Jump to content

KCAC

Seaman
  • Content Count

    22
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About KCAC

  • Rank
    E-3 Seaman

Previous Fields

  • Branch of Service
    usaf
  • Hobby
    Cars and Guns
  1. Here are my thoughts on it. In Vietnam, it was not banned for use outside the bases. So, the base perimeter could be cleared outside of the fence line with AO type Herbicides to have the clear fire zone and see any attackers prior to them getting to the fence. In Thailand, AO was banned outside of the fence line, so they had to set up those clear fire zone perimeters inside of the bases. Since the commanders were being told by the top scientists in the late 60's AO was safe enough to drink, there was no concern for the base personnel and they used it freely. I think it is as likely as not that Thai Vets were exposed as much if not more than In Country Vietnam Vets. General John Murray, in his very important and detailed 362 page report (attached) to the Reagan White AO committee in 1986 (PDF page 20) said: Exposure (Continued); 3. Perimeter Sprays; Potentially the most damaging areas were not where the Infantryman patrolled and fought but rather back at the fire bases, airfields, depots and fixed installations. Here the perimeters were routinely sprayed by "decon trucks", low flying helicopter and Buffalo Turbine apparatus designed as neighborhood foggers. Backpack sprayers were also used in abundance. Closeness to the soil, rotorblade downdraft, less wind drift, caused more penetration. Troops were particularly interested in the spray as a matter of survival and not, as veterans, the opposite - a toxic route to unintended or long distance illness. They saw the spray as life-enhancing, not as life debilitating. If any place was religiously and abundantly sprayed with intensity and effort, then it was here, at the fixed installations. Defoliation was rather satisfying where it happens, near, within, and beyond barbed wire. Sprayed areas exposed creeping sappers, helped in establishing mine fields and offered open fields of fire. Roads and river lines of communications were sprayed by this perimeter type spray operation, as well as by Ranch Hand. AO VERY IMP 86 REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT.pdf
  2. Thanks Again Berta, A HUGE negative for Thai Vets imo, is the latest CRS on AO and history of Vet issues does Not Mention Thai Vets at all, plenty of say on Navy Blue water, but as usual Thai Vets ignored. CRS's (appropriate name) or Congressional Report Summary are the detailed briefs congress uses to understand/ work on the various bills. This was written Nov 2014, well after the VA half ass acknowledged Thai Exposure. It is 25 pages and I could not find the word Thailand in it. Even though on page 11 is a topic of areas sprayed outside of Vietnam. It is likely one big reason congress is so out of touch on Thai Vets and AO.. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43790.pdf
  3. Thanks as usual folks, and Berta, doesn't it seem a bit strange than on that long list of non Vietnam sites where the DoD admits using herbicides, the only mention of Thailand is in the very small scale test sites. No mention of spraying on Thai bases, even though the VA says significant amounts were sprayed on Thai USAF bases during Vietnam? And handling on a case by case basis. With the very idiotic perimeter rules although they were spraying it everywhere on most Thai bases. Including around a large main dining hall (right center of photo) just off the flight line at U-Tapeo as seen in the June 1969 unretouched official military film clip. I do have one more question, I have asked it before...since I left Thailand as a KC 135 crewmember in 1973 with a skin condition documented in USAF medical records and soon left USAF and my skin condition was diagnosed as exposure to toxic chemicals and the civilian dermatologist referred me to the VA who on exam awarded me SC 10% due to dermatitus and something else in 1973 within 12 months of leaving Thailand, and this skin condition continued to get much worse and I was reexamined by the VA in 1977 and that raised to 30% for various skin issues covering my entire body, likely before the codes for chloracne and PCT were being used. Someone mentioned on this forum going back and trying to get those skin conditions changed to direct exposure to herbicides thus avoiding the persumptive part altogether. Are you or anyone else aware if this is possible and if so, how you do it? And has anyone heard of it being done? Many Thanks to all, Scott
  4. I had searched and downloaded many old files working on my Thai AO claim and just got around to reading this old report. I had not seen it mentioned previously than Eglin was a test site from 1962 to 1970 and Massive (their term) amounts of tactical herbicides aerial sprayed there including much Orange. Attached is a very informative multiple 21 page PDF report. On page PDF page 15 is this statement. Since it was thought to be safe enough to drink (per a 1968 US Scientific report to the Military). I doubt any precautions were taken for base personnel as they did not take precautions when spraying on any Military bases at the time. I see Dr Orange (Alvin Young) mentioned here as so often on any report over the past 40 years, taking his usual paid stance that Vets were not harmed by these dioxins. I read this is that they only tested a square mile sprayed, long after the fact. Not that they only sprayed one square mile. I think it highly likely they test sprayed far more than a square mile, if they were aerial testing. In the Bricker report, they tested spraying at various altitudes, some much high than the 150 ft or so that later became the norm in Vietnam. Again, this is pasted from PDF page 15 of the attached report. "ECOLOGICAL STUDIES ON A HERBICIDE-EQUIPMENT TEST AREA (TA C-52A) EGLIN AFB RESERVATION, FLORIDA, FINAL REPORT: JANUARY 1967 TO NOVEMBEr 1973 The Air Force Systems Command studied the ecological consequences of repetitive applications of massive quantities of herbicides from 1962 to 1970. The Command studied approximately one square mile at the Eglin Air Force Base Reservat on in Florida. During this period, 346,117, pounds of herbicides (including 160,948 pounds of 2,4,5-T) were spread on the test area because of aerial spray equipment testing programs. The January 1974 report was authored by Capt. Alvin L. Young, Ph.D; Associate Professor of Life Sciences, United States Air Force Academy" AO SPRAYED IN FLORIDA EARLY REPORT IMP.pdf
  5. http://wfla.com/2017/02/02/target-8-reports-prompt-legislation-that-could-benefit-thousands-of-veterans/ US Rep Ross introduces a bill to add Guam and the Islands as presumptive but nothing said about Thailand other than case by case as it is now. Anyone going to SEA on military air craft and likely many commercial military flights would have refueled in Guam. But just another hassle for any Thai Vet passing through Guam to prove it. I do not think it can be more obvious than this. Guam never looked like this. I spent a lot of time there, and did not see large areas of obvious herbicide use, like we saw at all Thai bases. AGENT ORANGE-Best for use in rainy climates due to rapid absorbsion and not water based. Best when applied in growing season. The only herbicide harmful to rubber. It must not be applied to areas where it will come in contact with tires. 1966 PHOTO OF U-TAPEO DURING CONSTRUCTION FEB 1969 PHOTO IN FRONT OF NEW DINING HALL-SAME DINING HALL AS IN THE NEXT PICTURE (SOIL COLOR) JUNE 1969 PHOTOS (4) OF U-TAPEO AND NEW DINING HALL WHICH IS THE BUILDING IN THE CENTER OF FIRST PICTURE 2008 PHOTO OF U-TAPEO AGENT ORANGE SPRAYED IN VIETNAM ROSSFL_011_xml (3)
  6. Berta, Thx for the reply. I think that photo was posted to show the 3 phases of AO. In it you see no spray area, recent sprayed area, the red color but you also see that scorched look area that likely was previously sprayed. It is just like spraying commercial herbicides today. They usually turn yellow first. A common phrase used in the 60s military was soil sterilizer. I think it was in the long report Gen John Murray sent to the Reagan White House AO group. I think they were using very strong herbicides on fresh construction sites in the tropics to try and impede rapid growth of vegetation on these sites. The scientists in the late 60s were still telling the military the rainbow herbicides were safe around humans.
  7. For Thai Vets, who the VA finally acknowledged were exposed to "tactical defoliants from Vietnam", code for Agent Orange since DoD denied for decades Agent Orange was used in Thailand. BUT ONLY ON THE PERIMETERS. For those of you who have seen it freshly sprayed a few days or weeks later, take a look at these 2 short Military Videos shot at U-Tapeo RFAFB. The first was shot in 1969 showing from the air, the new automated dining hall directly on the flight line. If you read the description by the website, criticatpast.com you will see they refer to "red clay" and when you look at the 90 sec clip or whatever it looks like entire area is red clay soil. The second video shot from the air in the same area of the base, shows the initial constuction project in the same fashion and you can clearly see since U-Tapeo is directly on the coast, there is no red clay. I contend when you see the pattern of the red, it is showing defoliants sprayed all around the area of the flight line and this new dining hall. There are many videos on this site on U-T and the first one is the only one with this red orange color throughout it. I have found pics of AO sprayed in Vietnam and it is close to the color in the Thai video, it looks like part in the picture was recently sprayed vegetation, part had been sprayed in the past and was toast and part had never been sprayed. 1969 video of new dining hall, note they say red clay all around exposed during construction. No other film on critical past show red clay anywhere on coastal U-Tapeo. I contend the area was defoliated as I went to this base often TDY from 1970 on. Never saw any clay, red look or much vegetation anywhere near flight line. Just sandy soil. Anyone who has been to U-Tapeo after this dining hall was built, likely ate there. http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675034375_Modular-Dining-Hall_B-52-area_aerial-view-of-new-dining-hall 1966 video of initial USAF construction at U-Tapeo. Nothing like the look of the above video. http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675042842_flight-line_runway_Ban-U-Tapao-Air-Base_United-States-aircraft_C-and-E-administration-building pictures of Agent Orange in Vietnam - new dining hall 1969 (2) - base in 1966 in same area (3) There are 1000s of pictures on criticalpast and elsewhere on the internet. The only ones showing this red orange color are these shot of the dining hall. All others, in all years show little vegetation and light sandy soil. Any thoughts of anything else used that could get this color during this dining hall project? Thanks, Scott
  8. For anyone not aware of criticalpast.com, it is a site for many old short film clips. Much of it is Military, shot by the military. Here is an example. U-Tapeo RTAFB clip shot 4/27/69 from the air during a base upgrade. You can watch the clips and buy a frame that makes a nice photo for $4 or so. Or buy the whole clip. Anyone know what kind of herbicide gives this red look? I have used a lot brush killer over the decades on a small ranch/farm and have never had vegetation turn red like this, usually yellow then dead. Whatever it was, the area around the dining hall was clearly saturated with it. http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675034375_Modular-Dining-Hall_B-52-area_aerial-view-of-new-dining-hall
  9. An Investigative TV reporter at a NBC station in Tampa has been doing a series on Vet AO issues and other Vet topics mostly coverng disability claims, covering the Thai Vet and even the Guam Vet. It has gotten National Attention and attention in Guam and a local congressman is wanting an investigation. Here are links to the different angles he has taken over the past month of so. Including one broader topic aired during prime time on New Years Eve titled, Delay, Deny until they Die. He has been getting more and more Vets and their families calling in on these issues. As you can see, his Vet segments are becoming far more frequent. So, I expect the stories will continue.http://wfla.com/2017/01/20/army-manual-contradicts-current-v-a-mindset-for-agent-orange-benefits/http://wfla.com/2017/01/18/target-8-tampa-woman-traces-family-tragedies-to-agent-orange-camp-lejeune/http://wfla.com/2017/01/13/sick-marines-receive-expanded-benefits-but-families-get-nothing/http://wfla.com/2017/01/10/target-8-congressmans-call-for-expanded-agent-orange-benefits-follows-target-8-investigation/http://wfla.com/2017/01/09/congressman-see-target-8-report-wants-probe-into-agent-orange-use-in-guam/http://wfla.com/2017/01/04/guilt-of-spraying-agent-orange-on-guam-airbase-haunts-lakeland-veteran/http://wfla.com/2017/01/01/watch-a-target-8-special-investigation-delay-deny-until-they-die/http://wfla.com/2016/12/21/pinellas-veteran-claims-40-year-cover-up-by-u-s-a-f/http://wfla.com/2016/11/23/target-8-gets-va-to-act-for-veteran-when-congressman-couldnt/
  10. Buck, or anyone, When do you think the US military surely knew it was very unsafe? The 1973 CHECO report on Thai base defenses says after a semi successful (3 B52s damaged in Jan 72) attack at U-Tapeo, it caused the USAF to increase base defense and add 400 land mines at U-T but no defoliants were avialable until June of 72. The report clearly implies that the USAF were still spraying it on U-T and Korat in Thailand that late.I think this CHECO report is why the VA finally admited Thai Vets were exposed to AO, but they say you have to prove you were on the perimeter. At U-Tapeo, the perimeter the NVA apparantly escaped from was a beach. And the USAF made a large rec center on that perimeter open to all base personnel. If you look closely above the T, you see a security guard tower in the background. All vegetation uphill from this area to the nearby Flight line was obvously heavily sprayed. We just thought it was stuff legal Stateside. Which I think it was, but 25 times+ stronger.
  11. The report was surely BS. But if you look at the credentials at the time in 1968. If the Nation's scientists were telling this to our Military leaders in a secret report. Why would the Military think it is BS? There is very detailed info info in this old report, including captured VC were saying they were scared of the chemicals being sprayed. But then goes on to say our Ranchhand crews were drinking it. I doubt in 1968 the Military asked the Sceintific Advisory Group to write a classified secret report and make it full of BS to prove the stuff was safe. I think this guy Warren who wrote the report, believed it to be true. There is much data in this regarding the effectiveness of the tactical program. That paragraph was near the end in the adendum on page B1. I left Thailand with skin issues, I was told for 40 years that no tactical defoliants were used in Thailand. Then the story changes, they did spary in Thailand but only inside the bases. I was pretty pizzed off on that. If the military commanders were reading reports like this, I feel a little less pizzed at them. My Thai base was the SAC base and clearly had the &%*# sprayed everywhere near the B-52's, & KC-135s. This was taken by the Navy in 1969
  12. Berta, I really appreciate all of the good info. I was denied a Fast Track claim for IHD filed on 6/16/2011. It was denied mid Dec 2011. It was appealed and I saw a travel judge Mid Nov 2016. I received a letter from the BVA that it was put on the docket mid Dec. I was represented by the DAV. In my letter from the BVA, they stated my VSO had requested information and wanted to provide a written brief to the board. However, my senior VSO retired the end of the year and now I can find no one at the DAV locally (St Pete) or Nationally that seems to know who is writting the brief or how to proceed. Locally, I was told to do nothing and wait and see what happens. I called the BVA and was told, that someone has to do something,since DAV requested they be able to write a brief to the BVA after the hearing with the travel judge, otherwise the case will just sit. Any suggestions and again, many Thanks. Scott
  13. I am a Vietnam Vet, and have been angry for decades that the Military so freely used very toxic Herbicides not only as a weapon but also inside our bases for vegetation control with no safeguards or warnings to us at the time. I recently ran across this report "A Review of the Herbicide Program in South Vietnam" written by the Sceintific Advisory Group in 1968 which appears to be the main Science Group advising the US and US Military at the time. This declassified report was written for the Navy and states how safe these herbicides were. Here is an example of a paragraph. If nothing else, it makes me feel somewhat better about our military leaders at the time. They were reading these reports, thus seeing no reason NOT to use the stuff around the US troops. 2. It should be emphasized that these chemicals are non-toxic, noncorrosive (except for Blue which is slightly corrosive in nature), and generally not harmful to any fnrm of human or animal life. The aircrews are exposed to it daily and, in the U. S., defoliants of this type are used on over 400 million acres annually. Defoliants, in general, have been used for the past 20 years with,,Lt ill effects and ARVN troops have been exposed to it for the past few yeaz: without harm. Defoliants are nonpoisonous and food or water may be consumed without fear of resulting effects. Reportably, some RANCH HAND personnel have actually ingested some of the agents during demonstrations to show that there is no danger. The spray does not poison the soil, which may be replanted after irrigation or replowing. Link: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/779797.pdf
  14. I am a Thai only Vietnam Vet, currently with an appeal on the BVA docket. I have until mid March to file additional evidence. I have evidence of being on the perimeter of a Thai base, which makes a Thai Vet potentially eligible of herbicide exposure and filed a Fast Track claim for IHD on 6/16/2011. It received a fast denial saying my MOS did not require me to be on the perimeter, even though the perimeter of U-Tapeo included a large resort style beach rec center for all base personnel. I have hard evidence I was on that beach off duty. They also denied I had ISD even though I had my first heart attack in the 90's and since have had 3 stints and a quad bypass which continues to get worse. I left U-Tapeo with skin issues, and soon left the USAF. The skin issues were documented in USAF medical records, which the VA acknowledges in the original rating.. The skin issues got worse and I received a 10% disability within 12 months of leaving Thailand. I think this is additional evidence I need to submit for a herbicide claim. The skin issues got much worse and was raised to 30% 3 years later as I had various skin issues ongoing, including blisters on my face worsened by sun, which seems consistant with chloracne and PCT. Hyperhidrosis is also associated with Dioxin expsoure. The skin issues were immediately diagnoised by a civilian dermatologist in 1973 as exposure to toxic industrial chemicals. He referred me to the VA, where the Dr performing my exam agreed it looked like toxic exposure but can see no where that is mentioned. Everything cleared up completely by 1980, my dermatologist said that proved it was toxic exposure otherwise all of the various skin issues which even included psoriasis would not just all suddenly clear up. He did say, the fact it lasted 7 years proved something very toxic involved. However, none of these old personal medical records remain, since the USAF and the VA denied herbicides were used in Thailand until 2010.. Can someone tell me what this means at the bottom of the 1974 form 21-6796 (RATING DECISION FORM) from my original 10% rating? And shouldn't this be submitted as evidence? As I doubt they will dig deeply and pick this on on their own. Many Thanks 1. SC 38 USC 310 (INC VE) 7899-7817 10% from 8/2/1973 DERMATITUS HANDS, FEET, FACE AND HYPERHYDROSIS OF BOTH HANDS WITH SLIGHT DISQUAMATIOM handwritten beside this is "C-010%
  15. Berta, Thanks so much. With the above in mind, wouldn't an aging Vet with health issues be wise to hire an reputable attorney or paid non attorney rep? Thus if death occurred prior to a claim being settled, the family already is represented and that representative would continue the case? There seems to be a lot of truth to the various stories that have been done on what appears to be part of the VA's tactics. "Delay, Deny until they die". This aired in Tampa, New Year's eve but I have seen numerous similar stories. http://wfla.com/2017/01/01/watch-a-target-8-special-investigation-delay-deny-until-they-die/
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines