Oh, and in the case of Mr Yuschenko, the Russians apparently bought into the myths also. Once they discovered their mistake, they switched to Polonium 210 for Mr Litvinenko.
11
liamh
wildbill34: I made a correct and simple statement. Million dollar settlements have been made on this matter. Approx 20 years ago USA force members received approx 180$M. And there are many more settlements. It is also recognized that force member’s children also suffer from the parent’s exposure. This is recorded in USA governmental files. Complain to the government - not me.
12
wildbill34
I'm not arguing legal matters or politics. I'm arguing science, and in the US, the science doen't appear to have much connection with politics and legal matters.
____________________________________
USA force members received approx 180$M
____________________________________
Really? Please cite a source for that info. I certainly didn't get anything.
13
liamh
wildbill34: Open your browser - that is the software you need to search out things on the net.
In the blank line used for searching, you might wish to type in "Agent Orange" - or - "Dow Chemical". These two by themselves would be a good start. And next you click the Search icon.
14
wildbill34
I noted that you did not answer the question. I have a pretty good search engine. Just open your browser and type in the key words needed to answer my question and give me one URL. Here's a few items that you might want to consider:
An Air Force history of agent orange contains the following:
One illustrative statistic is that in the United States alone, between the years 1966 and 1969, 7,939,000 acres were treated with 2,4,5-T, the herbicide whose dioxin contaminant is causing such current health concern.61 This figure compares with the 6,000,000 acres sprayed with all herbicides by Ranch Hand during the period 1962-71. This domestic use of 2,4,5-T was for agricultural purposes, on lawns and turf, along rights-of-way, on private forests, to kill aquatic plants, and for other purposes. Probably, few people who lived in the United States or other developed countries during the 1960s escaped exposure to 2,4,5-T and its associated dioxin.
A personal example may help to illustrate this point. My family lived on a small farm in Tennessee, and honeysuckle vines were a constant problem on our woven wire fences. Before the general availability of herbicides, the only way to remove these vines and keep them from weighing down and destroying fences within a few years was to hack them away laboriously. In the early l960s, my father discovered a herbicide that he could use to kill these vines using a simple hand sprayer. I recently asked him what he had been spraying all these years on the fences, and he directed me to a bottle which he had saved from the stock he had when the product was removed from the market. The label listed its active ingredients as an approximately equal mixture of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, the same as Agent Orange. I think I can conclude that my family had more exposure to Agent Orange at home in Tennessee than most veterans had in Vietnam, and I doubt that our situation was unusual. Of course, none of this is relevant to the determination of the adverse health effects, if any, of phenoxy herbicides such as those sprayed by Ranch Hand. However, we should recognize that Vietnam veterans are probably not significantly different from the rest of the population in terms of their exposure to 2,4,5-T and its dioxin contaminant
Remarks during a debate in the Australian parliament. During a debate about global warming, a scientist is talking about how science is ignored by the press and advocates:
Prof. Lindzen—Let me give you an example that I mentioned to you yesterday. The media help in disseminating that kind of issue. My favourite example is dioxin, where the EPA commissioned a report on dioxin after they found out that there was no real impact of the Serveso explosion exposing thousands of people in Italy to a heavy dose. The report came out and said that dioxin turns out to have been exaggerated in its negative effects. The Environmental Defence Fund got wind of such a report being released, and the day before, it held a press conference reported in the New York Times, where it revealed that the report was going to say that dioxin was even worse than had been supposed—that carried the day. You will notice the expanded range. Instead of the old 1½ to four Fahrenheit, it became 1.3 to 5 or 5½ or something like that. That had nothing to do with model results or anything. The press took it that the high end was now possible and that sounded ominous. In trying to explain, you will inevitably run into this. Just like the eugenics movement in the first third of the century, the environmental movement today takes it upon itself to translate the science, sometimes even to the opposite of what is said, and that is what is in the media release. I cannot offer you a solution for this. We are a free society, so we do not have censorship and we do not want it. But somehow there has to be a way in which we break this chain of the exaggeration in the media, the interpretation of the science by advocates. I would argue that the scientists are telling the truth on paper in the reviewed literature in the text of the IPCC, but living with that exaggeration.
Senator COONEY—The scientists should have come out and said something, but they did not float it in public.
Prof. Lindzen—You are right. The furthest they have gone is to say, ‘Dioxin is not nearly as bad as we said’
From a trade journal:
The Serveso 15-year update has been published. The findings, surprising many, including IARC, concluded there were no statistically significant reports of cancer for individuals exposed to Dioxin in 1976. .
That's all I'll say here. If you want to debate this further, i"ll be happy to, but not on this forum. PM me if you wish.
References: here, and here and here
Pro tip
Lonely Planet
trusted partner
trusted partner