A Chemical Makeup Question

[CCC 0]

Relatively new to my research here - only been doing this for about a year. I do have a question. If it sounds silly, please forgive me.

If one were doing research on certain Superfund sites, and found 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T on that particular site, would it be safe to assume that Agent Orange had been used at this site? Seeing as how 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T are the chemicals that make up Agent Orange?

Thanks in advance. :)

[Junior96 0]

I was stationed in NYC on Govoners Island while in the coast Guard. I was all over NY Harbor, had to jump in that nasty bay to save people trying to kill themselves (jumpers from bridges) and worked bouys while on a ship. I recently found out about the Diamond Alkali site, also GE dumped PCPs into Hudson, and at the time NY was only reclaiming -40% of their sewage. All my issues can be traced to these two toxins. I'm using reports from EPA and Riverkeepers to show that there are still toxins in the water. I was there from 1986-1990. Do you think I need nexus letter still? Had my C&p exam 2 days ago and it went well, everything was well documented

 

[jbasser 0]

2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (usually referred to by its abbreviation, 2,4-D) is a common systemic pesticide / herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds.

2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T), a synthetic auxin, is a chlorophenoxy acetic acid herbicide used to defoliate broad-leafed plants

[CCC 0]

2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (usually referred to by its abbreviation, 2,4-D) is a common systemic pesticide / herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds.

2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T), a synthetic auxin, is a chlorophenoxy acetic acid herbicide used to defoliate broad-leafed plants

Right, but a combination of equal parts of both is what makes up AO.

Would it be safe to assume that this was the case, or just assume that they used both, but not together?

[Berta 3,452]

There have only been 3 or 4 CONUS AO awards that I know of- one due to exposure at Fort Gordon (James Cripps award)

and 2 or possibly 3 due to exposure to AO at Fort McClelland. I posted those awards info here,available under a search.

I need to make a point here.

All CONUS AO awards and those awards to Thailand vets as well as 2 or 3 Okinawa AO vets (info all searchable here) regarded veterans who not only proved direct exposure to AO but also had presumptive disabilities.

Do you have a presumptive AO disability?

“If one were doing research on certain Superfund sites, and found 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T on that particular site, would it be safe to assume that Agent Orange had been used at this site? Seeing as how 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T are the chemicals that make up Agent Orange?”

This link has the entire Superfund Data Matrix ,that is updated up to March 2012

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm

AO has been the most important veteran's issue of my life since the original AO settlement fund in 1984 and my husband ,his best friend -both AO vets -Vietnam- and I, did as much research as we could when the news of the lawsuit against Dow and Monsanto came out. I still do research on AO.

In my opinion, it would not be “safe to assume that Agent Orange had been used at this site.”

VA doesn't care one hoot about Superfund sites or the chemical properties of dioxin.

You need to prove Agent Orange was used where you served and that your MOS directly exposed you to it, and that you have a presumptive AO disability.

Jim Cripps did an SVR show available here:

http://www.hadit.com/svr.html October 20,2012 with Jerrel Cook and John Basser.

I interviewed James for a radio show I did with another web site too. I was impressed with the considerable amount of research he did to prove AO was used at Fort Gordon and that his MOS exposed him to it. He has more than one AO presumptive disability. Jim went back to Fort Gordon many times to do research and presented VA with a claim that was highly probative and fully supported by evidence .(They did deny it many times but finally awarded it)He also had an IMO from a doctor who could find no other etiology for his chloracne but for AO. (Chloracne AO claims are almost impossible to win)

We have BVA decisions here on these CONUS AO awards and considerable other info on AO.

I assume you do have a condition on the AO presumptive list and I do not intend to discourage you in any way. I just want you to know how difficult this type of claim is, to succeed in.

But Nothing is impossible.

Have you attempted to get any buddy statements from anyone in your unit who might have sprayed the AO?

Was it sprayed on the perimeter? That is the obvious place they used it in locales outside of Vietnam.

How did your MOS put you on the perimeter? Is that supported by your 201 file?

Do you have any dated photos of the base that showed bare areas that should have had grass or weeds on them,near the perimeters?

Any photos of the distinct looking AO barrels?

Do you remember how the AO looked and smelled when it was used?

Was it mixed with anything else?

I assume this spraying was all done using a Hayes dispenser. Did you ever have duties involved in cleaning the Hayes dispensers or in moving and /or storing the AO barrels?

Would anyone else in your unit recall any of the above?

This type of evidence is what VA needs- proof positive of AO used where you served, and proof positive of your exposure, and medical records that show you have an AO presumptive condition.

Lots of work but leg work on a claim can pay off. As many of us here would agree.

[CCC 0]

He has Coronary Artery Disease (CAD), Diabetes Mellitus Type II and Ischemic heart disease. He was at Fort Gordon for MP training, and I don't know how long one would need to be in contact with it to be affected by it. The 2 chemicals that make up AO that I mentioned were found at Seneca Army Depot. He remembers a guy coming around spraying, saying it was AO, but there is no documentation stating that AO was actually used there - only the chemicals that make it up. The old man was spraying the fence line, and Hubs was guarding special weapons in a bunker by the fence line. The fence line had to be clear of vegetation for security purposes. This was in the early 70s.

The others I will read to him and see what he has to say, and will post back. Thanks again, Berta.