    But perhaps they could never even understand that's figurative language, because none of them took a class in literature.

  5. Re:Malice? I think not. by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Despite the flames I'll get for saying it and the vehement disagreement proponents will spew, that's because psychology is not a science. Not even a little bit. The human mind is far too complex a thing for the current state of our understanding to treat scientifically. Psychologists aren't much better than snake oil salesmen.

  6. Re:Malice? I think not. by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Guess I made the mistake of saying something true :)

    No, you made the mistake of thinking a doctor paid by the government is the same thing as a doctor employed by the government. Those of us who live in civilized societies know this to be false, under most (if not all) UHC schemes the government takes the role of medical insurer, not the role of care giver. The doctors and nurses are the same people under both regimes.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  7. Re:Malice? I think not. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Psychologists everywhere are the worst. It's not the VA that's the problem, it's the profession.

    Except he wasn't talking about psychologists. He was talking about psychiatrists. Not at all the same thing.