Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

jamescripps2

None
  • Posts

    518
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Posts posted by jamescripps2

  1. Just a little research work that I did in relation to the Agent Orange Committee, hope it helps someone else. Note pages 49 & 50. I worked as a game warden at Fort Gordon in close association with the Forestry Division. 1967-1969. My diseases are chloracne, diabetes, heart failure etc.

    http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/reading_room/T...lHerbicides.pdf

    Site 21

    Location: Fort Gordon, Augusta, Georgia

    Fort Chaffee, Fort Smith, Arkansas

    Apalachicola National Forest, Sopchoppy, Florida

    Date → July 1967 – October 1967

    Activity Description: During the period December 1966 to October 1967, the

    newly named “Plant Science Laboratories” at Fort Detrick initiated a comprehensive

    short-term project to evaluate desiccants and herbicidal mixtures as rapid-acting

    defoliants. The objectives of this study were to evaluate rapid-acting desiccants as

    defoliants and to assess the defoliation response of woody vegetation to mixtures of

    herbicides and/or desiccants. The criteria for assessment was based principally on

    rapidity of action, but included other features such as safety and ease of handling,

    compatibility with dissemination systems, and low toxicity to man and wildlife.

    The approach to the objective of an improved rapid-acting defoliant involved three

    phases: (1) evaluation of commercially available rapid desiccants or contact herbicides;

    (2) evaluation of improved formulations of rapid desiccants developed under industry

    contacts and by in-house effort; (3) development and evaluation of desiccant-herbicide

    mixtures containing the rapid defoliant characteristics with the sustained long-term

    effects of Orange and other Tactical Herbicides. The project required an immediate

    access to a diversity of woody vegetation. Accordingly, Fort Detrick arranged for test

    locations at Fort Gordon near Augusta, Georgia; Fort Chaffee near Fort Smith, Arkansas,

    and Apalachicola National Forest near Sopchoppy, Florida.

    The Georgia site was described as a warm temperate, humid, moderate rainfall climate

    with deep, well-drained sands in rolling topography. The vegetation type was an oakhickory-

    pine forest. The Arkansas site was described as a temperate continental,

    moderate rainfall climate with fine sandy loam soils in rolling topography. The

    vegetation type was an oak-hickory forest. The Apalachicola National Forest site was

    described as a subtropical, humid, moderate precipitation climate with sandy soils in a

    flat poorly drained topography. The vegetation type was described as a Southern mixed

    forest. All sites were selected because of their isolation from any local human

    populations, e.g., in Florida, the site was a ridge located in a swamp forest.

    Assessment: The desiccants selected for evaluation included Herbicide Blue (a

    tactical herbicide), and the commercial desiccants diquat, paraquat, dinitrobutylphenol

    50

    (DNBP), pentachlorophenol (PCP), hexachloroacetone (HCA), and monosodium

    methanearsonate (MSMA), pentachloro-pentenoic acid (AP-20), endothall, and various

    mixed formulations of these desiccants. The systemic herbicides included the two tactical

    herbicides Orange and White; the potassium salt, triisopropanolamine salts, and the

    isooctyl ester of picloram; and, a ethylhexyl ester of 2,4,5-T mixed with HCA. Mixtures

    of propanil, nitrophenol, linuron, and silvex were also evaluated. All chemicals were

    furnished by Fort Detrick.

    Aerial application at these three sites were made with a Bell G-2 helicopter equipped with

    two 40-gallon tanks and a 26-foot boom with 6-inch nozzle positions adaptable for

    volume deliveries of 3, 6, or 10 gallons per acre in a 50-foot swath. Spray equipment,

    pilot, and support were furnished under contract with Allied Helicopter Service of Tulsa,

    Oklahoma. Aerial applications were made on duplicate 3-acre plots, 200 by 660 feet in

    dimension. A sampling and evaluation trail was established in each plot on a diagonal

    beginning at 100 feet from one corner. Major species were marked along 500 feet of this

    transect and individual plants were identified by combinations of colored plastic ribbons.

    A minimum of 10 individuals of each species was marked unless fewer were present.

    Evaluations were made at 1-, 5-, 10-, 30-, and 60-day intervals by experienced Fort

    Detrick personnel. At each evaluation period the identical marked individuals of the

    major species were rated for defoliation and desiccation. At each location, approximately

    475 gallons (~10 drums) of Herbicide Blue, 95 gallons (~2 drums) of Herbicide Orange,

    and 6 gallons of Herbicide White were expended.

    The assistance of Department of Army forestry personnel at Fort Gordon, Fort Chaffee,

    and the 3rd and 4th Army Headquarters were acknowledged in the report for their support

    in the selection and preparation of sites in Georgia and Arkansas. The land and facilities

    for the Florida tests were provided by the Supervisor, Apalachicola National Forest,

    Tallahassee, Florida. Personnel from the Physical Sciences Division, Fort Detrick

    assisted in the development of formulations and preparations of field test mixtures. They

    also provided the data on the physical characteristics of the candidate tactical defoliants

    and mixtures.

    Sources: Darrow RA, Frank JR, Martin JW, Demaree, KD, Creager RA (1971): Field

    Evaluation of Desiccants and Herbicide Mixtures as Rapid Defoliants. Technical Report

    114, Plant Sciences Laboratories, Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland. Document

    unclassified but subject to special export control. Available from the Defense

    Documentation Center, Accession Number AD 880685.

    Pass it along, it is new information.

  2. If you send a respectfully written, and well worded letter by e-mail you will get a response. I got a letter from the White House after two weeks and my regional office called me to respond to my complaints as directed by the office of the president. Then I recieved a letter from the RO saying that my letter to the president had caused a review of my C file and that they had to respond back to the president with an answer. It was the first time that the RO has ever called me! Of course they will probabaly loose my file when the review is done with. I also sent the same letter Via e-mail to five congressmen and the Secretary of The Department of Veterans Affairs. I do know that the Secretary and at least one congressman responded to the RO. You know what they say about the squeekey wheel? Time will tell. I think that after more than two years of fighting the Varo, I was able to smile about it for a little while. They must have been getting one of those letters every day for awhile, HA HA :rolleyes:

    Here is the e-mail address, please use it with all of the respect for the office of the President that it deserves.

    "George W. Bush" <president@whitehouse.gov>

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use