| 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. |
 Author
|
Topic: Agent Orange Gagetown (Read 7558 times)
|
Ken Young
Guest
|
Waiting To Die: 'Blue Water' Veterans Seek Help
Vietnam War Fighters Suspect Illnesses May Be Linked to Agent Orange
This article was published on Saturday, July 21, 2007 10:32 PM CDT in News
By Scarlet Sims
THE MORNING NEWS
The authors of Agent Orange legislation didn't intend for claims to be decided by what branch a veteran served in but by the possibility of exposure, said Dave Helfert, communications director for U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii. Abercrombie was one of 71 co-sponsors for the original Agent Orange Act passed 16 years ago. The spirit of the act was to be all-inclusive, he said.
"If there is even a question that somebody was exposed to Agent Orange, which we now realize is one of the most poisonous substances on earth, is to be inclusive not exclusive," Helfert said.
Agent Orange could have contaminated the sea water, according to a 2002 Australian study. The report from the Department of Veteran Affairs in Australia found Navy veterans serving in Vietnam had the highest mortality rate among military branches. The risk of cancer was particularly high, the study stated. As ships took on sea water to distill into drinking water, dioxin became concentrated in the potable water, the study said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 394
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/849599.htmlJuly 26th, 2007 – Halifax Chronicle Herald Green firm wants retraction from May FREDERICTON — An environmental company is not ruling out legal action if Green Party Leader Elizabeth May does not retract comments she made in Halifax about the company and its work at CFB Gagetown. "It will receive consideration," said Elliot Sigal, executive vice- president of Intrinsik, which studied the impact of the defoliant Agent Orange on human health. Ms. May commented about the company in a speech in Halifax and in a radio interview. "We felt that in her current position as a federal party leader she shouldn't make incorrect allegations about a Canadian company that was working in good faith for the (federal) government on an important project," said Mr. Sigal. Intrinsik's work at Gagetown found that chemical herbicides posed no risk in most cases. Ms. May questioned Intrinsik's reputation and the quality of its work. "We stand by the work that we did," said Mr. Sigal. "As I said, her statements about the work were completely untrue." Ms. May told The Chronicle-Herald on Wednesday she stands by what she said. Ms. May said if she made any factual errors she is willing to acknowledge it, but will not retract her remarks. "The health risk assessment they did on Agent Orange in Gagetown was as I said," she said. "They made a number of assumptions that reduced the likelihood that they would find an unacceptable risk."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 394
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
http://www.570news.com/news/national/article.jsp?content=n072678AGreen party leader sticks by Agent Orange study comments despite possible lawsuit July 26, 2007 - 17:28 By: KEVIN BISSETT FREDERICTON (CP) - Despite the threat of a possible lawsuit, Green party Leader Elizabeth May declined Thursday to retract comments she made about a report on the use of Agent Orange and other defoliants at a New Brunswick military base. May said if she made any factual errors, she'll correct them - but she's confident that what she said was right. Elliot Sigal, executive vice-president of Intrinsik, the company that compiled the report, said the firm takes issue with comments May made during a speech in Halifax in June, the same week the company's health risk assessment was released. Sigal suggested May's comments questioned the reputation of Intrinsik - formerly known as Cantox - and the quality of its work at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown. The report concluded that the controversial defoliant spraying programs at the base posed almost no risk to the health of those who lived on or near the base. However, the report also said potential, long-term health risks were identified for individuals directly involved with applying some of the defoliants or clearing treated brush soon after applications. May said the company's criticism of her comments was very broad. "Their letter doesn't point out factual errors, it just repeats just about everything I've said and said it's all factually wrong," May said Thursday. "I'm checking and so far haven't found any." May stressed that the study was actually a "health risk assessment," which means it was based on "hypothetical, mathematical modelling." Sigal said the study speaks for itself. "I think we were very up front about what we did and what we could do in that assessment," he said. "It was hypothetical in that it was looking back at what happened up to 50 years ago. There are a number of other studies going on around base Gagetown to collect some of the information that she feels should have been collected. They are not being done by us, but they are being done as part of the overall assessment at CFB Gagetown." Over several days in 1966 and 1967, the U.S. military carried out tests at the base on a number of defoliating agents, including Agent Orange. The chemicals were widely applied during the Vietnam War to clear jungles and have since been linked to a number of human health problems, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia, soft-tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease and chloracne. In addition to the military tests, other herbicides have been used at the heavily forested base since it opened in the 1950s. Veterans and contracted employees who worked on and around the base during the tests are seeking compensation from the federal government. "It's not a good day for me when I'm not only threatened with a lawsuit, but somehow the media found out about it even before I had seen the letter from their lawyers," said May. May said she hopes the matter won't end up in court. "We requested that she retract her statements," Sigal said. "If she chooses not to, then we are looking at what our options are."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 394
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
Green Party leader stands firm on Agent Orange comments
Tactics | Elizabeth May says consulting company trying to 'frighten' her into retracting statements
By KATE WRIGHT
wright.kate@...
Published Friday July 27th, 2007
Appeared on page A5
OTTAWA - The leader of the federal Green Party says she won't retract statements she made about an environmental consulting company despite the company's threat of legal action.
Elizabeth May said Intrinsik Environmental Sciences Ltd., the company that carried out several studies on whether Agent Orange and other herbicides created health problems for people at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, is trying to "frighten" her into retracting her statements.
She said until the company points out any factual inaccuracies in her statements, she will stand behind her comments.
"They haven't pointed out that I've made any factual errors," she said.
"There's a lot of literature out there and they may feel I've been harsh, but I'm not prepared to back off based on a threatening letter."
May publicly criticized Intrinsik, which was formally named Cantox, last month for studies the company was conducting at the base.
In most of the cases studied at Gagetown, the company concluded that herbicide spraying posed no health risks.
May said she hasn't said anything "derogatory or libelous," and she was simply exercising her right to freedom of speech.
She said she is prepared to fight the lawsuit.
"As an individual, I would prefer they didn't (sue) because it would undoubtedly mean sleepless nights and lots of stress," she said.
"But if it means standing up for victims of herbicide spraying, I say let them go ahead."
Intrinsik executive vice-president Elliot Sigal said Thursday the company is concerned with May's comments.
He said she may be "misinformed" and disagrees with May's statements concerning the company's Gagetown studies.
Sigal said the company is still deciding if it will go ahead with a lawsuit.
"It's one of our options," he said. "It's not our preferred option; it's not what we're looking for. We're looking for the correct information to be out there."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 394
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
Veteran says Agent Orange report 'in our favour'
By SHAWN BERRY
berry.shawn@...
Published Saturday July 28th, 2007
Appeared on page A6
An army veteran who says he's seen results of the epidemiological study into toxic herbicide use at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown says he's confident it will lead to compensation.
"The epidemiological study -- as far as I am concerned -- is in our favour," Douglas resident John Chisholm said Friday.
He wouldn't elaborate on the details of what he read in the report, but said he was "astonished" by the findings.
Chisholm, who sits on an advisory board for the Base Gagetown and Area Fact-Finders Project, said he saw the documents Thursday at a meeting that included project chairman Dr. Dennis Furlong and officials from Veterans Affairs Canada.
Speculation was that the report would be made available Friday by the fact-finders project, but it wasn't released. The report will indicate whether there has been an unusual epidemic of cancer and other diseases among people who have lived and worked in the region.
Chisholm said he now expects the report to be released Aug. 21.
A receptionist who answered the phone at the project office Friday morning said the report is due for release in "late summer."
"It's going to blow this thing here right out of the water," Chisholm said.
"All of the stuff we've been hollering and screeching and screaming about for two solid years, and we've been denied, denied, denied. Well, they're not denying no more."
In an interview last month, Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson said he believed the federal government has "enough detail" and "enough science" to move forward on compensation.
Thompson's department has reportedly been working for more than a year to draft a proposal for cabinet to offer payments of $20,000 to $24,000 to eligible victims of herbicide spraying at CFB Gagetown. The ex gratia payments would probably see claimants waive any right to sue.
Thompson has said that could come in September.
The U.S. military tested a number of defoliating agents at CFB Gagetown, including Agent Orange, over several days in 1966 and 1967.
The chemicals applied during the Vietnam War to clear jungles have since been linked to health problems such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and Hodgkin's disease.
Besides military tests, commercially available herbicides were used to clear forest foliage at the base from the time it opened in the mid-1950s.
Many veterans and people who live near the base believe years of spraying had a harmful effect on their health.
The latest report on the use of Agent Orange and other herbicides at the base was released in June.
It said the spraying posed little risk to human health.
Cantox Environmental, the company hired by the federal government to look into the Agent Orange controversy, said potential long-term health risks were identified only for individuals directly involved in applying defoliants or clearing treated brush soon after applications.
Veteran Wayne Cardinal was at Thursday's meeting.
"We had a good meeting," he said Friday. "A lot of stuff was discussed -- which I am not at liberty to discuss with you."
He said he expects "a lot more" detail to come out Aug. 21.
But not everyone is as optimistic as Chisholm.
Jim Cadger of the Agent Orange Association of Canada said he has doubts the epidemiological report could adequately detail what happened.
"I'm hoping beyond hope that it will be the truth. And it won't be," Cadger said Friday.
He said he knows plenty of people who believe they or their loved ones have suffered from the defoliant spraying, but none of them have been approached through the fact-finding project.
"I have a list of 100 people in one particular community, who are all sick, and who have never been questioned or even asked their names or approached by the Department of National Defence or the fact-finder's mission," Cadger said. "There's been no survey done of anyone I know of as far as the local population goes, and that includes the people who live in villages that perimeter around Base Gagetown."
|
|
|
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 394
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
New Zealand Findings on AO link to High Blood Pressure
New study links Agent Orange to high blood pressure
NZPA | Saturday, 28 July 2007
Exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam may lead to high blood pressure in some veterans, but the evidence is limited and "only suggestive", the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) said today.
The IOM, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, has been studying the effects of the herbicide Agent Orange on veterans since the early 1990s, and is issuing its seventh update, the International Herald Tribune reported.
Two recent studies of Vietnam veterans who handled Agent Orange and other defoliants indicated that these veterans had higher rates of high blood pressure, the report said.
Hypertension affects more than millions of American adults and is a major risk factor for heart attack and stroke.
T
he new findings were consistent with other studies that looked at the health effects of herbicides.
In New Zealand, successive governments said there was no proof that the veterans had been exposed to the chemical spray, or damaged by it, but in 2004, a parliamentary select committee confirmed that Agent Orange was sprayed on New Zealand troops in Vietnam. About 3400 New Zealanders served in Vietnam from July 1965 until November 1971.
Last year the Government announced a $30 million Agent Orange compensation package and apology for veterans and their families.
A study by Massey University's Dr Al Rowland on former New Zealand soldiers found those that served in Vietnam had higher levels of genetic damage than soldiers who did not.
In the American research, a new environmental study and an earlier study of workers in a herbicide manufacturing plant did not find evidence of an association between herbicide or dioxin exposure and increased high blood pressure.
Because of the inconsistent results, the Institute said the evidence was suggestive of – but insufficient to conclude with certainty – that exposure to the herbicide leads to high blood pressure.
* Agent Orange was a chemical mixture of two synthetic herbicides, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. One of the chemicals in Agent Orange, 2,4,5-T has the potential to cause cancer and other harmful affects. The use of 2,4,5-T was banned by USA regulators in 1983, but 2,4-D is still made and sold there as a weed killer
|
|
|
|
ranrad
Ron [Andy] Andrews
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 2123
|
It is gratifying to hear of the soon to be released report ,that apparently confirms the claims of this tragedy... but is dismaying that they did not see all of those who are likely affected by this , and indeed ,sick today....that may be because they feel they have enough evidence to finally do right by this.. once again , TRAGEDY, which a few , although a large number, a few in comparison with the countries popyulation , bear the brunt of this , and wil always bear the brunt.. my sincere hopes for all of them.. and that maybe now some drugs may be found to help these people... this is one of the benefits of getting to the TRUTH, and is likely the biggest benefit for the victims....cash may help some , but feeling well is the big thing...hopefully this will also allow these victims hearts and minds to feel better too.....lets get this donew government.... these people deserve your best efforts now.....ranrad
|
RCAF,CAF, converted RCR?,1RCR 74-77 CD: SSM (Nato);CPSM,;UN-Cyp.; UN- Golan
|
|
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 394
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
DND web site a bit two-faced.
Today I once again read the DND web pages on Gagetown and the use of
Agent Orange there. Under the Questions and Answers section DND once
again tries to claim that our Canadian ordered 50 - 50 mixtures of
2,4-D and 2,3,5-T were not Agent Orange and that for some unknown
reason the manufacturers made the Canadian Mixtures differently then
the same companies did for the USA, for use in Vietnam.
There is only one problem with this claim and that is an old farmers
saying, "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." Both the chemical
industry and Ottawa have claimed that they didn't even know that the
TCDD Dioxin were in the chemicals later known as Agent Orange and
anyway they didn't know that Dioxin was harmful.
Now if they didn't know that it was there, why would the produce a
different batch for Canadian use so that it contained less Dioxin?
And secondly if they were really unaware that Dioxin was harmful,
why would they even try to remove it?
Ottawa and the Chemical industry can't have it both ways, either
they knew that dioxin was in the chemicals, that it was harmful and
they made a conscious effort to remove the dioxins, or as they say
they didn't and the chemicals used by the Canadian Military at CFB
Gagetown were in fact Agent Orange.
Ken Young
|
|
|
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 394
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:27:06 +0700
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: The Vietnamese Case In Respect of Agent Orange and
the IOM
Response to Free World Forces Vietnam Era Veterans.
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:08:59 +1200
From: John Moller <natnjohn@...>
Dear Vern,
The recent court hearings based in the USA in
respect of the plight of Vietnamese Citizens exposed to Agent Orange
is of considerable interest given the reported comments made by the
judges hearing the legal submissions. It is reported that comment
was made in regard to the need to protect United States servicemen
from the enemy by use of defoliants with the need to minimise
casualties amongst their United States troops. It would seem then
that the ethos of that argument is in fact based on a false premise
because the "enemy" at that time were in fact North Vietnamese who
resided in North Vietnam and not in the Southern Provinces where,
in the main, allies of the United States being civilians resided.
There is no evidence of Agent Orange having been used in then North
Vietnam although Laos and Cambodia against whom no official
hostilities were ever declared also got a liberal dousing of
defoliants contaminated with Dioxin.
Most certainly, members of the North Vietnamese Armed Forces, Main
Force Viet Cong and Viet Cong soldiers had infiltrated South Vietnam
but in no way can it be said that the bulk of the citizens of then
South Vietnam were in fact supporters or armed service members of
the then Communist North Vietnamese regime.
The scientific facts of actual evidence does not indicate a Dioxin
problem in the land mass which was then North Vietnam or indeed in
their then resident population. Later studies indicated that North
Vietnamese soldiers who served in then South Vietnam showed Dioxin
levels in their blood serum whilst those who remained in the North
did not.
It can be reasonably argued then in the interests of natural justice
that the learned judges who heard the evidence in the recent United
States based case actually got the historically based facts wrong.
It was not the North Vietnamese armed forces or their communist
sympathisers in the South who in fact bore the brunt of the
defoliation programme, but indeed innocent, non combatant civilians
who were at that time allies of the United States along with members
of the Free World Forces.
This argument is reinforced by the recently released findings of the
IOM in respect of cause and effect on the behalf of American and
Free World Force servicemen who served in that theatre of war. The
IOM talk in terms of two highly exposed groups. Who are they?
The IOM uses in our view scientific studies which are now known to
be so seriously flawed as to be useless.
Ipso facto, Can the IOM produce the dioxin blood serum statistics
for not only the USAF Ranch Hand Study Group but members of the
Australian, New Zealand, Thai, South Korean, Phillipino and ARNV
members of the then Free World Forces who served in that theatre of
war?
Can the IOM explain internationally why the basis of response from
world wide Departments of Veterans Affairs are based soley on IOM
findings which are now known to be based on politically manipulated
junk science and the Ranch Hand Study which did not have the numbers
to find anything of statistical importance?
Can the IOM explain internationally why the singular focus on Agent
Orange is actually misleading when it is very clear that the Free
World Forces Troops were exposed to some 32 different chemicals and
combinations thereof whilst on active service in South Vietnam?
Where is the IOM consideration of multiple chemical exposure and the
use of non declared agents used in South Vietnam?
Can the IOM please obtain from the Australian Department of Veterans
Affairs the Dioxin levels found in the 140 blood samples sent to
New Zealand a number of years ago from their Vietnam era servicemen
exhibiting Type 11 Diabetes and publish those findings
internationally?
Can the IOM please advise us internationally why no tests have been
conducted on Vietnam era veterans in order to ascertain whether
significant DNA damage has accrued? (A limited number of tests show
significant DNA damage amongst New Zealand Vietnam era veterans).
In closing it has to be said that if the gentlemen and learned
judges of the United States based judiciary were not informed of the
fine point that the bulk of the victims of the defoliation
programme were in fact not "enemy combatants" but innocent civilians
of a then "Allied Nation" along with Free World Force combatants in
the field , then some miscarriage of justice may occur which will
not only impact upon the innocent but the Allied military
participants in that War as well.
Best Regards.
John A. Moller
|
|
|
|
|
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 394
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
Today, August 1, 2007, a second Court in Canada granted leave to certify our Class Action Lawsuit against our present and past Governments for the spraying of dangerous levels of dioxin and hexachlorobenzene on CFB Gagetown. We successfully defeated the Government, and their partners in this disgrace, Monsanto and Dow, in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. Justice Barry gave us leave to certify the class action stating: “The class definition shall read: “All individuals who were at CFB Gagetown between 1956 and the present and who claim they were exposed to dangerous levels of dioxin or HCB (Hexachlorobenzene) while on the Base” I don’t know which is more vile, our Government for denying justice to us who are sick, dying and who have had family die or for the fact that they have enlisted the help of two of the biggest chemical companies in the world to deny proper justice. The Government is going to appeal our first successful decision by the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench all the way to the Supreme Court. I would expect that our Government or their allies, Dow or Monsanto or both would appeal the decision of Justice Barry of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Although we still have a tough battle ahead of us, in the end we will win. During this time ahead many of us who are sick will die. Many of us will not see the justice they deserve. This is a hard fact, but nevertheless we who survive to see justice will celebrate the lives of each of us who will not be there to see the outcome. Having said that, it is deplorable and repulsive that I even have to say that many of us will die while awaiting justice. If our Government Members were Honourable as their titles state, then they would have done the right thing two years ago when we made public their own documents showing the world that Canadian Governments over a period of 28 years had continuously poisoned the environment and hundreds of thousands of their own troops and civilians. Yet they are fighting us instead of helping us. Where in the name of God is our Canada? Kenneth Dobbie President - Agent Orange Association of Canada For further information about the spraying of 3,326,000 litres and kilograms of 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, Picloram & Hexachlorobenzene on CFB Gagetown, visit www.agentorangealert.com |
|
|
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 394
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
Suit over soldiers' exposure to chemicals gets go-ahead
Anne Kyle, The StarPhoenix; Regina Leader-Post
Published: Thursday, August 02, 2007
REGINA -- A lawsuit over thousands of Canadian soldiers' exposure to potentially dangerous chemicals while working at a base in New Brunswick has received the go-ahead to proceed as a class action.
The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador has certified an Agent Orange/Agent Purple class-action lawsuit against the federal Department of National Defence, Dow Chemical Company and Pharmacia Corp.
"It is a huge case," lawyer Tony Merchant said Wednesday.
"This is an important development in relation to protecting our soldiers and others, justice for our soldiers and others, and the responsibility of Canada's government."
Justice Leo Barry defined those eligible to take part in the suit as "all individuals who were at CFB Gagetown between 1956 and the present and who claim they were exposed to dangerous levels of dioxin or HCB (hexachlorolbenzene) while on the base."
The certification order, however, was stayed pending further submissions on what effect the proclamation of the New Brunswick Class Proceedings Act will have on this proceeding.
The class action was launched on July 12, 2005, by the Merchant Law Group on behalf of an estimated 440,000 soldiers and families living on or near CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick who were allegedly exposed to the harmful effects of Agent Orange, Agent Purple and Agent White between 1956 and 2004.
Last month, Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson was quoted as saying he hoped to announce a compensation package before the fall.
The Conservative federal government has repeatedly promised money for people affected by spraying of the toxic defoliant at the army base in the mid-1960s, but nothing has materialized, Merchant said.
"Now the courts will intervene," Merchant said, noting similar class actions have been launched on behalf of soldiers at CFB Camp Suffield in Alberta and CFB Petawawa in Ontario who were also exposed to chemical toxins during the course of their duties.
In his 76-page ruling, Barry writes: "Although the individual issues may require a large number of individual trials, where the class consists of tens of thousands of people, access to justice would be promoted and judicial economy achieved by having the common issues resolved at a single hearing.
"It will be less costly and more efficient to have resolved in one trial the question of whether there is an association between dioxin and HCB and certain diseases, such as malignant lymphomas, and whether there were areas of toxicity created by the spraying at CFB Gagetown which could cause medical problems for the plaintiffs."
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Logged
And make no mistake , THEY are behind this as well, trying to use a 3rd party THEY hired to defelect responsibility.....and i wonder ,too, why is CBC and CTV not digging into this tragedy?