More Agent Orange Sprayed in Vietnam Than Thought

[debbie mannas]

I wonder if years from now they'll admit the same thing about DU?? - debbie



story.news.yahoo.com/news...etnam_dc_1



More Agent Orange Sprayed in Vietnam Than Thought

Wed Apr 16, 5:31 PM ET Add Health - Reuters to My Yahoo!





By Keith Mulvihill



NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The U.S. military sprayed roughly 1.8 million more gallons of dioxin-containing herbicides like Agent Orange in Vietnam then had been previously estimated, scientists announced Wednesday.



What's more, a new look at military data indicates that millions of Vietnamese people were likely to have been sprayed directly with the chemicals and that many U.S. military personnel were also sprayed or came in contact with herbicides in recently sprayed areas.



The new study was conducted under contract to the National Academy of Sciences (news - web sites) in order to develop a method for evaluating the extent of exposure of Vietnam veterans to herbicides, the study's lead author Dr. Jeanne Mager Stellman explained in an interview with Reuters Health.





"The U.S. and Hanoi signed an agreement last year to cooperate on research and remediation of environmental damage (that resulted from the spraying)," said Stellman. "Our data will help to guide that research to the most exposed people and places."





Millions of gallons of Agent Orange, named after the striped orange barrels used to transport it, and other herbicides were sprayed over Vietnam by the U.S. military beginning in 1961. The aim was to clear forests and damage enemy food crops during the Vietnam War. Seven years after the program began, studies linked the chemical to birth defects and the use of all defoliants was stopped.





Dioxin, which has been fingered as the toxic component in Agent Orange, caused the 1983 evacuation of the town of Times Beach, Missouri, and the 1978 evacuation of the Love Canal site in Niagara Falls, New York.





Dioxin builds up in living tissue over time, so even small exposures can accumulate to dangerous levels.





While many reports about the use of the defoliants have been published during the decades following the Vietnam War, which ended in 1975, many aspects of their use remains controversial -- including how much of the defoliants were actually used and where they were sprayed.





Now, Stellman, of Columbia University in New York City, and colleagues have published revised estimates after combing through a more complete set of original military spraying records. Her team's finding are published in the journal Nature.





"We are the first people to look at a lot of the military records, like Air Force operational folders, that had been 'secret' during the war and have pretty much been in the National Archives for years without having been looked at critically," said Stellman.





The re-estimated volume of herbicides sprayed between 1961 and 1971 is 7,131,907 liters (approximately 1.8 million gallons) more than an "uncorrected" estimate published in 1974 and 9.4 million more liters than a 1974 "corrected" inventory, the authors report in their study.





"We've found much more dioxin contamination than had been previously estimated and we also have found the specific targets that the Air Force (sprayed in) Vietnam," Stellman told Reuters Health.





The study "gives new figures about how much dioxin was dispersed and clarifies where the 'hotspots' are likely to be," added Stellman.





The investigators report that 3,181 villages were sprayed directly with herbicides. "At least 2.1 million but perhaps as many as 4.8 million people would have been present during the spraying," they write.





Evidence also indicates that some people were sprayed with herbicide at levels an order of magnitude greater than levels used in the U.S. for similar purposes.





What's more, Stellman emphasized that that even after all these years, health experts still don't know what effects the veterans may have suffered.





"We don't even have a good count of how many of them served in sprayed areas," she added. "That's why our particular studies were undertaken."



And, Vietnamese people also benefit from the investigation because interested scientists can zero in on the "hot spots" and see what sort of remediation is needed, explained Stellman.



"(The Vietnamese) may also learn more about the health effects (of the herbicides)," added Stellman, who noted that "there are a number of researchers around the world interested in working with them on these problems and we've drawn an exposure roadmap for them."



In the past, health experts have often said that little could be done for people potentially exposed to Agent Orange without an evaluation of how and where the spraying was conducted, explained Stellman.



"Well, now we have the (spraying inventory), we know where the hot spots are and we've developed an-easy-to-use computer system for researchers to assess exposure opportunity.



"We should be designing and undertaking definitive health studies as soon as possible," Stellman concluded.



SOURCE: Nature 2003;422:681-687.

[debbie mannas]

nobody wants to comment on this??



I'm willing to bet that a few years from now they're going to say "oops! we used more DU than we thought, and the effects were worse than we thought"...

[DreamTone7]

I hate to say it, but it sounds like wishfull thinking on your part. I wouldn't wish for DU to be bad for anyones health.....possible or not.

[debbie mannas]

too late. It already has been proven to be dangerous.



I wish the US and UK would admit it is and STOP using it (same applies to the other countries who do use it).



I wish that they didnt have double standards and apply one law to x country and another law to their own.



Now THAT is wishful thinking.

[DreamTone7]

Quote: "too late. It already has been proven to be dangerous."



Where's the proof???

[debbie mannas]

and studies done on the bodies of veterans, the rise in cancers, abortions and birth defects in Iraq... if you'd only read the links.



Apparently the scientific evidence is enough for the UN experts to consider them amongs WMDs like nuclear and biological weapons.



But even that's not enough for you.



How many more people must die long after the "war" is over for you to have "proof"?

[debbie mannas]

"5. Contamination management procedures have not been distributed and implemented. The denials about DU hazards although obvious were and still are guided by the infamous Los Alamos memorandum (www.spidersmill.com/gwvrl...lamos.htm) that was sent to our team in Saudi Arabia during March 1991. The author of this memorandum acknowledged serious health and environmental hazards but wrote that we should only report those findings that would permit the continued use DU munitions.



IN OTHER WORDS, LIE!"



www.spidersmill.com/gwvrl/los_alamos.htm



****************



Here is the full article



Warning - 'Do Not Use

Depleted Uranium

Munitions Again'

12-30-2



By Dr. Doug Rokke Former U.S. Army's DU Team Health Physicist Former U.S. Army's DU Project Director



By George Angus Parker Formerly Sgt with the 1st Field Laboratory Unit, Biological-Warfare Detection Unit. Porton Down, Great Britain



www.rense.com/general33/donot.htm



good day.

[DreamTone7]

Debbie, proof requires a tangeable link. I have seen nothing but speculation and supposition in these links. I believe the long term exposure to nerve-gas and other chemical and biological agents is a much more likely cause for the current probelms in Iraq. If you had read all my posts, you would understand that DU cannot be the cause of such things. It takes many years for these issues to crop up due to extremely low levels of radiation. And as I have stated (with scientific facts to back me up), you would have to eat DU in order for these levels to exist in a person at all! (Why do you think our smoke detectors in our houses are safe to live eith?)



And claiming scientific evidence as the reason for the UNs decision is pure speculation on your part! How do you know why they made this decision? There is definitley more going on here than meets the eye (or the ear). But, you're not interested in that I guess. You seem to find out what supports what you want to believe, look no further, and ignore the conflicting facts. There's some political maneuvering going on here (in the UN) to be sure. The US and the UK are not the only countries with DU weapons, Debbie. But they are the only ones that went into Iraq. Coincidence? I don't believe in them.

[Seismic Anamoly]

Quote:

---

I have seen nothing but speculation and supposition in these links.

---

And that's all you will see.



Good day.

[debbie mannas]

"Proof requires a tangeable link. I have seen nothing but speculation and supposition in these links."



You must be talking about the links bush, blair and gang put forward to the WMDs in Iraq... fabrications, lies and conjecture was enough for you to support the war, wasn't it?

[DreamTone7]

When you say "fabrications, lies and conjecture", you'll have to be more specific about what you are referring to. I can't, and won't speak to the issues in generalities like these.

[Seismic Anamoly]

Quote:

---

...fabrications, lies and conjecture was enough for you to support the war, wasn't it?

---

They are enough for you to condemn it...



What goes around, comes around.

[debbie mannas]

Are you saying they didn't use fabricated evidence, or plagiarised documents based on 1991 data??



Are you saying they made a case for the war with proof?

[Seismic Anamoly]

What I am saying, Dear, is that I (or others) post info that may or may not be accurate and YOU (or others) post info that may or may not be accurate.



The difference is that I am willing to admit that. You, however, speak as if any info I (or others OPPOSED TO your viewpoint) post is inaccurate, false, and "propaganda"; everything YOU post is supposedly "The Gospel According To Our Lord Jesus Christ".



THAT is what I'm saying. And neither YOU NOR I have any way of knowing FOR SURE if what we are posting is true or false, accurate or inaccurate, like it or not. We each believe what we believe; nothing more, nothing less. Some of us are willing to admit we might not be RIGHT all the time, however.



Deny it if it makes you feel better; it is fact. Straight From The Horse's Mouth.



"Glory Be To You, Lord Christ" .

[debbie mannas]

So what are you willing to admit being wrong about?



What are you willing to admit you have no clue about?



C'mon Mr. Humble tell us.